Chapter 01: Fill & Download for Free

[06/01/2017]When this happened about 6 months ago, it wasn’t clear that troll army IS *a thing* and that hate speech is actually a state-sponsored grammar with a clear semantic line and obvious bullet points.I had said somewhere on the text below that we needed to “hijack their memes”. well as long as we have text and text input as the gateway to online communication, bots and trolls are going to exist. The “solution” to this issue is going to have to be centered around voice interfaces and visuals which can better evade text-based scripting bots and content scraping.I am still on prototype mode (learning to code, folks:) but the solution is advancing storytelling to highly customizable form, preventing retweeting, eliminating text-based inputs on public forums by substituting it with voice interfaces and visuals.——————————————————————————-[11/24/16: comments disabled, DM me instead.] [11/26/16:This post has snowballed into 5 sections since first posted on 11/14/16.]Part1: This answer started as a harmless comment on Melania Trump’s reasons for staying with Donald. My comment painted Melania as a “cool”, honest person who likes handbags.Part2: “PS”. Strangely, I started getting hate speech and troll comments and began noticing odd and yet consistent syntactic (speech) patterns in these comments. [Syntactic = (the way the sentences were structured) as opposed to semantic (what the sentences & words “said”)].Part3: Learning from Goebbels: connecting the speech patterns I found to what I had read many years before on Hitler and Goebbels’ texts on Propaganda techniques (Part3).Part4: From Hitler to He-Man: how Fascism uses these techniques through cartoon-like magical-hate memes like “Build The Wall” and “Hillary The Crook”Part5: 11/25: How to respond to troll comments without getting annoyed, rationale, 2 different methods, basic algorithm and how to tell a troll comment from a normal comment (scroll to the bottom of the page.)[This will move to a blog somewhere in a few days - I’ll post the link here - but it will take a little while. Please check back here in 3–5 days. Happy Thanksgiving y’all!!!](Part1, original post)I swear to God I read an interview with Melania Trump around the time she married him, on Vogue or something. Or some article about her, a looong time ago. This described an interview with her, some sort of press conference. She was asked, by a man, “if Donald weren’t rich, would you have married him?”Her answer was “If I wasn’t beautiful, would he have married me?” which I never forgot, all these years. It showed that she was perfectly aware of the transactional nature of the relationship - she brought the youth and looks, he brought the money. If she were to get fat, he’d dump her in a second. If he became homeless, she’d be gone in no time.I always remembered this line when reading comments from men about dating, how women are “gold diggers”, or when I’d get messages from much older dudes on dating websites who would have some sort of description about how they liked dating “younger women”.The reality is, in order for these types of relationships to be balanced, the older man needs to have serious money. Most women don’t want to be treated as objects, even the super hot ones. The ones that are ok with that, need the man who can deliver the lifestyle in exchange for arm candy support. I mean I don’t think it’s controversial to say that Donald Trump is not an attractive man, especially if he is 25 years older than her. It’s not controversial to say that she was not chosen for her intellect either. She certainly did not choose him for his humble soul, his empathy or his toned physique.I don’t think there is a problem with that, as long as there is no hypocrisy. When men look for women who are much younger who are *extremely* attractive (i.e. they are not “partners”), they should be aware that they will also be objectified, not for their looks, but for their bank account. When women are treated like objects, and expected to perform like objects, there is always a price. In this case, no one is pretending, there is no hypocrisy.Regardless of his shortcomings, and I did NOT vote for him by the way - at least he isn’t like the clueless older men on dating websites who think much younger women would be interested in them for “who they are” when they are only interested in them for the shallowest reasons.Her comment told me she is perfectly fine with the marriage/business arrangement and cheating, he has more than delivered on his part of the deal - taking care of her. Because this is “business” she was not upset that he “cheated” on her. I don’t think “romance” is the idea here.If marital duties with Donald Trump were the job you do to get Chanel handbags, you’d probably be GLAD to hear he is “cheating”. The hard thing is doing the fake-cry thing that is meant to say you’re really “upset” about it.PS: My recollection of having read this interview or article that posited Melania Trump as a cool person had the opposite intended effect. It attracted a number of Trump-supporter “criticism” trolling comments. This criticism came in waves and I have been gathering relevant data on this pattern.My exclusive DELETE algorithm eliminates non-sense, hate speech and those who have just signed up to Quora to spew hatred against my spontaneous personal opinion. I mean it’s not like y’all have anything against the first amendment,right?The data I have gathered about this pattern of trolling so far suggests some kind of central information node that pushes out links for people troll under. All but one or two of the commenters had just signed up to Quora to comment on this.One curious pattern was the presence of links, to wikipedia and other clickbait, which would also suggest that their adtech propaganda machine aka “fake news” is related to tracking analytics, installing cookies, as well sustaining a cpm-generating business arm.Hatebait leaves its territorial “seeds” through these links. None of the people who left comments were able to construct a sentence that made any sense, it quickly descended into juvenilia such as “ do you support trans what about the others” or “it’s so funny that people on quora have to say out loud they did not vote for trump”. Virtually all if the comments used modal verbs “you should/should not” “can /can’t threatening language such as “be careful...”.They read like threats meant to create an atmosphere of fear. Like Hitler did in the 1930s. The best response is ignore and understand their patterns, so that we may learn and turn these memes into jokes. One thing all authoritarian regimes have in common is that they have no sense of humor. It enrages them beyond belief. Laughter is the truth of the child. It can’t be denied, or faked.It is safe to say that if we survive this presidency we have a chance at turning things around. We need relentless humor, and we need to hijack their hatred memes asap.The trolling pattern had entirely external sources, the vitality was generated outside of core Quora user groups. I can’t quite tell if some of these users were 100% coordinated trolls or if a percentage of them were bots, I will update the answer with data visualizations in the next few days. [UPDATE: I contacted Quora to see if I could have access to more specific analytics such as specific times when comments were written or if I could have access to some of the comments I deleted but the answer was, understandably, no. So no data = no data viz:(. As it turns out this was a blessing in disguise, as I will focus on assembling data from sentence patterns instead.](Update: one commenter suggested there might a Trumpalian “50-cent Army”, I had never heard of this term so I looked it up. It is…. “ is the colloquial term for Internet commentators i.e. trolls (Chinese: 网络评论员 wǎngluò pínglùn yuán) hired by Chinese propaganda authorities in an attempt to manipulate public opinion to the benefit of the Chinese Communist Party.”Yup it’s a *thing*. At this point this is a real possibility. Except that we also have capitalism which means that trolling has real business benefits.Their rationale and vocabulary suggests a type of repetitive/ quasi moral preaching devoid of logic, intertwined with trollish sexual innuendo and shock tactics more commonly found in defranchised subgroups. The pattern suggests a propaganda-like concentrated effort to paint Melania Trump as a genius worthy of a nobel prize.The trolling comments did not appear to grasp that my answer was complimentary to Melania. I think she is pretty cool is what I said.Guess what I have my own Jav-a-scriptin’ going y’all gonna have to work a whole lot faster to get with MACHINES-B-LEARNIN’ timezzzz. Data-gatherin’ y’all on my Anaconda-Jupyter child. Concatenatin’ a whole lotta strings. Baby Pandas r comin’.Meanwhile…call 1–800-Peter-Thiel for 140k-a-year jobs. He’s looking to hire at the Stanford of North Dakota campus.11/25: Now that the comments are closed, I can see clearly another interesting pattern that would suggest a coordinated content strategy with a “management” arm behind it.Initially the comments focused on “emotional” punchlines that used classic authoritarian power-play syntax (i.e. imperative voice, modal verb contractions and the use of third person singular, or, “YOU can’t say___ YOU shouldn’t ___ YOU will___, and the utmost, last-resort objectifying statement, “YOU are ____” , which attempts to shift Descartes’ Cogito ergo sum - “I think therefore I am” into objectifying, narcissistic paranoia: “I think therefore YOU are” ). In contrast, normal conversation and civilized commenting consists of the exposition of a specific topic; a back-and-forth and the (hopefully moderate) use of the first-person “I”.I started responding by flat-out copying t heir syntax style, content and memes. Examples: “YOU are a New York Times Liberal Lying Elite Media Liar #lockherup #buildthewall” “DO YOU need a safe space to process your snowflake feelings #hillarythecrook ”] while never showing the engagement and emotional reactions that had amused and encouraged trolls just a few minutes earlier. This actually worked.The issue of the second person is so important in setting the boundaries of subjective space in interpersonal communication that both German and French, for example, use a “polite” second person for all social interactions outside of one’s personal circle of friends and family. Vous (French) and Sie (German) . We all understand that people are self-determining and not defined by whoever grabs the second person microphone first and yells at them.The use of the “informal” tu (French) and du (German) only happens with people you are friends with, or of family. It’s unthinkable and barbaric to use the second person the way it was used on these comments. English does have the embedded informality which masks this well, but the entitled dominance gesture is still glaring.ALL the buttons of “authority” signifiers are pressed. Raging idiotic mobs, reveling in the barbaric attempt to dehumanize your subjective space. Whoever screams the loudest believes they will define *you*. Nah-ahn my friend. I don’t think so!We could get away with the idea that these are bots, but even then, words match what has been said by candidates too well. We can’t “unhear” it.Appendix A: Learning from Goebbels[Note: 11/26: Goebbels has probably been read by people who work in advertising and other persuasion-related fields as well as anyone interested in WWII, power and politics. I am not suggesting that Trump will DO any of the horrible things that Nazis have done, I truly don’t think he will at all.I wrote this to demonstrate the communication and language patterns I found on many of the comments left on my answer from Trump supporters. As I read, and responded to them and watched the patterns of comments appear in clusters, it eerily reminded me of these texts I had read many years ago.I am not a linguist, I don’t know linguistic theoretical terms, but I do speak 6 languages so I could not help but notice this.]Goebbels’ famous words- “A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth”. are key here. Trump’s closest advisor is a quote-unquote white supremacist - I am not *saying this* - I read this in the “liberal media” #lockherup, which as you all know, is “full of lies” #buildthewall - y’all know they dig Hitler and shit.Goebbels was a great guy, an excellent German. He was organized in everything, keeping immaculate records and writing coherent and persuasive sentences while killing millions of people including his own six children:“On the evening of 1 May 1945, Goebbels arranged for an SS dentist, Helmut Kunz, to inject his six children with morphine so that when they were unconscious, an ampule of cyanide could be then crushed in each of their mouths.According to Kunz's later testimony, he gave the children morphine injections but it was Magda Goebbels and SS-Obersturmbannführer Ludwig Stumpfegger, Hitler's personal doctor, who administered the cyanide.”He and his wife then killed themselves shortly thereafter.This is the guy the president’s closest advisors have obviously read, extensively. And so have I.And this is the guy we have to read up on. Reading Goebbels is key to understanding the skeletons of this dystopian present we are experiencing. He was the architect of hate speech in the Hitlerian regime and he spoke of it very clearly.Understanding the mechanics and goals of hate speech help dispell it. Goebbels’ only gift to us, was his ability to distill his method clearly.“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” [see #lockherup #buildthewall - the use of catchy visual memes ]“Whoever can conquer the street will one day conquer the state, for every form of power politics and any dictatorship-run state has its roots in the street.”“If you tell the same lie enough times, people will believe it; and the bigger the lie, the better.”[ ok guys seriously: bullying people into believing that Ms. Trump is a genius is crossing the line. It’s straight SNL material right there. Even Goebbels would have been like “smh amateurs!”. He said it very clearly, trying to convert intelligent people does not work.]“There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals…Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology.”For an extended treatise on this subject, I recommend reading chapter 6 of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” where he goes on and on about War Propaganda.On this chapter, Hitler describes propaganda’s spread of skillful lies and appeal to the “emotions”:“The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself, since its function…consists in attracting the attention of the crowd, and not in educating those who are already educated or who are striving after education and knowledge, its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect.”On the need for propaganda to be adjusted for the “limited intelligence” of its audience:“All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be.”There is no need to fear, reading it does not make you a Nazi. But in order to understand this behavior clearly it’s best to get to the source and study it as if you were a detached scientist observing the behavior of bacteria.Not all people who post troll comments are self-conscious hate-mongers. But I would argue that Nazi speech IS the source of our contemporary trolling speech patterns, consciously or not. Therefore the “antidote” for hate speech must come from an in-depth understanding of the ideas, methods and speech patterns found at the source.The strange and gripping paradox in the success of hate speech, is that throughout history, the so-called leaders have openly despised their followers. Hitler and Goebbels have WRITTEN it themselves, calling them dumb and primitive and yet, the spell of hatred as the end-all-be-all solution, remains unabated.Magical-hate memes: The simple genius of FascismThe simple genius of fascism goes undetected by the educated “elites” because it is purposely designed to evade the intellect. It functions by activating a magical-hate-meme that in the blink of an eye, will make all your problems disappear.I am old enough to remember He-Man (a cartoon superhero with a Tyler Swift haircut). Skeletor is the BAD GUY. I mean He-Man’s and She-Ra’s life would be AMAZING if Skeletor were not around. Skeletor wants to destroy the world!!! HE-MAN!!! GET SKELETOR NOW!!!! Whose side are you on? Are you gonna side with Skeletor? WHAT KIND OF PERSON ARE YOU??!!! JESUS CHRIST YOU ARE INSANE CAN’T YOU SEE THAT SKELETOR WANTS TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!ARE YOU TRYING TO DESTROY HUMANITY? ARE YOU BLIND!!! SKELETOR IS GONNA GET SHE-RA ANY MINUTE NOW!!!It’s pretty simple. #1 define evil #2 go get it!!!! How? Root for HE MAN!!!!! HE MAN is the only one who can fight evil and win in the end!!! HE MAN HAS A MAGIC SWORD!!!The follower’s fantasy, what he truly lives for, is for the eradication of the “evil” as presented by the Leader. The removal of the external-evil-target. THAT is exactly what the Leader presents. The removal of the pain point. THAT is why he is so powerful. So the memes presented by the leader are always related to the fulfillment of this eradication fantasy. Build The Wall, Hillary The Crook In Jail. The Liberal Media Lying about Lies. The Elites. Obama The Foreigner. The New York Times. If you only DARE get between the Leader and the meme YOU ARE JUST AS BAD AS SKELETOR HIMSELF!!! It really does not matter if the Leader is a member of the ACTUAL “Elite”. Because reason, logic, or basic math are not at play here. It’s all about having the *magical ability* to point to external- evil-targets that are “scary” and memes that are all-powerful and insta-pain-removers. How is anyone expected to believe you if you don’t have a magic sword??? GTFO!!!! Bad skin? Didn’t get a raise this year? Got ghosted on Tinder? Ran out of toilet paper? BUILD-A-WALL!!!!!IT ONLY COSTS 10 BILLION TO BUILD A WALL BEFORE STAFFING COSTS, MAINTENANCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND WE’RE A REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT THAT IS GONNA “CUT COSTS”. WHO YOU GONNA CALL?GHOST BUSTERS!!!The genius of this approach is making a tenuous connection appear solid, tangible and real. I am not disputing the problems that are real in peoples lives, such as the real opportunity gap, the lack of benefits and jobs that pay a lot lower than they once did. What I am saying is, the exploitation and “emotional connection” with the population happens outside of the problem-solution realm. It is achieved by exploiting magical thinking and presenting cartoon-like insta-solutions to the evil which is always entirely visible and right there in front of your face. How convenient! All you have to do it point to it.HOW TO ACTUALLY RESPOND TO TROLL COMMENTSTrolls are like happy mosquitos carrying the Zika virus.So the basic recipe really is holding up a mirror: using their own words so that you never have do say anything or even think. Copy and paste.Goebbels described followers as “tools” that carry ready-made messages concocted by “Leadership”. He believed that the “crowd” was not capable of generating ideas of their own, they only served to propagate the powerful magical hate memes spoken by the Leader. They are a little bit like mosquitos carrying the Zika virus. The mosquito is not connected to how the actual disease is generated. But without the mosquito you would not contract the disease.Reacting to troll comments is like taking mosquito bites personallyIf you think of troll comments as mechanical responses injected by hate tools you realize that having an emotional reaction to a troll message is a little bit like taking a mosquito bite personally. You aware it’s nature and you go on with your day. You don’t say “What have I done to deserve this???!!”. You don’t try to have a dialogue with mosquitos. You don’t spend energy engaging. They are desperate hungry mosquitos and you are a decent burger. There is no vegetarian option.Insects don’t feel. To mosquitos, your blood is their life. It’s not about “you”. Likewise, to trolls, your emotion is the only confirmation of success. You are not a person, but a response.If they were mosquitos you’d use OFF but since OFF does not work on trolls, it’s best to try and invent a solution yourself.Hate is a boolean operationWhat I have come to realize is that troll a speech is a boolean operation that seeks a “false” return. We give them this “false” when you say “WHAT are you talking about?, or react in an emotional, indignant manner. You are saying “I am NOT what you just said I am”. When you communicate emotion, their internal hate-filled javascript code returns a little window that says “success”.Yes, you CAN deny them that little pop up window of happiness.The solution is offering a “true” Boolean response.The only way to win over this is working to send a “true” response, where you present NO reaction and only confirm exactly what the troll message itself said. Because hate itself is a boolean operation that is written to achieve the false response ( you say “this is not true”). Hate is about defining “difference” at every turn. The essence of hate is, “That which is unlike me must be denied.” So by giving them a true response their system crashes.Hitler himself said, they can only handle up to 2 simple concepts at a time. They start wondering if the Magical Hate Memes the Leader showed them are really all that powerful since they are not getting a response. The pop up success window did not pop up this time. They’ll never blame you for it, though. They’ll automatically assume it’s an evil character the Leader has mentioned before. Most likely it’s…THE NEW YORK TIMES!!!! LYING THEIR LIBERAL ELITE LIES!!!!Solution 1: The Mindless Method (copy and paste)So if someone says “YOU are a nasty Liberal Elite TRANS snowflake”, you respond either by copying and pasting “YOU are a nasty Liberal Elite TRANS snowflake”. That is all. They will most likely respond with “YOU CAN’T eveyin sayin nothing back. Do your need a collective bathroom to cry?” #buildthewall (no it does not make sense but I think you know that by now). Your response, using the Mindless Method is, again, copy and paste.Solution 2: The Evil Characters and Insta-Memes database combinations[FYI: I don’t know A LOT of computer science and started teaching myself in september (2–3 months ago), so it’s possible that I may have misunderstood terms; The next step is creating a program where people can generate troll comment responses for self-defense purposes. There are still about 8 specific patterns to decode so this will take a little bit]You can also choose from the database of evil characters and insta-memes (this makes me laugh so I go for this one. I am doing a UML chart for this database but you know the contents. Obama The Kenyan, Hillary The Crook, The Liberal Media Spreading Lies. Illegals, Mexicans, Muslims, Asian, etc…each performing the predicted stereotypical operation that makes them evil. Example responses below.Basic structure:authoritarianSyntax + evilClass + evilClassOperation + magicalHateMemeThe core of it really is the combination of the evilClass (Gay, Trans, Muslim, Mexican, Women, Disabled, etc…) and the evilClassOperation (i.e what they do that *proves* they are evil).Examples below.Illegals Stealin UR job.Mexecans rapey people and Eat babys.Muslim are all terorists from syrian counitres includen isreeal and franch.YOU ARE Asiaen i wanrt yr JOB Elite Liberal GO HOME.The important part is having the basic structure down. You can repeat operations for different classes and add elements which I have not covered but I will come back here to later with my UML chart and so forth.You can say “YOU ARE homo YOU are a baby-eating Hillary The Crook chierld” (I am laughing as I type this:). One trick is to let your fingers “dance” in order to misspell words on purpose. It’s almost like a surrealist form of writing. Please leave it as is. They don’t get annoyed at misspelled words. “The Liberal Media That Lies” affects them more deeply. You can misspell words but the structure must be followed.OF COURSE you must not forget the special sauce: the now classic Magical hate-memes. Magical hate-memes must have hashtags at all times and should not be misspelled: #Lockherup. #buildthewall #liberalmediathatlies .The basic structure for the response is something like var authSyntaxSubj = "YOU"; var evilClass = "Mexecans"; var evilClassOperationA = "rapey"; var evilClassOperationB = "people"; var magicalHateMeme = "#BuildTheWall"; var result = authSyntaxSubj +" "+ evilClass +" "+ evilclassOperation "+ magicalHateMeme; document.write(result);what we get is:YOU Mexecans rapey people #BuildTheWallPlease forgive my bad code it may not even be actual code, I am learning, I don’t want to create a misspelling algorithm right now, you know how to do this manually. The code is not “for production” it’s just to show you how predictable “hate” it is.How to tell a troll comment from a normal commentHow can you tell what is a troll comment? Other than misspelled words which are present in probably 93% of the ones I encountered, The use of the authoritarian power play syntax (You+can’t/shouldn’t/are___), the imperative (Do this! Delete this! Remove this! or the use of “you” anywhere in the sentence and of course any mention of the cast of evil characters (Hillary The Crook, The Liberal Media That Lies) and magical hate memes (“Build The Wall”, “Lock Her Up”)One time before I created this method I attempted to respond to someone that kept saying that Melania was “a very successful businesswoman before she met Donald, she speaks 5 languages and she did not need to marry rich” with an actual argument. He then showed his true colors. I wrote back something like “DANANNLLD GEVEH ME CHANELLL HENDBEEGH. DANANNLLD PEENES SMALL MONEEY BIIIGGH” and he had the gall do say “hmm it looks like you had a problem with your keyboard”. I could hear the sociopath’s delight. I thought I was clever, but the reality is that he won. I had taken the bait. I used braincells. I assumed this was a conversation, I wanted to be clever.So whenever you read anything that appears to be a sentence, remember it’s a trap. Trolls don’t think for themselves. They don’t care about “you”. They just want your emotional reaction. Let me say this again: they just want your emotional reaction. Goebbels said it himself, avoid the intellect, go for the emotional reaction. Logic or reason will never work with hate. You must only speak their limited language of primitive stereotypes and magical thinking and structure it within the basic troll algorithm.After this comment I then learnt to block on Quora and subsequently created this “method”.][About me: I speak 6 (human) languages and 3 months ago started learning Javascript and other programming languages and paradigms on my own, both of which inform this comment. I have never worked in “intelligence” or government and I don’t have formal knowledge of the field of linguistics; my understanding of structure came as a result of learning languages. I just happened to connect a pattern of separate and seemingly related dots once my Quora answer started receiving trolling comments.I went to art school and my understanding of German and German culture comes from an interest in theories of the history of art and a short-lived part-time job in graduate school as a provenance research assistant for works of art acquired during the Nazi era. ]

There are studies which study the association between political affiliation and IQ. However, I was unable to find one that studied the IQ’s of Marxists. Therefore, we must rely on other things. It has been proposed and does bear out that highly intelligent people are more likely to embrace behaviors and political orientations that are novel. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.923.8599&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Liberalism and atheism are associated with higher intelligence. Marxism is even more far to the left given the current default of Western style neoliberal capitalism. It takes significant intellectual firepower to even notice that something has gone awry, and it takes even more not to be duped by right wing demagogues like Trump. From there one might assume that the NPR crowd has it figured out. But this still hangs on to the problem of capitalism. A person who takes it a step further will start reading Chomsky, Cornell West, and Marx. Then the pieces start to fit together. But none of this is easy. You don’t stumble your way there. It is a conscious choice. And you must be brave enough to accept rejection and hate from your loved ones. You must really care about the well being of those outside your “tribe,” to hang on. This is not the doings of a “normal” person. If your religion has prepared you to do academic study, and to reason with language, you would have a big advantage in learning Marxism.Jews as a group have a higher IQ than others. Some studies have shown that the average IQ of Jews range between 107–115.[1] 115 is one standard deviation above the average Caucasian score. The bell curve for Jewish intelligence is also shifted more to the right, meaning there are a disproportionate number of Jews with IQs above 170. Jews are over-represented in Nobel Prize winners.[2]Interestingly, other studies have shown:One study found that Ashkenazi Jews had only mediocre visual-spatial intelligence, about IQ 98, while a 1958 study of yeshiva students found that their verbal IQ (which includes verbal reasoning, comprehension, working memory, and mathematical computation) had a high median of 125.6.[6]Why? A mix of nature and nurture. In many Jewish communities part of becoming an adult member of the community is to be able to read, recite, and understand the Torah. You are expected to make arguments about how the law is interpreted, and how it should work given a variety of circumstances. This same ability could be applied to the profession of law (there are many Jewish lawyers), academia (many Jewish professors), and other verbally heavy IQ professions.If you fail to do this you are going to no longer be able to be a full member of the religious community. This also means that you are less likely to marry a woman who is Jewish. There is significant intermarriage within the Jewish community. Jewish mothers expect their Jewish daughters and sons to marry within the faith. And many do. But verbal intelligence acts as a sorting mechanism and mating is effected. This is a nature and nurture one two.The Bolsheviks were Marxist Leninist revolutionaries. 80% of them were Jews. In fact Hitler’s anti-Semitism was directed against what he called “Judeo-Bolshevism,” which was Jewish communists.[3]Marxism relies heavily on theory. Marx’s Capital is not easy reading. It is the most dense material you can find. Marxism relies on people who are intelligent to read, understand, and support it.Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and others wrote extensively. Stalin himself wrote volumes, as did Lenin. These were romantics, but also very intelligent men. When they rose to power they were also practical in implementing their ideas. They acted in a reactive manner to solve problems as they arose.To understand Marxism you must have at least a 115+ IQ. The average IQ of a college professor is 125–135.[4] They teach Marx in college not as ideologues, but the theory because it is part of history. But they have to be able to understand it.Further, the greatest mind in the 20th century was a socialist. Albert Einstein.Einstein’s views on socialismIn 1949, Einstein wrote an article for the magazine Monthly Review explaining his thoughts on socialism. In it, he explains his political positions and why he feels the need to weigh in on a subject that is outside his area of expertise.In the first section of the essay, he acknowledges that he is a man of science and not an expert on economics. He still feels that he is able to offer a few comments on the subject as “socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends.” As he doesn’t wish to speak scientifically or be overly technical, he argues that a non-expert can make a few points on the subject and begins to do so.Three fundamental objections to capitalismEinstein had three bones to pick with capitalism. The first is that “Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being.” He explains his stance that a person is at once an individual and at the same time rather dependent on society for a great many things. However, despite the necessity of a high functioning society for our wellbeing, he sees capitalism as encouraging a mad drive for personal success at the expense of society and leading us to educate our children in a way that reinforces this behavior.This damages the individual, he argues. It drives us to educate ourselves only to find a job and not to fully develop beyond that. Furthermore, it can leave the individual in a constant state of fear over the risk of losing their livelihood, which leads to Einstein's second objection.“The economic anarchy of capitalist society"His second objection is one of waste and inefficiency. While capitalism strives for efficiency, it cannot always make good use of the total body of labor society has to offer. Einstein sees this as a poor way to organize an economy. He posits that:“There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all.”While it would be most profitable for society at large if total employment was assured, Einstein suggests that capitalism cannot do this on the grounds that it is more profitable for the owners of the means of production, who are often few in number, to not do so.The unemployed during the Great Depression. For many writers in the middle of the 20th century, memories of the Great Depression lead to an increased interest in alternatives to capitalism. George Grantham Bain Collection (Library of Congress)Lastly, he sees the profit motive as a cause of great suffering. Going so far as to say that, “The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil.” He explains further that:“The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.”What does Einstein propose as a solution?His support of socialism comes from the belief that it will solve the problems he finds in capitalism on the grounds that a socialist economy would not be based on the profit motive and would be more oriented towards filling social needs rather than a capitalist economy.“I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child.”After his experience fleeing the Nazis, it is perhaps self-evident that he understood the vital need to assure freedom. He was also opposed to McCarthyism and offered to serve as a character witness when W.E.B Du Bois was accused of being a communist spy. He also worked for civil rights in the United States, was associated with the Princeton chapter of the NAACP, and housed the singer Marian Anderson in his home when she was denied a hotel room in Princeton.Source: Why Albert Einstein was a socialistEvolutionary psychologists have found some interesting findings:Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people's behaviors come to be.The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them."The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward," said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. "It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people -- people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower -- are likely to be the ones to do that."Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart," he said.The study looked at a large sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which began with adolescents in grades 7-12 in the United States during the 1994-95 school year. The participants were interviewed as 18- to 28-year-olds from 2001 to 2002. The study also looked at the General Social Survey, another cross-national data collection source.Kanazawa did not find that higher or lower intelligence predicted sexual exclusivity in women. This makes sense, because having one partner has always been advantageous to women, even thousands of years ago, meaning exclusivity is not a "new" preference.For men, on the other hand, sexual exclusivity goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates. Since women had to spend nine months being pregnant, and additional years caring for very young children, it made sense for them to want a steady mate to provide them resources.Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger."It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere," Kanazawa said.Participants who said they were atheists had an average IQ of 103 in adolescence, while adults who said they were religious averaged 97, the study found. Atheism "allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion," Bailey said."Historically, anything that's new and different can be seen as a threat in terms of the religious beliefs; almost all religious systems are about permanence," he noted.The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights."Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with," he said.Given that human ancestors had a keen interest in the survival of their offspring and nearest kin, the conservative approach -- looking out for the people around you first -- fits with the evolutionary picture more than liberalism, Kanazawa said. "It's unnatural for humans to be concerned about total strangers." he said.The study found that young adults who said they were "very conservative" had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas those who said they were "very liberal" averaged 106.It also makes sense that "conservatism" as a worldview of keeping things stable would be a safer approach than venturing toward the unfamiliar, Bailey said.Neither Bailey nor Kanazawa identify themselves as liberal; Bailey is conservative and Kanazawa is "a strong libertarian."Vegetarianism, while not strongly associated with IQ in this study, has been shown to be related to intelligence in previous research, Kanazawa said. This also fits into Bailey's idea that unconventional preferences appeal to people with higher intelligence, and can also be a means of showing superiority.None of this means that the human species is evolving toward a future where these traits are the default, Kanazawa said."More intelligent people don't have more children, so moving away from the trajectory is not going to happen," he said. [5]Why Socialism?by Albert Einstein(May 01, 2009)Topics: Marxism , SocialismPlaces: GlobalAlbert Einstein (1959), charcoal and watercolor drawing by Alexander Dobkin. Dobkin (1908–1975) was an important painter of the mid-twentieth century American realist tradition along with other left-wing artists such as Jack Levine, Robert Gwathmey, Philip Evergood, and Raphael and Moses Soyer. A student and collaborator of the Mexican muralist Jose Clemente Orozco, his work is in the permanent collections of the Butler Art Institute, the Museum of Modern Art, the Brooklyn Museum, the Whitney Museum of American Art, the Philadelphia Museum of Art, the Library of Congress, and the Smithsonian Institution. (The preceding caption was written by John J. Simon, "Albert Einstein, Radical: A Political Profile," Monthly Review vol. 57, no. 1 [2005].)Albert Einstein is the world-famous physicist. This article was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949). It was subsequently published in May 1998 to commemorate the first issue of MR‘s fiftieth year.—The EditorsIs it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?”I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.[6]Footnotes[1] http://Entine, Jon (2007). Abraham's Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People. Grand Central Publishing (published October 24, 2007). ISBN 978-0446580632.[2] http://Entine, Jon (2007). Abraham's Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People. Grand Central Publishing (published October 24, 2007). ISBN 978-0446580632.[3] H-Net Reviews[4] http://www.religjournal.com/pdf/ijrr10001.pdf[5] Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ[6] Monthly Review | Why Socialism?

I had a friend who switched to drinking apple cider all the time because he thought it might be healthier for him than beer.He was actually my sisters ex- husband,and we used to drink together a lot.I sort of felt sorry for him when he did this because I had become an AA member by then,and realised it wasn’t what he drank,but how much he drank that was giving him the grief.He unfortunately passed away since then through an infection that hospitalised him. If you are interested in quitting drinking this might be of interest.Living SoberThe blue link is to a free downloadable book,below are the first 3 chapters.01 About that titleEven the words "stay sober"—let alone live sober—offended many of us when we first heard such advice. Although we had done a lot of drinking, many of us never felt drunk, and were sure we almost never appeared or sounded drunk. Many of us never staggered, fell, or got thick tongues; many others were never disorderly, never missed a day at work, never had automobile accidents, and certainly were never hospitalized nor jailed for drunkenness. We knew lots of people who drank more than we did, and people who could not handle their drinks at all. We were not like that. So the suggestion that maybe we should "stay sober" was almost insulting. Besides, it seemed unnecessarily drastic. How could we live that way? Surely, there was nothing wrong with a cocktail or two at a business lunch or before dinner. Wasn't everyone entitled to relax with a few drinks, or have a couple of beers before going to bed? However, after we learned some of the facts about the illness called alcoholism, our opinions shifted. Our eyes have been opened to the fact that apparently millions of people have the disease of alcoholism. Medical science does not explain its "cause," but medical experts on alcoholism assure us that any drinking at all leads to trouble for the alcoholic, or problem, drinker. Our experience overwhelmingly confirms this. So not drinking at all—that is, staying sober—becomes the basis of recovery from alcoholism. And let it be emphasized: Living sober turns out to be not at all grim, boring, and uncomfortable, as we had feared, but rather something we begin to enjoy and find much more exciting than our drinking days. We'll show you how. Some questions often asked by new non drinkers— and pages that offer some answers What do I say and do at a drinking party? Should I keep liquor in the house? How do I explain to people why I'm not drinking now? What about sex? What about insomnia? What about drinking dreams? Should I go into bars? What can I do when I get lonely? As long as I'm happy, am I safe? Should I seek professional help? Is it necessary to give up old companions and habits? Why 'not drinking'? We members of Alcoholics Anonymous see the answer to that question when we look honestly at our own past lives. Our experience clearly proves that any drinking at all leads to serious trouble for the alcoholic, or problem drinker. In the words of the American Medical Association: Alcohol, aside from its addictive qualities, also has a psychological effect that modifies thinking and reasoning. One drink can change the thinking of an alcoholic so that he feels he can tolerate another, and then another, and another.... The alcoholic can learn to completely control his disease, but the affliction cannot be cured so that he can return to alcohol without adverse consequences.* From an official statement issued July 31, 1964 And we repeat: Somewhat to our surprise, staying sober turns out not to be the grim, wet-blanket experience we had expected! While we were drinking, a life without alcohol seemed like no life at all. But for most members of AA, living sober is really living—a joyous experience. We much prefer it to the troubles we had with drinking. One more note: anyone can get sober. We have all done it lots of times. The trick is to stay and to live sober. That is what this booklet is about1 Using this bookletThis booklet does not offer a plan for recovery from alcoholism. The Alcoholics Anonymous Steps that summarize its program of recovery are set forth in detail in the books Alcoholics Anonymous and Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions. Those Steps are not interpreted here, nor are the processes they cover discussed in this booklet. Here, we tell only some methods we have used for living without drinking. You are welcome to all of them, whether you are interested in Alcoholics Anonymous or not. Our drinking was connected with many habits—big and little. Some of them were thinking habits, or things we felt inside ourselves. Others were doing habits—things we did, actions we took. In getting used to not drinking, we have found that we needed new habits to take the place of those old ones. (For example, instead of taking that next drink—the one in your hand or the one you've been planning on—can you just postpone it until you read to the bottom of page 6? Sip some soda or fruit juice, instead of an alcoholic beverage, while you read. A little later, well explain more fully what's behind this change in habits.) After we spent a few months practicing these new, sober habits or ways of acting and thinking, they became almost second nature to most of us, as drinking used to be. Not drinking has become natural and easy, not a long, dreary struggle. These practical, hour-by-hour methods can easily be used at home, at work, or in social gatherings. Also included here are several things we have learned not to do, or to avoid. These were things that, we now see, once tempted us to drink or otherwise endangered our recovery. We think you'll find many or even all of the suggestions discussed here valuable in living sober, with comfort and ease. There is nothing significant about the order in which the booklet presents them. They can be rearranged in any way you like that works. Nor is this a complete listing. Practically every AA member you meet can give you at least one more good idea not mentioned here. And you will probably come up with brand-new ones that work for you. We hope you pass them on to others who can also profit by them. AA as a fellowship does not formally endorse nor recommend for all alcoholics every line of action included here. But each practice mentioned has proved useful to some members, and may be helpful to you. This booklet is planned as a handy manual for consulting from time to time, not something to be read straight through just once, then forgotten. Here are two cautions which have proved helpful:A. Keep an open mind. Perhaps some of the suggestions offered here will not appeal to you. If that is the case, we have found that, instead of rejecting them forever, it's a better idea to just set them aside for the time being. If we don't close our minds to them permanently, we can always go back later on and try out ideas we didn't like before—if we want to.For instance, some of us found that, in our initial non-drinking days, the suggestions and comradeship offered by an AA sponsor helped us greatly to stay sober. Others of us waited until we had visited many groups and met many AA's before we finally called on a sponsor's help. Some of us found formal prayer a strong aid in not drinking, while others fled from anything that suggested religion. But all of us are free to change our minds on these ideas later if we choose. Many of us found that the sooner we started work on the Twelve Steps offered as a program of recovery in the book "Alcoholics Anonymous," the better. Others of us felt the need to postpone this until we had been sober a little while. The point is, there is no prescribed AA "right" way or "wrong" way. Each of us uses what is best for himself or herself—without closing the door on other kinds of help we may find valuable at another time. And each of us tries to respect others' rights to do things differently. Sometimes, an AA member will talk about taking the various parts of the program in cafeteria style—selecting what he likes and letting alone what he does not want. Maybe others will come along and pick up the unwanted parts—or maybe that member himself will go back later and take some of the ideas he previously rejected. However, it is good to remember the temptation in a cafeteria to pick up nothing but a lot of desserts or starches or salads or some other food we particularly like. It serves as an important reminder to us to keep a balance in our lives. In recovering from alcoholism, we found that we needed a balanced diet of ideas, even if some of them did not look, at first, as enjoyable as others. Like good food, good ideas did us no good unless we made intelligent use of them. And that leads to our second caution.B. Use your common sense. We found that we have to use plain everyday intelligence in applying the suggestions that follow. Like almost any other ideas, the suggestions in this booklet can be misused. For example, take the notion of eating candy. Obviously, alcoholics with diabetes, obesity, or blood-sugar problems have had to find substitutes, so they would not endanger their health, yet could still get the benefit of the candy-eating idea in recovery from alcoholism. (Many nutritionists favor protein-rich snacks over sweets as a general practice.) Also, it's not good for anybody to overdo this remedy. We should eat balanced meals in addition to the candy. Another example is the use of the slogan "Easy Does It." Some of us have found that we could abuse this sensible notion, turning it into an excuse for tardiness, laziness, or rudeness. That is not, of course, what the slogan is intended for. Properly applied, it can be healing; misapplied, it can hinder our recovery. Some among us would add to it: "'Easy Does It'—but do it!" It's clear that we have to use our intelligence in following any advice. Every method described here needs to be used with good judgment. One more thing. AA does not pretend to offer scientific expertise on staying sober. We can share with you only our own personal experience, not professional theories and explanations. So these pages offer no new medical shortcuts on how to stop drinking if you are still doing it, nor any miraculous secrets for shortening or avoiding a hangover. Sometimes, getting sober can be done on your own at home; but frequently, prolonged drinking has caused such serious medical problems that you would be better advised to seek medical or hospital help for drying out. If you are that seriously ill, you may need such professional services before you can possibly be interested in what we offer here. Many of us who were not that sick, however, have sweated it out in the company of other AA. members. Because we have been through it ourselves, we can often help—in a layman's way—to relieve some of the misery and suffering. At least, we understand. We have been there. So this booklet is about not drinking (rather than about stopping drinking). It's about living sober. We have found that for us recovery began with not drinking—with getting sober and staying completely free of alcohol in any amount, and in any form. We have also found that we have to stay away from other mind-changing drugs. We can move toward a full and satisfying life only when we stay sober. Sobriety is the launching pad for our recovery. In a way, this booklet is about how to handle sobriety. (Before, we couldn't; so we drank).2 Staying away from the first drinkExpressions commonly heard in AA are "If you don't take that first drink, you can't get drunk" and "One drink is too many, but twenty are not enough." Many of us, when we first began to drink, never wanted or took more than one or two drinks. But as time went on, we increased the number. Then, in later years, we found ourselves drinking more and more, some of us getting and staying very drunk. Maybe our condition didn't always show in our speech or our gait, but by this time we were never actually sober. If that bothered us too much, we would cut down, or try to limit ourselves to just one or two, or switch from hard liquor to beer or wine. At least, we tried to limit the amount, so we would not get too disastrously tight Or we tried to hide how much we drank. But all these measures got more and more difficult Occasionally, we even went on the wagon, and did not drink at all for a while. Eventually, we would go back to drinking—just one (drink. And since that apparently did no serious damage, we felt it was safe to have another. Maybe that was all we took on that occasion, and it was a great relief to find we could take just one or two, then stop. Some of us did that many times. But the experience proved to be a snare. It persuaded us that we could drink safely. And then there would come the occasion (some special celebration, a personal loss, or no particular event at all) when two or three made us feel fine, so we thought one or two more could not hurt And with absolutely no intention of doing so, we found ourselves again drinking too much. We were right back where we had been— overdrinking without really wanting to. Such repeated experiences have forced us to this logically inescapable conclusion: If we do not take the first drink, we never get drunk. Therefore, instead of planning never to get drunk, or trying to limit the number of drinks or the amount of alcohol, we have learned to concentrate on avoiding only one drink: the first one. In effect, instead of worrying about limiting the number of drinks at the end of a drinking episode, we avoid the one drink that starts it. Sounds almost foolishly simplistic, doesn't it? It's hard for many of us now to believe that we never really figured this out for ourselves before we came to AA (Of course, to tell the truth, we never really wanted to give up drinking altogether, either, until we learned about alcoholism.) But the main point is: We know now that this is what works. Instead of trying to figure out how many we could handle—four?— six?—a dozen?—we remember, "Just don't pick up that first drink." It is so much simpler. The habit of thinking this way has helped hundreds of thousands of us stay sober for years. Doctors who are experts on alcoholism tell us that there is a sound medical foundation for avoiding the first drink. It is the first drink which triggers, immediately or some time later, the compulsion to drink more and more until we are in chinking trouble again. Many of us have come to believe that our alcoholism is an addiction to the drug alcohol; like addicts of any sort who want to maintain recovery, we have to keep away from the first dose of the drug we have become addicted to. Our experience seems to prove this, as you can read in the book "Alcoholics Anonymous" and in our Grapevine magazine, and as you can hear wherever AA members get together and share their experiences.