The dark genius of Robert Lindsay

2 September 2008 by Mike Gogulski
Posted in people, philosophy | 25 Comments »

It’s one thing to discuss insane, inhuman philosophies. It’s quite another to encounter them, even through our diffuse online medium.

One Robert Lindsay, who claims an IQ of 147, responding to some comments of mine at his blog challenging his ridiculous assertion that anarchists and libertarians are racists, writes:

We Commies and socialists are the world’s greatest humanitarians. Stalin set a world record by doubling life expectancy in a country in the shortest period of time, a record that was unbroken until Mao broke it. Stalin and Mao are two of the greatest humanitarians that ever lived. They are life-savers. What kills is capitalism. [emphasis mine]

to which I reply:

Try telling that to the millions they murdered.


Yeah, people died under Stalin and Mao, but they both dramatically reduced the death rate. The death rate under Czarism was fully 3 times higher than under Stalin. Anyway, Stalin killed 1.6 million, not 110 million or whatever. Mao also dramatically reduced the death rate. There’s lots of ways to kill people, and the previous capitalist and feudalist regimes were killing far more than Stalin and Mao. These guys were the two greatest lifesavers that ever lived.

to which I responded:

Ah, the shades of evil. Even if we respect the anti-revisionist Stalin/Mao death counts here, to say that Stalin is somehow “better” than the Czarist monarchs for killing “only” 1.6 million people is to fall victim to false choice and forced options, or to adopt a utilitarian position which reduces human lives to mere numbers. Are we to say that Jeffrey Dahmer was “better” than Ted Bundy because he killed fewer people? Hardly. We rightly call both of them monsters. To call Stalin or Mao “humanitarians” for killing fewer millions than those who might have otherwise been in power is not only to twist words beyond all recognition of meaning but also to stand ready to defend the next tyrant intent on launching the next “great leap forward” up the side of a great mountain made of bloody, broken human corpses.

And Mr. Lindsay winds things up:

Wait a minute. You don’t get it. Stalin and Mao saved lives. They probably saved more lives than anyone in history. Lowering the death rate in your country is very important. They did this not be “killing fewer people” but by actually saving millions of lives though higher standard of living, improved diet, sanitation, health care, etc. Indian capitalism killed 170 million since 1949 by not going with the Chinese model of Communism. We’re not talking about “killing fewer people”. We’re talking about saving lives and giving the gift of life – time.


And some of those people Stalin killed got what they deserved! And a lot of those killed by Mao were the big landlords, and they were almost all horrible criminals. Mao didn’t kill them anyway, he just said that the villagers could put them on trial. The peasants hated them so much that they put many of them on trial, and in many cases, voted to convict and to execute them. Then the party carried out the peoples’ wishes. It’s pure people’s democracy – it’s not beaurocratic state murder or any of that.

Well, neat-o! I guess if the people wish it, that makes it okay, right? Yay, democracy!

For the sake of brevity, and in line with my inherent laziness, I’ll close simply with an observation that Mr. Lindsay reacted to by threatening expulsion from his blog-o-land. Politeness in the face of evil be damned.

(ignorance + flawed assumptions + ludicrous beliefs) x (your vaunted 147 IQ) = rank insanity

  1. 25 Responses to “The dark genius of Robert Lindsay”

  2. By Kent McManigal on 2 September 2008

    I was banned from his blog months ago for pointing out that he is a racist.

    He is also not able to discern the difference between evil and good. Or if he can, he prefers evil.

    High IQ does not guarantee an ethical outlook. My IQ tests about the same as his, but I prefer to avoid evil rather than embracing and praising it as he does. He shows us what kind of people we are up against.

  3. By Kent McManigal on 2 September 2008

    I also tend to wonder if that “increased life expectancy” took into account the people killed or if it ignored those when figuring the averages? Increasing the life expectancy of those who cooperate doesn’t really increase the average (or mean) life expectancy of the general population. I suspect the victims were ignored in the calculations.

  4. By Mike Gogulski on 2 September 2008

    Agreed on all counts, Kent. As for your last question, I really don’t care much. Even if the methodological approach were sound, the inhuman premise leads to awful conclusions.

  5. By Azraelsjudgement on 2 September 2008

    I went over there and after 5 minutes I was so creeped out I will never go back to his blog ever.

  6. By Cork on 3 September 2008

    This dude is pulling his statistics straight out of his ass.

    “Indian capitalism killed 170 million since 1949 by not going with the Chinese model of Communism.”

    “How many Blacks oppose civil rights laws and anti-discrimination laws? Almost zero.”


    Since he’s so concerned about all of this, why doesn’t he offer to give up his job to a black guy? He’s a racist hypocrite by own criteria.

  7. By Martin on 3 September 2008

    What a jackass is he?!!

  8. By Kent McManigal on 3 September 2008

    The problem is that apparently many people take him seriously and accept his twisted notions of what is or isn’t “racism”. That makes him a dangerous jackass.

  9. By scineram on 4 September 2008

    Should we kill him?

  10. By Mike Gogulski on 4 September 2008

    scineram: er, no…

  11. By Kent McManigal on 4 September 2008

    Let him live as an example to the world of how NOT to be. Ridicule, expose, neuter (figuratively), and “point and laugh”, but don’t become like him and his “rivers of blood”. Unless, of course, he tries to ACT upon his threats. Then all bets are off.

  12. By John Petrie on 5 September 2008

    1. Mike, I’m worried about you. Because as much as I admire all those Statists who read the Mises blag every day and offer their Statist viewpoint in the forums and get into long arguments with libertarians, there is no way it can be healthy for a sane and moral person like yourself to visit a web page like the one this guy runs. That is going WAY over the edge of educating Statists or understanding their viewpoint or playing Devil’s advocate to keep yourself sharp and honest… I mean, how did you ever find yourself reading his web page and thinking you ought to comment?

    2. For a while, before I got my web page, I would idly imagine creating an alias for myself and becoming a famous socialist or Christian fundamentalist writer (or both), and making nothing but specious, immoral, uninformed, and downright absurd arguments in favor of those philosophies, and seeing how many people voiced their agreement with me, and then coming out and saying I made all that crap up to be as stupid and immoral as possible, and those morans cheered on in agreement the whole time. And everyone would become libertarian.

    That’s what Robert Lindsay is doing, I’m pretty sure. He’s trying to make arguments that are as outlandishly wrong and hateful and inane as possible, to prove how wrong the socialist-communist “philosophy” really is.

  13. By Mike Gogulski on 5 September 2008

    John: Thanks for dropping by!

    To 1, don’t worry too much! I found myself over there after the guy came and injected the “anarchists=racists” line into a comments thread at Kent’s blog. On issue 2, really? I suppose that’s possible, but I hadn’t considered the idea that anyone would waste so much time in such manner. In any case, I won’t be in any big hurry to read him in the future.

  14. By scineram on 8 September 2008

    I do not think 2 is the case. That guy is not that smart.
    The IQ thing would be too transparent.

  15. By David on 6 September 2009

    Even IF Lindsay’s stats were accurate, and muderous dictators did succeed in extending net life expectancy of his sheep, what of it? Does a longer life expectancy mean someone is necessarily enjoying his LIFE? Living does not living happily and enjoying one’s life. The value of human life is precious, that any attempt to prolong it at the expense of liberty is tortuously evil. While my IQ hovers around 130, but to be cliche, it doesn’t take a genius to know what’s right.

  16. By David on 6 September 2009

    Wow. I slaughtered my post. Guess I should proofread before hitting ‘submit’!

    Another attempt:

    Even IF Lindsay’s stats were accurate, and muderous dictators did succeed in extending net life expectancy of his sheep, what of it? Does a longer life expectancy mean someone is necessarily enjoying his LIFE? ‘Living’ does not always mean ‘living happily’ and enjoying life. The value of human life is so precious that any attempt to prolong it at the expense of liberty is tortuously evil. My IQ hovers around 130, but to be cliche, it doesn’t take a genius to know what’s right.

    (I’m retaking that IQ test!)

  17. By Jason K Karamo on 20 September 2009

    Robert Lindsay appears to alieanate friends, cordial discussion,as well as logic. What makes Robert so incredibly sick, in an almost schizoid manner, is his pathological self-contradiction. One moment, he’s taking the side of a right wing white nationalist,the next the side of a marxist liberal. I told him that he was an absymal hypocrite and an intellectual coward, for refusing to debate logically with sound research anyone who disagreed with him. I told him this after he banned me for pointing out that he was a liberal racist. I don’t even believe that he has an IQ of 147, so to refer to this confused moron as a dark genius is to elevate him to a status that he is not even remotley worthy of.

  18. By Jen on 19 July 2012

    Thank you for this post. I came across his blog by accident and was upset to see so many men agreeing with him. I came across this blog desperately trying to find someone who thinks he is creepy and thankfully I did. The comments here have renewed my faith in humanity, (at least a portion of it anyway).

  19. By Mike Gogulski on 26 July 2012

    Eh, glad to help…

  20. By Tony on 5 August 2012

    Robert Lindsay supports a nude negro law, so that says it all.

  21. By Andracottus on 4 September 2012

    Its a very depressing scenario.

    That Joker gets exactly what he shouldn’t get—attention. There is a bunch of total retards around him all the time and quite a lot of normal guys fall right into their trap by needlessly opening their mouths.

    Mature and civilized people make the mistake of trying to reason with him. They get blocked, abused and he gets the last laugh and comes to look like a insuperable adept while he is actually a degenerate bitch.

    I have not once commented on any of his posts. Whats the point? That could be the best thing he could have—more and more people giving a shit about the HORSEHIT he spews.

    Thank you for this post.

  22. By duhasstmich on 21 July 2013

    His blog will be taken down shortly. Period.

  23. By Arvi on 28 September 2013

    I have a tested IQ of 145 and I don’t consider myself to be much smarter than most people. So, even if he did have that high IQ it probably just means he has above average spatial,verbal and numerical skills and does not imply he has higher reasoning skills. So, his IQ brag(claim?) is fairly meaningless. There’s far too much hate in some of his posts that reminds me of WN posts than something written by an objective intellectual. Probably best to avoid his blog in the future.

  24. By Masha Parakina on 19 March 2014

    I too dislike Robert Lindsay, regardless of how high he addresses himself, or what group he associates himself with. He has a tagline called “I distort. You deride.” These words may as well be a pithy note-to-(him)self, because he will openly deride if not block those who disagree with him/distort his “I-art-holier-than-thou know-it-all” character. Moreover, he wrote in a comment that he wants his site to be safe for viewers under 18, but he spews obscenities right through his proverbial safety net. Thus, there is any reason to conclude why I simply cannot stand people who think like Lindsay. You pretty much nailed it on the head with such an honest title, Mike. When it comes to dark creatures, there will always be witnesses.))

    Masha 🙂

  25. By Anonymous on 6 May 2015

    Who does Robert/Bob think that he is, the ruler of Earth? If I didn’t know better, I’d say that he’s just as bad as the people who he reviled.

  26. By Anonymous on 6 December 2016

    I’m back again and here to announce that Robert/Bob admits that he’s a racist and that he praises it. What a fuckin’ bigot he is. Not only that.

    Bob claimed that he loves the human race but supports racism. How hypocritical of him. A true racist would be totally misanthropic just as a true philanthrope would be against racism.

    Sadly, Rob’s websites haven’t been removed. As far as I’m concerned, he’s not a true introvert. Hell, he’s probably an antagonistic extrovert even though he claimed to be against extroverts.

    I find it highly ironic that Bob bans anyone who disagrees with him from his website but doesn’t seem to mind being prejudiced. Talk about hypocritical.

    Since I’m against him just as you folks are. maybe you can find one or more ways to unite against Rob.

    comments rss Comments RSS

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Core Dogma