In earlier haste I neglected to respond to the meat of the post:

For example, how can it be said that some people are genetically inferior, if we do not understand the link between the state of wisdom and the state of lack of wisdom? In this regard, it cannot be. It is a gigantic leap..

Considering intellectual intelligence and all the other positive attributes I mentioned before, what combination of these qualities are necessarily required, if any, in order for the possibility of ever attaining spiritual wisdom to be honestly realistic? No idea, but certainly a combination and not any single one (even freakishly enhanced)

Is a quality of actual wisdom itself also passed on in a person's heredity, except not through their genetic heredity but their spiritual heredity (I know many posters on this forum subscribe to the notion of reincarnation)? As elements of wisdom have provable hereditary links, a base level of potential is certainly hereditary. Beyond this, the link is tenuous. Even in strictly biological terms, expression of genetic factors is often a consequence of environment. What do you mean by spiritual heredity? An essential quality passed down directly from biological ancestors or the spiritual awareness present within one's culture/heritage?

That is extremely unhealthy diesel. I would advise against repeating that. From my own experience, when ketosis kicks in you gain a certain clarity. That is the most desirable aspect of fasting for me; an induction of death, a triumph of will over biological prerogative. Do not harm yourself to do it though, that's just silly. Make sure you get micronutrients and at least some calories every few days.

great ideas. im already done with the first one. how often and for how long should one fast and deprive themselves though? i don't particularly want to develop any fucked up conditions or die of a heart attack.

I will take your question to be; how long should one fast to receive intellectual/spiritual benefit? An example that comes to mind is the Prophet Muhammad, whatever your views about what he fostered, the man was a thinker, at times an ascetic, and a great faster. In the spiritual traditions of the Sufis of India (also Islamic), there are accounts of people who would fast on alternate days, or for 3 months out of a year etc., obviously influenced by the example of Muhammad. The method of fasting is quite specific: Rise before sunrise, have some optional intake (water, a very, very light meal), then till sunset deprive yourself of all food, drink, sexual congress, drugs (including tobacco) and poor behaviour (hatred, spite, jealousy, envy, backbiting, whatever you consider to be unworthy in this vein). Meditate often. At sunset break the fast with another light meal/water. From experiencing it, it is effective, but you may tailor it to your requirements and preferences. It could be a useful example. Performing it with ritualistic deliberateness, with stated and felt intent, is also powerful and symbolic; adding to the benefit in my humble opinion.

From the perspective of your health, do not completely deprive yourself of calories for longer than 3-4 days. During the first few days of starvation, the body uses up its stores of glucose. After the 2nd/3rd day, breakdown of fatty tissue begins. If starvation continues however, over the course of just over a week the body begins to also use up its own protein. You certainly do not want your body metabolizing desirable protein (muscle) to generate energy. Let it subsist on fatty acids/ketone bodies. Fatty acids are breakdown products of stored fat which are metabolized for energy by almost all tissues of the body. However, the brain can only use either pure glucose or ketone bodies as a source of energy, its cells do not have the chemical mechanisms to use fatty acids. Ketone bodies are a byproduct of metabolism of fatty acids in the liver, they are three chemical compounds that can be thought of as slightly altered building blocks of fat. At about day 4 of starvation, ketone bodies account for ~70% of the energy that the brain receives. As I mentioned earlier, in my experience this produces a clarity of thought that is worth seeking.

The lines directed at diesel also apply. Cultivate thirst, but do not dehydrate yourself unnecessarily; get a good amount of water in you over the course of the day. Ketosis makes the blood acidic (reduces pH), and dehydration can exacerbate this effect. It is unlikely to be harmful unless you overdo it, but it does require the regulatory system in your kidneys that handles blood pH to work quite a bit.

Some traditions relating to fasting by the Prophet Muhammad:

-Narrated Muslim al-Qurashi: "I asked or someone asked the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) about perpetual fasting. He replied: You have a duty to your family. Fast during Ramadan and the following month, and every Wednesday and Thursday. You will then have observed a perpetual fast.  (Translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 13, Number 2426)"

-Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Al-'As: "Once Allah's Apostle came to me," and then he narrated the whole narration, i.e. your guest has a right on you, and your wife has a right on you. I then asked about the fasting of David. The Prophet replied, "Half of the year," (i.e. he used to fast on every alternate day).  (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 31, Number 195)"

I share your view. Merely possessing some absolute measure of intelligence means little. Some people just find it easier to think of things in terms of rigid quantification, perhaps the opposite idea gains traction that way. I do think that intellectual or academic intelligence (whatever you want to call it), is something that should be praised; partly just so that it may be allowed to refine itself. More relevant for pedagogy than a philosophical discourse anyway.

I don't agree with the notion expressed that "less wise" people absorb spiritual concepts very poorly. Rather, a lot of the mental "infrastructure" (in terms of learned things, experience) required to appreciate certain discourse is not naturally present, or remains uncultivated, in a portion of the population. If it is possible (and it is) to transmit the discourse, even using specifically crafted language, then some capability to understand must exist. This is more an argument for clarity of communication than for stratification of wisdom, but I do not deny the existence of a divide. They may not be able to appreciate them as easily, but essential truths beg to be expressed and understood.

isn't it perfectly plausible to hypothesize those who are the wisest often have the least success coping with modern society and thus develop the gravest psychological ailments and appear for all intents and purposes to be some of the least wise?

That's quite a series of hypotheses! Let's see. Those who are wisest often have the least success coping with modern society: Debateable, I would question a definition of wisdom that allowed for inability to cope with society. That must be an element of wisdom.
Those who have little success in coping with society develop psychological ailments: Credible, but what do you mean by psychological ailments specifically?
People who have little success in coping with society appear to be less wise: See first.

Parts of Sorcier des Glaces - Snowland might qualify. Brilliant stuff.

There is intelligence and worth everywhere if you look for it. To withdraw is not a sign of strength. I praise ascetics who avoid humanity so that they may delve deeper into their minds without distraction, but I do not praise the ones guided by misanthropy.

Travel and the internet have both been good tools for this, exposing me to a breadth of experience so that I may no longer deny the value in a great many things. Looking beyond surface layers is good (essential), but not if you get stuck 1 layer deep. If you truly cannot survive, leave. Migrate. Change the course of your life.

It's strange for me to see and read these experiences, I grew up in an environment where I was told even as a child that the modern world was a dysfunctional trap; this was a common view. Talking about the poor state of humanity is to people from the subcontinent like talking about weather.

To accept those innate qualities as the be-all end-all is exactly as nonsensical as to deny them completely. The problem of genius extends to both. Mutation is a part of Evolution.

Epigenetics also presents an interesting addition to what might be considered "innate" qualities

Marcus Pembrey and colleagues also observed in the Överkalix study that the paternal (but not maternal) grandsons [48] of Swedish men who were exposed during preadolescence to famine in the 19th century were less likely to die of cardiovascular disease; if food was plentiful then diabetes mortality in the grandchildren increased, suggesting that this was a transgenerational epigenetic inheritance.[49] The opposite effect was observed for females—the paternal (but not maternal) granddaughters of women who experienced famine while in the womb (and therefore while their eggs were being formed) lived shorter lives on average.

Epigenetic inheritance is the transmittance of information from one generation to the next that affects the traits of offspring without alteration of the primary structure of DNA (i.e., the sequence of nucleotides) or from environmental cues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_epigenetics

Non-genetic variation and inheritance is common, and is affected by the environment. Taking a cue from a discussion in another thread, environmentally heritable characteristics could present in ways such as a population being exposed to calorie overload; up-regulating or creating genetic patterns favoring storage of these calories (and hence obesity). Literally, making you prone to be fat even though your great-grandparents may be fine. Also a characteristic that later down-regulates in the absence of the environmental stimulus, sometimes within 3 generations. Be careful what you identify as innate.

Perhaps he simply believes that this is not an insurmountable variation. Not necessarily nonsensical.

The Intelligent vs. The Religious vs. The Political. It sounds a bit foolish phrased this way.

What are the proclivities of the intelligent men themselves? Can they not be religious, or of a political bent? This is another fool whose vision of the world is restricted to what surrounds him, seeing a fucked up world but applying a personal dogma to it. Quantifying human worth seems simple when you are naive, but when you actually meet people of worth who don't fit handily into a convenient grouping... what then? Can you truly speak this way when you cannot ever be certain that what you promote may be a great wrong? Let the weak die in the chaos? Even Mr. Saxon would cry out if his family and friends were judged similarly unworthy. And surely they would be, surely this is what he speaks of without understanding. You cannot ignore the individual and you cannot ignore basic humanity. These should be basic precepts no matter which solution appeals to you, no matter what ideology. Speak in terms of qualities that the best man should possess.

The words about individual security and betterment are truth and are appreciated, as are the ones about our impending doom.