Fraud in the IQ game

I saw a Facebook post yesterday that began with the words “Psychologists explain…”  and commented that I normally turn away from those words. But then I thought “Wait! This may be the first time psychologists actually explained something!” I cannot think of a more bankrupt field, save that of economists.

I’ve been reading a book called “Betrayers of the Truth” by William Broad and Nathan Wade. It is about science in general, written in 1982 before the great hoaxes of our own time, such as the Stephen Hawking affair and global warming. The authors describe the work of Cyril Burt, a famous British psychologist who engineered much of our current mythology about IQ.

Burt was exposed as a fraud after his death. He merely made up numbers, and even invented two assistants who did not exist, Miss Conway and Miss Howard. But it seems such and odd and pointed fraud, as it was aimed right at the hubris of the ruling classes. Intelligence, Burt concluded, was indeed hereditary, that is, if you’re a college professor, the odds are that your children will naturally be brighter than those of the guy who mops the hallway.

My own observations are not scientific, just based on experience. Our class in grade school was made up of dumb kids and bright kids. We knew who we were, and performed to expectations.

What caught my eye in the Burt studies were some spook markers. Other researchers noticed the precision of his findings, which was what first gave him away. In three studies of separated twins, for instance, the correlation between IQ scores was .771, astronomically unlikely.

Then we learn that he studied 53 sets of twins separated at birth, and that the correlation between those reared together was .944. Those look like spook markers. Burt was letting insiders in on his secret.

Burt was not even trying, and was never exposed as a fraud while alive. He was a professor at University College, London, and was knighted for his work. He and Miss Conway pulled off a huge scam in broad daylight.

What was the point? As an outsider looking in, I can only guess, but the objective appears to have been to protect the peerage from infiltration by commoners. Burt established hard statistical science in the realm of IQ testing, showing everyone that the classes are as they are for a reason. Once a ditch digger always a ditch digger. I have known trust babies who were imbeciles. An upper tier education for such a person creates a wicked combination of hubris and stupidity, yielding the likes of Steve Forbes and Dan Quayle, dangerous men.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, when he was married to Maria Schriver, crossed the line, breeding with the hired help. That sort of behavior is discouraged, of course, but I have to wonder as I look at a Prince Charles if it should not be encouraged.

According to Sir Burt, intelligence, just like money, is a matter of choice of the right birth canal. That was Burt’s message, and the reason why his fraud was seen as necessary and was rewarded. That was probably the reason he was knighted, to protect the Prince Charlie’s of the peerage.

43 thoughts on “Fraud in the IQ game”

  1. I’m curious. How does one go about locating 53 sets of twins separated at birth complete with 106 parents or guardians willing to allow study of them?

    A classified ad in the London Times, perhaps?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  3. When I was in High School in the 70’s, we took an IQ test as part of a study on testing. It was a class project, not a school/county wide thing. (The teacher warned us that all this would prove was how well we take IQ tests- enlightened fellow) I cheated and still only got 129, which according to the Book of Lists that came out around then, I “scored” the same as Ulysses S Grant, though how they logged their celebrity scores of historic figures, I can’t recall. Goethe topped the list with a speculated 290 (!) though, at the time, Schiller was considered the smarter of the two. The criteria for that distinction also eludes me.
    At the time I took this test, black people were complaining that the standard IQ test favored white people of middle class and above status. The issue even came up on that CBS minstrel show, Good Times, where a black kid complained that one of the questions pertained to cups and saucers but that poor folk don’t have saucers. (Honest to gawd!)
    So, some IQ test designer decided to put together a black friendly test. The first question on it was: Who did Stagger Lee shoot? (As I live and breath!)
    Truth is, I can’t spell for beans and math, fuggetaboutit! The IQ test I took wasn’t visual artist friendly. I’ll never get into Mensa…

    Like

    Reply

  4. Too smart may mean you are unlikely to accomplish anything useful to the people who would be looking to exploit you. A lot of being accepted as a genius is to have the capacity to believe the proper list of false things. If you are not useful as a tool then being a genius may just paint you as a target.

    I think “they” may want to breed the ideal idiot-savant. It seems to be preferred that the genius be really quite stupid in many areas of life.

    Like

    Reply

    1. In Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ it is explained that the Epsilons (the lower caste, what we might today refer to as merely ‘the masses’) need not take so long to reach physical maturity, since their brains would not be required to develop fully, because their life would be comprised of rudimentary work and mundane, superficial pleasures.

      Can anybody tell me, what age are young Western girls today beginning puberty? Is it true that this age appears to be lower than it was, say, three generations ago?

      Aldous of course being the grandson of Thomas Henry, the man known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’ for his promotion of human evolution theory. What are the odds that there are intermarriages among the Huxley and Galton clans?

      It is almost as if they knew…

      The question then arises: what are we going to do about it?

      And the honest answer to this simple question is too much of an affront to the ego to speak or write about openly in public discourse. So we delude ourselves, and try to delude others, that the answer is something very different to what we know it to be.

      However, deep down in the pits of our troubles souls, we know the truth. And we attack those who in any way cause us to think about it. Even those who merely would like to see us embrace and move beyond it. We attack those people, too.

      Like

      Reply

  5. I was not familiar with the story of Cyril Burt. Thank you for sharing this.

    Most of us will agree that ‘IQ’ as a concept is too often vague, misunderstood, misused, and so on.

    At the same time, most of us will also agree that some people seem to be much more capable of abstract thought, creativity, pattern recognition, etc etc than other people — even at the same age and from the same location.

    The differences can be stark, so much so that the absurdity of grading students by age is all one needs to see to realise that ‘school’ is NOT about helping young humans to reach their potential.

    ‘School’ being the collective noun for fish. They have a sense of humour, the people who run the show.

    In any event, I recommend people check out the work of Rushton and Skuy. Here is a direct link to their 2000 study: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.503.9118&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    If you would like to test out your own pattern-recognition ability with a rudimentary but eye-opening test, see this short video I produced roughly one year ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9RpvwQZ3QY

    Like

    Reply

  6. well technically the IQ demonstrates the ability to follow a certain kind of logic defined by some others. If those others have formal education, training in mathematics and logic, etc. the riddles or questions in the IQ-test will cover that kind of logic. If the tested person has no such background, for instance has Australian native background, the test itself will fail because the results cannot reflect one’s ability to learn or in general the potential of the tested person. And you can train yourself on this riddles and get higher IQ without getting a bit smarter. Without cheating. On the other side, these tests are like other kind of certificates, like university degrees for instance. They are a filter so TPTB won’t allow to many of “normalos” to enter their circles. They have to let some people in to keep the cover, but things like degrees or IQ, which are hard to master, create a natural limit. Their own folks never need degrees to be “successful”. Bill Gates didn’t finish Harvard, did he? Also they will always have high IQ’s to explain their “success”. Do you know, the actor James Woods has an IQ of 180? Come on.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  7. Raven’s Progressive Matrices test and similar cultural fair tests are probably the best IQ tests. These tests are visual and they are probably the only ones that can be considered cultural fair. I would also say that these tests are very good in the 70-130 range (Standard deviation 15 or SD15). Beyond this range, they probably don’t have enough data (maybe they can push it to 150). I studied the literature during my college years, so I know that there are many areas that need more clarification (the causes behind the Flynn effect, timed versions vs untimed versions of the tests, the concept of g, nature vs nurture etc).
    The concept of intelligence is probably more transcendental or more holistic. I say transcendental, because it may be hard or even impossible to describe the concept of intelligence in an exact manner . Nonetheless, I believe that cultural fair IQ tests can be very useful despite their limitations. People don’t like the IQ tests especially because of the IQ differences between the races. The bad news is that the cultural fair tests are the ones where the differences in IQ persist much better.
    The IQ of famous people is extrapolated from their biographies. People here are probably already skeptic regarding the biographies of famous people ( a very reasonable position). So the IQs of most historical people or famous people can be considered to be trash/rubbish/ propaganda . I am not saying that these people are not smart or even on the genius level. Even if many aspects of their biographies are correct, you still cannot extrapolate that data to obtain an exact IQ number.

    Writing this comment I remembered about a study/article that mentioned a negative correlation between having an elite intellectual profession and IQ once the 133 mark is passed. See this http://polymatharchives.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html (I remember seeing the info about the IQ 133 on another website) . I mention this because it is very interesting if the statistics are true. I would bet that a large percentage of these people with IQ over 133 get a feeling that something is wrong with the status quo of these “elite intellectual professions”. They don’t have to be aware of the “conspiracies”, they may just have a gut feeling when they see the behavior of the gatekeepers. I would also bet that a large percentage are engaged in conspiracies .

    Like

    Reply

  8. RPM is not even fair within our western cultural background. The more difficult multiple choice questions often can have different solutions which all appear “logic”. Applied to an Aboriginal or an Inuit who does not see any logic in ordering geometrical figures in certain order would make no sense. Then there is the so called social intelligence. People with very high IQ but no social intelligence can be much less successful in life than some streetwise smartass. I know many people with top degrees or even several PHD titles who are doing ordinary office jobs not able to effectively climb the ladder. For instance a colleague of mine calls himself Dr.Dr.Dr. (no kidding, he made three different dissertations in mathematics, financial mathematics and computer science), was done with the university in his 40-s, is now in his 50-s and only once was allowed to lead a project which was a catastrophe. He lives in an rented flat and does not own anything of value as far as I can tell. But I can be wrong there of course. Maybe he’s hidden millions under the mattress. I also happen to know a scrap metal merchant who made millions and does not know what else to spend all the money for. A few years ago he bought a Formula 3 car for his son which he occasionally drives in Hockenheim. He’s not a billionaire though for there is no such thing. He maybe worth some 10-20 millions EUR. That seems to be the limit. He’s the richest person I ever met and I know a lot of folks.

    Like

    Reply

    1. ” The more difficult multiple choice questions often can have different solutions which all appear “logic”- A good multiple test should have only one solution but problems like this can appear especially after IQ130. This is why I say that the statistics may be good maybe until 150 (SD15). It would become harder and harder to calibrate the answers and it would also require the creators of the test to also have very high IQ (in order to see all the possible answers or solutions). They also have less reliable statistics once they go beyond the 70-130 range.
      I already said that the situation is more holistic or even transcendental. The talk about “success in life” can also be subjective. Also don’t assume that the merchant has a lower IQ than the DR. I already mentioned above that the correlation with the profession starts to break at 133 (I don’t trust the statistics to be that exact, but they my tell something interesting). So we can assume that many people (maybe even most) with IQ over 130 are in professions that are not considered intellectual. Nonetheless, they can be intellectual at home.

      Why do you often mention the “no billionaire” meme? I don’t know what they have because I cannot see their vault or personal documents. I already responded to similar comments. In the end the paper value of their wealth is not the important statistic. They probably don’t care about owning the paper money, they only want everyone else to be enslaved to their paper money. They probably care about having large amounts of land where they can have their big houses and clean air (maybe even have agricultural land where they grow real food). They probably have reserves of silver, gold and other precious metals/gems/materials. They probably have better medical knowledge that it is not used in the standard hospitals. They have the real knowledge how the system works. So yes, they are probably above the paper money.

      Like

      Reply

  9. “He’s not a billionaire though for there is no such thing.”

    Please explain. I’m skeptical of Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Cuban, and Steve Jobs. But there must be some, not everyone/everything can possibly be a project.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Wallace, you’re a troll but I will answer anyway although I don’t like to feed trolls. All the super rich we know are media characters. We know them only from media. They don’t socialize with us, common folks. So how do we know they are real? How do you know what Donald Trump or Bill Gates or anybody really does at home at their spare time? All you know about it you know from the same mainstream media. Sometimes you see famous actors or others VIP’s supposedly shopping, refueling their cars, walking dogs or doing some other things we do. But mostly you will see this VIP’s doing extravagant things like flying over the ocean just to have breakfast in Paris or buying extremely expensive designer clothes nobody else can afford, or spending their vacation on expensive boats etc. This should give us the impression how the real high life looks out. It should make us greedy and jealous. To me this kind of life looks like a lot of effort and not very fun. I’m usually to lazy to go out for breakfast because it requires to wake up earlier as usual, get ready to get out, etc. Expensive clothes are also not more comfortable than the regular clothes we wear, right? We’ve been on a boat on the Maldives once for two weeks doing island hoping vacation which was great fun because of the colorful sea life, but living on a boat is more like living in a camper. No matter how luxury the boat may be it always forces you to make compromises. And you can always only eat until you’re full and this VIP’s never even do this to stay in shape. Also in my experience when you work hard to get rich there always is a point where the money starts working on itself and throwing out more net income than you can spend, then you will become lazy and satisfied and that is a natural limit for everybody. I don’t believe in limitless greed or power maniacs and such.

      Like

      Reply

      2. It’s a nice anecdotal story, Muller, but at no point do you address the topic of “billionaire” even once with any sort of evidence.

        We already have evidence to the contrary on this topic: math. We can calculate a million, and a billion, and a trillion in all sorts of ways. We can calculate a product’s value and profit margin and then multiply it by its sales. We can spend real money on such products, and know they exist. Many, many such products exist. Gold exists. Silver exists.

        To use a more modern example of multi-billion dollar markets, GPUs (graphics cards) for computers exist, which in the last year were inflated to often two or three times their initial value – and sold by the hundreds of thousands. How do we know they aren’t lying about those sales? Because computers also exist, and BitCoin mining and video games also exist. You can’t do those without these graphics cards – of which I own six, myself. Every Playstation 4 or Xbox One has one of these as well.

        So where did that money go? Nvidia and AMD didn’t spend it all on production, or else they’d have no profit. Even if they had initially taken losses, the double and triple inflation (thanks to crypto-currency “mining”) easily generated massive profits. BILLIONS. Nvidia is reportedly worth $59B , AMD around $10B.

        So if these moneys don’t exist, why do they so obviously exist physically? Do you believe that a company worth 60 billion dollars doesn’t even have one billionaire shareholder? Not one? And these aren’t even the BIG companies like Apple (puke) or Autodesk or Adobe ($100B).

        I don’t understand why you seem so afraid of math.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Jared, of course there is big money circulating the markets. Forget the numbers, they are vastly exaggerated IMO and of no importance for this money is different to what your salary is being paid with. It cannot be compared. It’s different money. We build giant enterprises with it and there are faces sold to us as the owners of this big money but it does not prove those people really control it and make decisions. Do you believe Elon Musk makes any decisions? He can’t even decide which t-shirt he’s going to wear on the next photo session. Do you believe Donald Trump or Angela Merkel make decisions beyond what they’ll have for breakfast? As I wrote previously, those super rich are only actors and their extravagantly scripted life presented to us daily on mainstream media is only a show. The same applies for political debates and such. It all somehow inspires humans to go to work every day, pay taxes, buy things they consider necessary, make savings for rainy days, etc. It’s the way we build our world. Without it who would move a finger beyond filling his stomach as animals do?

          Like

          Reply

          1. Okay, so your chief argument against billionaires existing is “forget the numbers”?

            Pardon me, but that’s exactly what “a billion” is. A number. It’s a number that means 1,000,000,000 * $1, in this case. You’re asking me to forget the very definition of the topic we’re discussing here.

            You say those numbers are overinflated “IMO” (in yours, obviously), with absolutely no evidence for that statement. As I posted previously, we can simply look at GPU technology to know you’re wrong. How can I prove that you’re wrong? Because we’re writing here on this blog on computers or phones THAT HAVE GPUs, or else you wouldn’t even be able to see your screen. That’s what the Graphics Processing Unity does – it processes the graphics output. There are no PCs or phones or tablets or video game consoles without GPUs, period. Anything that attaches to a video screen of any kind has a GPU. Everything that does, does.

            Since you were able to read (and thus respond) to my previous comment(s), we also know that YOU have at least one GPU. Are you now going to tell us that the money you spent on whatever device you are using is fictional, too? You didn’t actually buy the device you’re using (nobody else did, either), it just popped into existence in your hands or on your desk?

            For the second half of your response, I agree almost wholesale. No, Trump and Musk and all the douchebags we’re sold as multi-billionaires in the mainstream media don’t make decisions or actually do anything of any import. Musk and Zucky and Jobs and Gates for example are known liars, frauds, and front-men only. Their worth isn’t real. Trump may or may not be worth $4B, but compared to what Hillary is worth (her brother owns Haitian Gold, you know) that’s clown shoes. She’s easily worth ten times what Trump is, if not 20 times. And what I mean by that is that her VALUE to TPTB is greater than his, and even more specifically her family’s value. That’s how they compare importance between them to begin with – how much land, stock, and assets do they “hold”.

            Sure, these popular media people are fakes, frauds, and liars – but the money exists and is controlled by SOMEONE up the ladder from them. That’s why TPTB use front-men and long cons (like Trump) in the first place – to smokescreen the actual players and owners and masters of all that surrounds us. It’s not Hill-Dawg that’s important, it’s her family – her brother probably foremost. The Rodham family has been around for 800+ years, and own tons of land in Britain. They’re older than most other families, with even stronger ties to the crypto-banking families than most as well. So while she is a fake, the money behind her is definitely real. You don’t get propped up in the mainstream media unless you’re among these rich families who NEED frontment to mask their real activities.

            What are their real activities? The hoarding and lording of food (money = food currency) over the rest of us, to increase their comfort, acquire whatever they wish, and blow on drugs, hookers, and party lifestyles. Or whatever the hell else they want. They believe they own the Earth.

            Liked by 2 people

            Reply

          2. Jared, do you know what a derivative instrument is? That’s what big international banks invent to base their transactions on. They always swap money. If I give you 100 billions and you also give me 100 billions credit then no money has to be exchanged, right? It becomes an empty number in a computer. That’s what fiat money really means. The banks make this transactions on the premise they’re paying themselves different rates based on some crude numbers called LIBOR or EURIBOR which are told to represent an average of current market demands but made out of thin air. This fake money is then used to “finance” the creation of huge enterprises. But this is only a cover to hide the fact, that there is no market decision behind it. It’s not the same money you use to buy something you consider necessary. If TPTB decide to build the Twin Towers they don’t need to have savings to finance it like you do if you want to build a house. The big international banks “finance” the enterprise based on the fiat money they constantly generate. The enterprise leads to generate work for building companies who then are paying other sub-companies, etc. At the end of the chain it is you who goes there to work and gets being paid a little from which you have to give a part back as taxation which again finally ends up in the accounts of the big banks. It’s not easy to understand but all this is a complex control mechanism making you do things you otherwise won’t. The end product is then of course the WTC or a new car factory or other huge enterprise which otherwise nobody could stem from real savings. In the same way their financed their wars previously using loans sold to governments. This huge money which is fiat money and which is different to your salary money is only to control the masses and never enters the commodity market. It is not own by any billionaire and you cannot buy anything for it. And now you tell me, what for would they need Donald Trump or Bill Gates or whoever? And why should they allow a weak, corruptible person to collect billions of savings? If the money would be owned by real persons, if it would by private it would always finally gets wasted. That was the case in the past, where everything was private, owned by some kings or kingdoms. In those times there was no development. Some very few were very rich, the masses were very poor. Now everybody is similarly rich. Everybody can have a car or a computer or a huge TV. Everybody eats properly. Now the system prevents anybody from collecting to much savings. As I wrote previously on some occasions, if you’re very smart and work very hard you can collect maybe some 10-20 millions of EUR which carefully spend can last til the end of your life. But that is the limit and very few can reach this. And those few don’t have a better life than you do. So why bother?

            Like

            Reply

          3. “Now the system prevents anybody from collecting to much savings. As I wrote previously on some occasions, if you’re very smart and work very hard you can collect maybe some 10-20 millions of EUR which carefully spend can last til the end of your life. But that is the limit and very few can reach this.”

            Hogwash. How, why, and in what mathematical manner would that be “the limit”, and how does your “limit” have such a massive variance? Is it 10 or 20 million? Where, when, and how have you witnessed this “limit”?

            Your math is worse than NASA’s here, and it makes sense why you told me to ignore the math. Because that’s what you’re already doing.

            Like

            Reply

          4. Jared, first try to make some serious money yourself. Dreaming of the big money is one thing, to see it on your account is another. The more you earn, the more taxes you have to paid. For instance, if you make one million in a year, you have to give away over the half of it as taxes. In USA the same as in Germany. Then it’s no longer 1.000.000 but “only” say 450.000, which isn’t that much any more. If you make one million in a year, you will have to have a different live style. You’ll have to pay for expensive suits, hairdresser, expensive car, etc. You’ll live in a house in an appropriate neighborhood probably paying back a mortgage. You’ll send your kinds to private schools, have some expensive hobby. Etc. Much of this 450k will be spend on this, the rest will get smaller and smaller. Then you do this for a couple of years but this won’t stay for ever that way. In that league people get hired and fired all the time. How much can you save after say 20 years of such kind of work? Do the math yourself. Then there is this myth of the American dream, but it’s only a myth, you must understand. Big companies are always based on joint stocks and there are always some huge stockholders keeping the gross of the stock and only a small part of if can be traded. That’s because of what I wrote previously. Those companies are build with fiat money and that kind of money never enters the commodity market. We will be told some names as the creators or owners of this firms, names like Bill Gates or Elon Musk, but this is to give us a face to look up, nothing more. That’s why Bill Gates does no longer “own” “his” Microsoft by the way. He got sick of playing the owner and changed his role into some dubious “investor” or “founder”. That way he does not have to stay in front of the camera anymore. We are not shown his luxury life either, right? Because there is none. He is not willing to play the clown who brags with his absurd expensive mansion as some rock stars or actors occasionally do. He prefers to keep low. Does it then matter at all if he “owns” billions or not?

            Like

            Reply

          5. I already make decent money, thanks for asking.

            I also live not far from Bill Gates and have seen his homes, and worked on several other big-money Microsoft employee’s homes. The money they paid me is real. I consistently work on jobs that are half a million or more, myself, though of course that’s the job cost, not my profit or take-home. But my company makes much more than $10M a year and most construction companies pull in much, much more.

            Your logic here fails along with your math. No, you don’t give up more than half your income to taxes if you make $1M or more (necessarily). Show us any evidence that is true, and good luck. Write-offs and tax breaks exist which you are apparently unaware of. But more importantly you failed to consider someone making MORE than $1M. You’ve capped your math along with your logic here. I highly suggest a basic economics course or perhaps a simple arithmetic refresher – your inability to count beyond 1 is stifling your analysis, and blatantly.

            Like

            Reply

          6. Jared, I simply gave you an example. Not many people make 1 million a year. Even less people make more. Before taxes of course. I also meant all the taxes together. Not only income taxes: simply what you have to give to the state from what you earn. In Germany if you make >63kEUR you pay all together 53.7% of it as income tax, health care, pension insurance, etc. You cannot avoid it. If you want to write something of it off, you have to spend a part of your income on something the state considers as tax relevant. For instance you can “invest” a part of your income in something which currently makes losses, which means your money is gone, you’ve made less, therefore you have to pay less tax. In some future time this investment of yours will generate profit of course, otherwise you wouldn’t make it, then you will have to pay tax for this profit later. It simply shifts some of the taxes into future and only makes sense if you then will earn less than you’re making now. Forget this fairy tales of some tax heavens. It works in John Grisham novels but not in reality. I don’t believe the stories of some actors or bank directors being paid many millions for a role in a film or as severance pay. I talked once to a retiring bank board of the UBS at the time when Ackermann was leaving Deutsche Bank. It was the headline in all papers and magazines. And he explained to me laughing, that they like to exaggerate the numbers to make him look more important so they all profit from the image. The real numbers are known only to the tax office and there are much less zeroes then. Same for actors. It simply looks better if Brad Pitt is being told to get 30 Millions for a movie. It looks better for Brad Pitt and for the movie, but it doesn’t mean, he really gets this money. All those super rich are our role models but they don’t exist in reality.

            Like

            Reply

          7. I agree that those types of numbers, incomes from movie stars and celebrities and Elan Mask and Bill Gates and such, I concur that those are likely inflated. But did Brad Pitt while not making $30 million only make $1 million? Or did he “earn” perhaps $15 million? Your logic leaves a vast margin of error here.

            And back to my example of GPU technology – where does all that money go? Surely the shareholders receive their just rewards, or there wouldn’t be any, and the companies would have no public stock at all.

            It seems to me that you’re projecting your disbelief (which I generally share, and plenty of it) onto the math itself, a realm where belief holds no validity or sway. I’ve not seen any evidence that billionaires don’t exist. Let’s look at one of the richest in history, Queen Elizabeth and her family:

            “Royal family finances can be complicated, as many details of their fortune are kept private. But it’s fair to say that Queen Elizabeth and the royal family’s net worth is in the tens of billions — around $88 billion as of 2017, according to Forbes. Since the royal family’s jobs aren’t like the average person, how do they make all their money? The short answer: much of the royal family lives off trusts like the Crown Estate, which is owned by the reigning monarch and includes real estate properties like Buckingham Palace.

            Some of the royal family’s wealth also comes from a portfolio of extravagant personal collections. The British monarchy owns billions of dollars in property alone, including Balmoral Castle, where the Queen spends every summer, The Savoy in London, a horse racetrack and an entire London street. The crown also owns one of the largest art collections in the world and the Crown Jewels collection, which is made up of more than 140 individual pieces and estimated to be worth at least $4 billion.

            Royal obsession, which is near fever pitch this spring as the world prepares for the arrival of Kate Middleton’s third baby and the marriage of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, generates approximately £1.8 billion, or about $2.5 billion, for the U.K. economy every year. (That number will likely be even higher this year because of Prince Harry and Markle’s wedding in May.)”

            (Money.com)

            $88 billion.

            Most of that is in assets we can verify exist. Do you believe Buckingham Palace exists? Balmoral Castle? The Crown Jewels? Even if the worth of these things is inflated, they’re still certainly worth something. Even if their worth is only half what is claimed, that’s still $44B. Even if it’s a tenth, that’s still $8.8B.

            So are you telling us that you think Buckingham Palace is worth less than 10% of its claimed value?

            Like

            Reply

        2. I would be hard pressed to believe that the Rockefeller and the Rothschild families are NOT billionaires. What’s a billion any more when a single story shack in Silicon Valley goes for well above a $1 million dollars, maybe even $2M. And it would take an obscene amount of capital for the elite to build their own personal UFOs they are “jetting” around in from one end of the globe to another – per Miles.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

    1. The IQ tests are at best rudimentary tests that can show a person’s ability for pattern recognition. It is not about intellectual superiority. Nonetheless I believe that there is a strong correlation between IQ and a person’s intellectual level. I believe that people like Binet created IQ tests in order to help children that needed alternative education (the ones with lower IQ). So it was more about children with low IQ than about children with high IQ. The modern cultural fair tests are very different from the tests given by Binet (Binet’s tests were for children).

      Wallace, your first link deals with the issue of “IQ worship”. Many people that are race realists seem to be IQ worshipers. I am also a race realist, but I am not an IQ worshiper. Like I said above, the IQ is not about intellectual superiority (it is connected in an indirect manner nonetheless). I don’t have a problem with the fact that another race might have higher average visual IQ than the white race (good for them, on average). Actually there is a theory on internet about the “smart fraction” . The smart fraction theory says that the level of development of a country is determined by the average IQ of the top 5% of a country. See http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm . The general theory may be correct, however these people trust some data too much and they don’t look at the conspiratorial side of things. Some of them use the data from the international tests called PISA and TIMSS, which are not IQ tests (of course there is some correlation). They also don’t look very carefully at the national IQ tests provided by Lynn and Vanhanen. Not to mention that the GDP can be used as a propaganda tool, so we would expect major manipulation. Countries like South Korea were kept low due to major psyops (North Korea, nukes etc ). No mention of how the elites control the destinies of all countries. We can also assume that the talk about Nobel winners is most likely a joke and useless. They don’t question the historical narratives (ancient and modern). So the situation is more complicated than the analyses provided by these people that talk about IQ.

      Regarding the IQ of countries, they can still tell a lot of things. I would say that the data of Lynn is mostly correct, but the IQ of a few individual countries probably need adjustments. The data may not be that useful for comparing individual countries but it may tell an important story about regions or races. I would not like to live in a country with IQ under 90.

      Like

      Reply

  11. “Burt was exposed as a fraud after his death. He merely made up numbers, and even invented two assistants who did not exist, Miss Conway and Miss Howard.”

    Now, we can go to that fountain of truth, Wikipedia, where we read that
    “According to Ronald Fletcher [1921-1992] there is also full documentary evidence of the existence of Miss Conway.[18][34]”

    I go to links 18…

    “As for the so-called “missing” research assistants, they have been found”
    …and 34

    ” independent books by Joynson [The Burt Affair (1989). London: Routledge] and by Fletcher [Science, Ideology and The Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal (1991). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction] vindicated Burt (the “missing” research assistants were found and the twin data had not been “cooked”)”

    so, they were “found”, everybody can go home now….
    Which looks rather like damage control to me.
    Perhaps in response to this 1989 New Scientist piece
    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9kxz5AZj8lwC&pg=PA24

    “Professor Fletcher’s “The Miss Conway Story”, The Psychologist, May 1993, pp.214-15, which condenses and documents his search for one of the assistants”
    seems to have been published posthumously

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  12. Duchess Kate and Prince William presented their newborn 3 baby to the public, as always only a few hours after the birth and as always Kate looks splendid.

    Like

    Reply

  13. Jared, only a very small percentage of the stock of big corporations is traded publicly to simply keep the cover. The most of it is OTC, which is fiat money and not accessible for gambling. A house is only worth what the next buyer will pay. You can get your house professionally estimated but what you will get for it is another thing. Houses are regularly bought and sold so the estimation may be realistic. Not so Buckingham Palace. It’s more something like a museum where they supposedly let some actors live in it. They don’t live there the entire time and we even don’t know if they really do live there. If you spend a week in the Burj Khalifa it doesn’t mean you lived there. If something unique never gets sold, you’ll never know the value of it. It is important to understand it. Of course the Palace represents a significant value, it’s an estate and can be used for many other purposes, it could work as a hotel for instance. That’s how a value of something is created. But if nobody wants to buy a hotel, its value is zero no matter what potential value it can have. We have no idea how much Brat Pitt gets for his movie as we have no idea how much the royals own. They use everything for free but have to use what their handlers tell them to use. My dog does the same by the way. As for Brat Pitt, he is still productive and working. Not so easy to analyze. Lets take a look on some older actors. Antony Hopkins is in his 80-s and still playing. He may not need much money anymore and the job will simply keep him alive. That maybe the reason why he still plays. Same for Clint Eastwood. Sean Connery on the other side stopped playing long time ago. Do we know anything about his live style now, that he’s not taking any Jobs s anymore? Do we know about how much he owns/controls? Not really. He is not different to any old man kept in care. And from other “super rich” we often hear, they will not leave their fortune to their own children. So maybe there is no fortune at all. Or take a look at Sylvester Stallone or Arnold Schwarzenegger how desperately they try to get back to work. They may still need the money, don’t you think?

    Like

    Reply

  14. My own speculation regarding celebrity income is that it is closely connected to charity rackets. The celebs may indeed receive huge paychecks but much of that money goes to these scams as donations and that is the same as saying it goes right back to the controllers who paid it in the first place since the “charities” are spook-controlled. Also, many of the biggest celebs are “founders” (that is, lend their names to) various foundations that in turn receive huge donations and grants from other sources.

    You can get an idea of the charity activities of various celebs at this web site (though it is loaded with PR hype and other BS):
    https://www.looktothestars.org/

    So, I think what we’re looking at here is a large scale money-laundering loop and I’m sure the celebs do end up with a healthy income for themselves – as long as they play the game, anyway.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  15. I think donations, foundations and charity in that league are simply a way to explain where the non existing private fortunes go after the owners “die” or retire. They don’t need to launder money, they don’t even need money. Money is for us, common folks to makes us do things we won’t do voluntary. To make us go to work every day. Otherwise the world would stand still.

    Like

    Reply

    1. “I think donations, foundations and charity in that league are simply a way to explain where the non existing private fortunes go after the owners “die” or retire. They don’t need to launder money, they don’t even need money.”

      I agree that those at the top of the food chain don’t need money but movie stars and such are not at that level and providing an explanation for where funds go IS money laundering.

      I don’t know if the funds you speak of exist or not but if you have evidence that they don’t I would like to see it.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  17. Rolleikin, you just stick to the idea of super rich who own us. I tried to explain several times why it makes no sense. It is part of the show we are being controlled with. It should make us jealous and greedy so we eager to work every day for the major part of our life. The most people never reach the status where they earn enough money to fulfill their aspirations so they like to dream about being super rich one day. People who for instance suddenly win in lottery usually don’t know what to do with all the money. And yes I know such people. One of my friends won about 1 million DM in the 90-s in the German “6 from 49” lottery but he was already successful in life and invested it wisely. It didn’t change his life significantly. I saw an interview with a chief who won 5 Million EUR and invested it in creating his own restaurant. He was working then more than before, having no time for pleasure. There is a natural limit for everybody how much we can own or control before it stops being fun. The more you own the more work it creates and you cannot hire anybody to do that work for you because it would equal to give him the money. Besides, today even the poor ones can afford to eat properly, wear proper clothes, have a room to sleep, which they often don’t do but not because they cannot afford it. Today you can have a nice life with very little money if you forgo all the status symbols, like designer clothes, etc. There still are homeless people but not because they did not have the chance to make a living. Shit happens every day and nobody has the guarantee for success but this cannot be guaranteed. Even with public education you can become middle class. And the upper class is IMO only a part of the show.

    Like

    Reply

    2. Johnny Carson was asked once how being rich changed his life and I remember it because his answer was unexpected. He said the only advantage of being wealthy was not having to worry about having enough money. Nothing else changed.

      Like

      Reply

  18. do you believe in the few billionaires who own the world, in people who Simon Shack calls Jewish Power Maniacs? Do you believe in people who are after our money even though they already have it all? You believe that those people do what they do to get more rich? And that they pay their relatives who act for us as all kinds of VIP’s, as movie or music stars, huge amounts of money for the movies or music albums they’re supposedly making, just to make them also incredibly rich? That’s Miles Mathis’ version of Simon Shacks JPM’s. I’ll try to explain my thinking. I don’t think money is the issue there. I don’t even think, power is the issue and I don’t think there is an elite of this kind. I think TPTB is something which comes out of some kind of filtering installed on all the different carrier opportunities we can select upon and the people at the top of the mountain who decide our future are beyond any kind of greed. We will never know their names nor their life styles. Their motivation is not and cannot be collecting more money for this makes no sense. I once read about Freemasons how they discussed the creation of a secret grade beyond the 33-th grade which cannot be known to anybody so they themselves can decide who can join them there. That’s what I’m talking about. People who aspire power and money can achieve that to a certain degree, they become part of a close network where they are being watched very closely by others. Freemasons call that “strict observation”. It’s like playing a game where you don’t know if you’re on the right track until you reach the finish line. I think the people at the top we call TPTB stopped being greedy long before they got there.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I don’t think money is the issue either, at least not at the highest levels of control. It couldn’t be.

      I do believe there is “an elite” with probably a single person at its head but there may be others at an even higher level and their identity and intentions are TBD.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I pointed out above that their real wealth is not the paper money. The paper money is to control the population.
        I am more inclined to believe in the existence of a council or councils of patriarchs and matriarchs. If they have a single head, I would not assume that he/she/it has absolute power. But in the end this is mostly pure speculation.
        I want to add that in my opinion the problem is not the paper money. The problem is the centralization of everything. Do people here see centralization?
        Do you believe that things will get better in the future?

        Like

        Reply

        1. Centralization: Yes that may continue until the Earth changes bring it to a halt. Eventually or for a while, we will probably be back to isolated communities for the most part. Whether that is getting better or not may be a matter of opinion.

          I see in the collective psyche evidence that mutants may emerge to challenge the elites while wearing tights and capes. They appear to be taking some risks by introducing a lot of random genetic modifications.

          In the Vedic literature it appears that thousands of tech assisted Asuras cannot stand against the power of a single Avatar.

          The game is not over and I do not think there is a chance the so called “elite” will win or prosper at all in the long run. Still I do have issues with whoever is writing this script.

          Like

          Reply

Leave a comment