Carl Benjamin / Sargon of Akkad / Akkad Daily / The Thinkery / @not_sargon / @WarPlanPurple - Leader of the "Liberalists" & Droning Pseudo-Intellectual Boomer anti-SJW Activist, Applebees Waiter, Mass Shooter Whiteknight

[TOTAL NIGGER DEATH]

Carl's IQ is more than likely 120+ and possibly 130+

Carl you are not as smart as you think you are.

 

[DDR Yoga]

Carl you are not as smart as you think you are.

People underestimate IQ. Think back to school. The class in the middle was roughly 100 IQ (providing you went to a white school). Carlgon is university educated and the average IQ for a history major was about 115 (it's probably about 95 these days). For all his buffoonery, he's quite articulate and a decent sophist. Debating from a losing position isn't easy, and he's usually wrong.

Ed Dutton is the only streamer I know who has a confirmed IQ (139). Using Ed as a reference point, the Swindon quadroon coming in at around 125 seems about right.

 

[TOTAL NIGGER DEATH]

Carlgon is university educated

No he isn't he dropped out. Having an IQ of 125 would put him at the top %10 when it comes to IQ. Think about how insane it is to think about Carl as one of the smartest people alive today. His IQ is probably around the 105 to 115 mark Carl is what I would call the quintessential midwit . He is smart enough to engage with higher level philosophical concepts but not smart enough to actually have a holistic understanding of them. That is why he is trying to shove NRX and liberalism together to make a weird bastardized ideology due to his narcissism about wanting his own pet ideology and prove to the world and all his naysayers how smart he actually is. A lot of people think Carl and his ilk are smart due to how they carry themselves. They sound smart but dig a little deeper and you will see how shallow their ideologies and opinions are.

 

[DDR Yoga]

No he isn't he dropped out. Having an IQ of 125 would put him at the top %10 when it comes to IQ. Think about how insane it is to think about Carl as one of the smartest people alive today. His IQ is probably around the 105 to 115 mark Carl is what I would call the quintessential midwit . He is smart enough to engage with higher level philosophical concepts but not smart enough to actually have a holistic understanding of them. That is why he is trying to shove NRX and liberalism together to make a weird bastardized ideology due to his narcissism about wanting his own pet ideology and prove to the world and all his naysayers how smart he actually is. A lot of people think Carl and his ilk are smart due to how they carry themselves. They sound smart but dig a little deeper and you will see how shallow their ideologies and opinions are.

I don't think Carl sounds smart. I'm not impressed by him at all. I just think he's in the top 10%.

People are unimpressive. Like I say, think back to the middle class at (an all white) high school. That's roughly your 100 IQ zone. Those people have almost zero intellectual curiosity and are not very articulate. Carl is in a different league.

And you bring up Carl's crap political takes but IQ does not equate with talking sense. There are people with genius IQs on both sides of the climate debate. There are lolbert physicists, socialist chess champions and racist Chris Langans. Jordan Peterson claims an IQ of 145. Does anything he say make sense to you? It doesn't to me and yet I can easily believe it because of how verbose and adept at sophistry he is.

Swindon's #1 lolcow doesn't have a crap ideology because he lacks intelligence. He was just too stubborn and pigheaded to drop the Liberalism bollocks when he was getting shown up time and time and again. He knew he was wrong by 2018 but his ego wouldn't let him evolve.

And this is not a defence of the chubby quadroon. It's a lamentation of the limitations of the masses, whom Carl stands heads and shoulders above.

Have you read John Locke? People with 110 IQs can barely read facebook.

 

[mofu mofo]

If Carlgon's in the top 10% he's on the 90th percentile.

Have you read John Locke?

The more he says that, the less I think Carlgon actually has read Locke. He hasn't turned any of the other authors that he's read, or claimed to have read, into a meme.

Part of his appeal to his audience is that he can read a long book and then regurgitate some of it back to them so that they don't have to read it themselves, in that sense he's head and shoulders above them. That's what led to the 'ISIS have got some good arguments' moment. Then he read Evola and suddenly started quoted fashy astrology. Carlgon has a long enough concentration span to get through a book on philosophy and retain some of its contents but he thinks that makes him as smart as people who can write that sort of book.

 

[carto-ro]

I don't think Carl sounds smart. I'm not impressed by him at all. I just think he's in the top 10%.

No way. The half assed Necromancer game scam, the overreactions, the getting mired in suit discourse with people that have nothing to do with what he's doing in the real world, bragging about reading Locke all of it is midwit behavior that any black man with a thesaurus could pull off with greater confidence and style. Carl hasn't thrown anything out about Evola or Locke or any other topic that couldn't be found on sparknotes 10 minutes before jumping into a stream.

More than that, when he gets in the ring with a basic bitch academic like Kristi Winters he gets dunked on and she doesn't even have to stray from basic feminist literature to do it. His performance against Millenial Woes was even worse. If you look at Carl's interactions with people who have some basic evidence or certification of IQ like a degree or math tutoring videos he falls into their pace and ends up saying stupid shit like "It depends on the child". If he was in the top 10% of IQ he'd have enough sense to put his doxxing folder into his documents out of sight of his desktop and avoid a lot of the pitfalls he repeatedly stumbles into.

 

["Not" Count Dankula]

Smart or not, somehow he's hanging out with Zemmour

I personally believe he's more intelligent than he gets credit for, but there's definitely a ceiling. He worked a mediocre IT job for however long and never really progressed, so he was either a) a slacker, b) not particularly talented or c) hamstrung by a lack of opportunities in the area. Then along came Youtube and the rest was history.

To be fair, most of the old GG crowd were a bunch of insecure underachievers who found SomethingAwful and /b/ way back when; their defining characteristics being political incorrectness and a desperation for targets to point and laugh at.

Think of any single GGer. Do you think they were bullied in school? Of course they were. Were they bright enough to have impressive careers? Of course not, otherwise they would never have gotten sucked in to Youtubing. Were they likable enough to have friends, girlfriends and social gatherings to keep themselves occupied? Of course not. And so most of these lads have the same chip on their shoulder; born too dim for careers, too unlikable to be normies, and angry enough to spend their days arguing with creationists and feminists on Youtube.

To be fair to Carlgon, his response to getting his ass handed to him was to hit the books. Unfortunately for him, the need to be one of the cool kids and show how smart he is has often led him to say some really dumb shit. He's dropped some absolute clangers just by trying to pull out 2smart4u brainiac takes without really thinking through what he's saying, but more often you can tie the root of the stupid statement back to an ideological/social position that had clearly been ricocheting around his empty noggin:

"It depends on the child" - the ultimate individualist take. Children are, after all, individuals, and individuals should be treated irrespective of their groups... and of course... *smuckles* age is just another category, you collectivist

"Jim doesn't even own a suit" & getting Trump to tweet about Gamergate - the former an attempt to show the difference between the serious politics of his present and the basement-dwelling turd-flinging of his past, and the latter a misunderstanding of the exchange rate between internet credibility and real-world political capital. In both instances he was trying to use GG as a springboard for real political change, without really getting how little GG mattered in the real world

"I wouldn't even rape [Jess Phillips]" - he mistook the rise of Trump and the eagerness with which UKIP accepted him, Milo and Nazi Pug Guy as affirmation that the killstream school of politics could work in the real world. Cue the confrontational interviews, "dirty dirty smear merchants" and the immediate implosion of the party he joined. Ironically if he'd said the same in the US I don't think it would have torpedoed the party quite as severely

Carlgon's a bright but unexceptional guy who's often flown too close to the sun, but has just as often managed to stick his wings back together before fully coming back down to earth. And every time he does, he starts flapping them all over again with the undying belief that his fall from grace was everyone else's fault, for not reading enough Locke

 

[mofu mofo]

Smart or not, somehow he's hanging out with Zemmour

Could this be another election arc in the making? Just imagine a Little Englander on the team for a French ultranationalist.

Ironically if he'd said the same in the US I don't think it would have torpedoed the party quite as severely

This likely stems from a general problem in the Terminally Online Anglosphere: the US population tends to dominate it simply due to being the largest so its culture and politics leaks out into the rest of the Anglosphere. That's what made Carlgon's election arc brags about his subs numbers (~850k iirc) amusing as about 2/3 of his audience was in the US.

 

[AgendaPoster]

Smart or not, somehow he's hanging out with Zemmour

He fat as fuck. And his jeans and clothes are horrible and badly fit.

As for IQ, that's more complicated that it seems. There are a LOT of IQ tests. Some are quite culture/literature/general knowledge based. Many are not trustworthy.
The only IQ I would trust in a medical sense is the logical/geometrical pattern progression stuff. Forgot the name.
Unless you took those, within a time limit, without Internet and the sort, I would question whatever results you might've scored on other things.
Carl's logic is severely inconsistent and flawed. His opinions are partisan and nearly religiously liberal and anti-racist. He does not value truth and objective reality over dogma, that's 110% clear.
So an IQ of 90 would be a reasonable expectation, from my (limited) experience with how various patients score. He has some street smarts for online content creation. But smart, he is not.

 

[Goku 1000000 O]

No, he's just an idiot. He can engage with more abstract concepts than the usual lay person, but he lacks the rigor to actually defend or adequately articulate his positions. Compared to his other pundits he's not much better than Vaush, and certainly not as strong as AA.

I am going to transcribe two minutes of Carl talking to demonstrate my point because when you spend just a little bit of time dissecting his bullshit it becomes obvious that he is an intellectual poser.

For context this video is in response to the James Lindsay blocking. And they reference this article written by Carl as well, Five False Assumptions of Liberalism.

The part I'm transcribing starts at around 1:06 in the video.

Lotus Eater Cohost: Do you want to give a quick summary as to what those assumptions are?
Carl: Sure, Liberalism evolved out of England, mostly. In the sixteenth, well early you know seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Uh, and, this corresponds with the development of ideology cause prior to that this didn't really exist.

This a mild aside but ideology as a term got coined about 100 years after liberal thought began to be articulated. Small and very excusable error in my opinion but it does fit with this trend of technical inaccuracy and a lack of competence with the material he supposedly engages with for a living.

Carl: Um, and when... its a very very long subject but essentially um the problem with the enlightenment I think is the sovereignty of reason. Uh, taking itself as the sole epistemological tool of conceptions about the world.

This is flat out wrong. Liberal thought does not necessitate a rejection of non-rational modes of epistemological analysis (i.e. empiricism). Locke in fact was considered an empiricist and argued for blank slate theory, very far from a pure rationalist like Descartes.

Carl: And so as soon as you, locate all um valid knowledge in what is purely conceptually understandable then you realize actually that there's a huge amount you're taking away there. And this means, if you were going to rationally construct, a philosophy that begins with set premises and follows through to a logical conclusion. Actually its inevitable that you will have left behind a lot of information because, Locke in fact had a great turn of phrase for this all abstraction is subtraction.

This portion is almost nonsensical, but I'm going to try to steel man it. When you only perceive the world from a conceptual perspective then you aren't able to appreciate the whole of the world. My steel man sounds agreeable, but who would ever argue that you can perceive the world through concept? Certainly concepts influence interpretation, but concepts are not epistemological tools. Even in rationalist traditions their epistemology was founded on radical skepticism of sense data, but you couldn't say that their conceptualizations around human experience are akin to a sense organ like eyes. Rationalists like Descartes would basically argue that they couldn't credibly perceive the world as it is.

Carl does not use these terms well by any means. He is actually worse than the average layman who has a passing Wikipedia tier understanding of these concepts.

Carl: You are seeing a thing and extracting something out of it and whatever you're leaving behind you're subtracting out of it and this is what professor Michael described as the um, draining off of the liquid of the moral tradition to find the grit of the moral specifics and so instead of being able to simply drink all of this down and get the good morals and the good governance, the good politics, uh we've drained all that out and we're trying to choke down the grit of the ideological rational assumptions.

I cannot discern why he seems to be equivocating about the 'grit' of moral specifics (thou shalt not kill) to and the 'grit' of ideological rational assumptions (moral agents have free will).

If he didn't attempt a fancy metaphor this would've been potentially comprehendible.

Carl: And ok, maybe that works if you are the English speaking Americans, who are essentially just having what you believe parroted back at you. Uh and so you're still in the moral fluid of your tradition. But when you take that out then you apply it to say France that doesn't have the English political tradition, well you get the French Revolution, you get the Russian Revolution, you get all sorts of terrible things that happen because these things are based on something that are outside of your cultural experience. Moreover, if you start examining actually what these pre-suppositions of these liberal thinkers are you'll realize they're nonsense. They're not true, these things didn't happen. This problem comes primarily from the 'state of nature', man never lived as an isolated individual in the forest and he didn't come together to form a civilization and therefore come on to that. And so if you were to ideologically, outside of this cultural fluid, take liberalism and apply it somewhere it just fails.

So Carl keeps bringing about this point about how the State of Nature was never really a thing so Liberalism therefore has a faulty foundation. However the point about the State of Nature being an actual sociological reality has never been an essential premise for Locke's ideas. Locke writes “want [lack] of a common judge, with authority, puts all men in a state of nature” and again, “Men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature.” This isn't a statement of historical fact and it just serves to distinguish man's experience separate from a social reality. Whether or not this has ever been an actual reality isn't important to Locke's use of this premise to justify individual rights.

There is a philosopher named, Mozi, who did assert the State of Nature as being a reality. But he's not a Liberal thinker.

Once again here is that lack of competence with the material he references.

Co-Host: Part of the problem of that is an ideology is intended to export tradition from a particular time and place and think its applicable elsewhere for example the Americans thinking we can just export Democracy to Iraq and we can just bomb it into being Liberal... But different government styles are ergonomic to different peoples, different cultures even geographic landmasses.

This last portion is only transcribed because I want to show a contrast between Carl and an actual articulate person. Well done rando co-host, you've outshone your master by a wide margin.


Engaging in just a little bit of research an almost any video or article he does would demonstrate some glaring weaknesses in his understanding. This portion is just a recent example.

Initially as I was typing this up I wanted to at least credit Carl as being somewhat articulate, but I can't even say that in good faith. You could argue that its just because he's speaking off the cuff, but even his articles tend to have the same issues with consistency and aren't very well written. For example in the Five False Assumptions of Liberalism, he claims for his first point that Locke's State of Nature is a theoretical proposition but implies in the video that Locke was claiming it was a fact.

I don't see how Carl could be perceived as intelligent if wasn't for the topic matters he 'engages' with and his accent.

 

[Dean Pentel]

His IQ is probably around the 105 to 115 mark Carl is what I would call the quintessential midwit .

Doubtful it's that high. My IQ is approximately 83 and even I am more intellectually capable than he is.

 

[mofu mofo]

he claims for his first point that Locke's State of Nature is a theoretical proposition but implies in the video that Locke was claiming it was a fact.

Fucking knew he hadn't actually read Locke

 

[AgendaPoster]

Carl does not use these terms well by any means. He is actually worse than the average layman who has a passing Wikipedia tier understanding of these concepts.

The TL;DR of your post would be that they need to have a list of subjects they will talk about during the podcast and informing about the basics should be mandatory for all the dudes he hired. Alternatively, they could simply say "I don't know for sure" when they actually don't know the subject, and God knows, there is like 99% of the world knowledge for ALL of us that we're blissfully unaware of.
"I don't know" seem to be the hardest words for the commentariat. They know about everything, from economics, to wars, to race and gender, to informatics and AI, to how to run big corporations, to laws and everything. Makes one's head explode from the intellectual overload!

Doubtful it's that high. My IQ is approximately 83 and even I am more intellectually capable than he is.

Don't feel too bad about it.
I went to school with a mathematical genius (legit genius, he would find solutions to hardcore advanced math shit that the professor would have difficulties solving, sometimes in less than a minute). The problem was, he was completely aloof and quite the schizo, and his thoughts and person were perpetually disorderly and chaotic. I always considered myself way, way dumber than he is, but when we had to take the IQ test, I was able to autistically concentrate and score high, while he couldn't care less about whatever score he would get so by the 20 mins mark he was already just staring blankly and bored at the figures.
As I said a few posts before, the mind is really complicated and many apparent disadvantages can prove to be assets and vice versa.

 

[DDR Yoga]

For reference to other e-commentators, I'd go something like:

Patrisse Cullors - 85. Knows enough buzzwords to impress white people. "racism". "systemic systems of bias" etc. but is otherwise painfully dim.

Hasan Piker - 90-95. Often misuses words. Can't engage with any higher conepts. Can't debate. Barely clever enough to feel embarrassed.

Uncle Cenk and Alex Jones - 110-115. Almost a standard deviation above average. Reasonably articulate. Can hold basic debates on economics and politics.

Carlgon and Vaush - 120+. Like Cenk but with better vocabulary and quicker at thinking on their feet. Have read and understood some heavy duty stuff.

Destiny and Styx666 - 130. Use their very high verbal intelligence to defend absurd positions. Excellent sophists.

Ed Dutton - 139 (confirmed). Very articulate. Very knowledgeable. Excellent memory.

Jordan Peterson - 145. Similar to Styx and Destiny. Highly accomplished sophist. Can defend the absurd. Very clean penis.


And the only person I like on that list is Dutton. I've no motivation to defend these grifters. You just have to stop thinking IQ equates to talking sense. As is often said of leftist positions: Only an intelligent person could perform the gymnastics to reach that conclusion.

 

[carto-ro]

And the only person I like on that list is Dutton. I've no motivation to defend these grifters. You just have to stop thinking IQ equates to talking sense. As is often said of leftist positions: Only an intelligent person could perform the gymnastics to reach that conclusion.

Carl doesn't do gymnastics though, he just vaguely replies to people smarter than him and when pressed folds. More importantly, Carl must be in a different tier than Alex Jones. When Alex Jones was caught with a tranny porn tab on a tablet on air it was on a device used on his show where he's legally considered a character whose comments don't reflect on him. When Carl was caught tranny chasing on a stream it was through an image of his facebook page where his wife was mad at him, not on a device that could be legally argued to be part of a show unrelated to personal actions. At the very least he has to be a tier lower than AJ.

 

[DDR Yoga]

@carto-ro

Carl doesn't do gymnastics though, he just vaguely replies to people smarter than him and when pressed folds. More importantly, Carl must be in a different tier than Alex Jones. When Alex Jones was caught with a tranny porn tab on a tablet on air it was on a device used on his show where he's legally considered a character whose comments don't reflect on him. When Carl was caught tranny chasing on a stream it was through an image of his facebook page where his wife was mad at him, not on a device that could be legally argued to be part of a show unrelated to personal actions. At the very least he has to be a tier lower than AJ.

Lol. Can you send me a link or screenshot of this incident?

Carl. Not Alex.

 

[Georgio Cocklord]

No he isn't he dropped out. Having an IQ of 125 would put him at the top %10 when it comes to IQ. Think about how insane it is to think about Carl as one of the smartest people alive today. His IQ is probably around the 105 to 115 mark Carl is what I would call the quintessential midwit . He is smart enough to engage with higher level philosophical concepts but not smart enough to actually have a holistic understanding of them. That is why he is trying to shove NRX and liberalism together to make a weird bastardized ideology due to his narcissism about wanting his own pet ideology and prove to the world and all his naysayers how smart he actually is. A lot of people think Carl and his ilk are smart due to how they carry themselves. They sound smart but dig a little deeper and you will see how shallow their ideologies and opinions are.
View attachment 5670759

Complex vocab doesnt make a person intelligent. I got 134, Im less articulate than Soygon and I graduated university as well. Carl is just a retard, he may understand what hes talking about but he doesnt understand why hes wrong, his character drags his intelligence down cause hes extremely self centered.

So an IQ of 90 would be a reasonable expectation, from my (limited) experience with how various patients score. He has some street smarts for online content creation. But smart, he is not.

Forrest Gump is 85 and I can vouch for it cause Ive seen a couple of 90ers in my university, theyre very inarticulate. Carl Id place at 118-125.

 

[mofu mofo]

@carto-ro


Lol. Can you send me a link or screenshot of this incident?

Carl. Not Alex.

It's in this post. Carlgon discusses it in a livestream at 1hr50ish.

 

[AgendaPoster]

For reference to other e-commentators, I'd go something like:

Highly optimistic scores.
In a legitimate test, most of these people that have no idea of math and logic (as in logic, the study object) wouldn't go above 100 too much.
If you want examples of people that would score high, you'd need somebody like Lex Fridman or that fat Weinstein brother. Most of the Internet commentators are barely above average, but they are OK with drama, exposing their lives and generally lacking inhibitions, so they get even dumber people to follow them.
IQs above 110 are quite rare. Destiny might score there, but Styx nope. Vaush would be lucky at 100, and JBP probably administered the test as a clinician so he knows the patterns, I expect him to score high, but not on genuine IQ, but more on his accumulated knowledge of how it works and practice at it.

 

[DDR Yoga]

Highly optimistic scores.
In a legitimate test, most of these people that have no idea of math and logic (as in logic, the study object) wouldn't go above 100 too much.
If you want examples of people that would score high, you'd need somebody like Lex Fridman or that fat Weinstein brother. Most of the Internet commentators are barely above average, but they are OK with drama, exposing their lives and generally lacking inhibitions, so they get even dumber people to follow them.
IQs above 110 are quite rare. Destiny might score there, but Styx nope. Vaush would be lucky at 100, and JBP probably administered the test as a clinician so he knows the patterns, I expect him to score high, but not on genuine IQ, but more on his accumulated knowledge of how it works and practice at it.

15% of white people have an IQ over 115. Roughly speaking, you're talking the top class in school. (IQ correlates quite strongly with academic achievement, although it's obviously not a perfect measure)

Now think back to your school. Take the top 15%. They likely have IQs of over 115. Are they intellectually impressive? Do they all leave Sargon and Vaush in the dust? Of course they don't. Most of them are what the internet would call midwits and yet, statistically speaking, their IQs are likely to be over one standard deviation above average.

To take it further, 2% of whites have IQs over 130, so, depending on how large your school was, you're talking a small handful of the best students. They're not rare pokemon; they're just the clever kids and I have no difficulty believing Destiny or Styx were amongst the best students.

I think a lot of people struggle to separate intelligence from lousy political takes or degenerate behaviour. In fact, there isn't too much correlation. There is, however, quite strong correlation between verbal ability and general intelligence, so being able to speak quickly, articulately and verbosely, as Desting and Styx both can, is a clear sign of high IQ. And yes, even they're talking bollocks.