james donalds 'political philosophy'
https://blog.jim.com/crypto/silk-road-2-0-goes-down/#comments 2014-11-09 at 21:29 jim says: "Consider Trayvon Martin. His abuse of over the counter drugs caused brain damage, resulting outbursts of irrational violence. But should we therefore ban Robitussin for everyone? No, we should only ban it for blacks. The kind of people who buy drugs on the Silk Road are not the kind of people who cause problems by their drug consumption. Superior people need freedom. Inferior people need supervision." I'll be waiting for any actual 'cypherpunk' or libertarian to shred donalds 'philosophy' to pieces. I think I'm going to wait a looong time.
On 2020-10-21 07:10, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
I'll be waiting for any actual 'cypherpunk' or libertarian to shred donalds 'philosophy' to pieces. I think I'm going to wait a looong time.
The libertarian justification for controls on recreational drug use is that drug abuse, vice, causes harmful externalities for third parties. But in fact, we observe most of the harmful externalities of speed and crack in black communities, and most of the harmful externalities of alcohol in native American communities. As a result there are no end of ingenious workarounds to provide selective restriction on the availability of alcohol in native American communities while maintaining lip service to equality before the law, and no end of ingenious workarounds to provide selective restriction on the availability of crack in black communities, to which ingenious workarounds progressives turn a blind eye.
From time to time, good progressives from Harvard notice what is going on, which noticing always leads to disaster.
We do not in fact have equality before the law, because actual equality before the law leads to intolerable consequences, because individuals, groups, and communities are not in fact equal, and require different laws.
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 15:28:04 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2020-10-21 07:10, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
I'll be waiting for any actual 'cypherpunk' or libertarian to shred donalds 'philosophy' to pieces. I think I'm going to wait a looong time.
The libertarian justification for controls on recreational drug use is that drug abuse, vice, causes harmful externalities for third parties.
DUDE! You are NOT a libertarian and what you have just vomited is more fascist nonsense. There is no libertarian 'justification' for violating personal rights. The idea that libertarians can 'justify' "controls on recreational drug use" is the kind of deranged nonsense that can only come from you. That is, if you're not just a retarded troll with nothing better to do.
As a result there are no end of ingenious workarounds to provide selective restriction on the availability of alcohol in native American communities while maintaining lip service to equality before the law,
correct, hypocritical fascism is the stock in trade of you, white-trash jew-kkkristian ameri-cunts. Tell me something I don't know?
We do not in fact have equality before the law,
because you are human garbage. Next. Now, I again invite any actual cypherpunk (james is obv. NOT in said category) to refute james' 'political philosophy'.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 04:07:27AM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 15:28:04 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2020-10-21 07:10, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
I'll be waiting for any actual 'cypherpunk' or libertarian to shred donalds 'philosophy' to pieces. I think I'm going to wait a looong time.
The libertarian justification for controls on recreational drug use is that drug abuse, vice, causes harmful externalities for third parties.
DUDE! You are NOT a libertarian and what you have just vomited is more fascist nonsense.
There is no libertarian 'justification' for violating personal rights.
This too sounds like it "should be obvious" :)
The idea that libertarians can 'justify' "controls on recreational drug use" is the kind of deranged nonsense that can only come from you. That is, if you're not just a retarded troll with nothing better to do.
As a result there are no end of ingenious workarounds to provide selective restriction on the availability of alcohol in native American communities while maintaining lip service to equality before the law,
correct, hypocritical fascism is the stock in trade of you, white-trash jew-kkkristian ameri-cunts. Tell me something I don't know?
We do not in fact have equality before the law,
because you are human garbage. Next.
Now, I again invite any actual cypherpunk (james is obv. NOT in said category) to refute james' 'political philosophy'.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 03:28:04PM +1000, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
We do not in fact have equality before the law, because actual equality before the law leads to intolerable consequences, because individuals, groups, and communities are not in fact equal, and require different laws.
Thank you for your clarity - to you your statement probably seems blindingly obvious, to me it seems that -should- have been obvious, but was not :)
We do not in fact have equality before the law, because actual equality before the law leads to intolerable consequences, because individuals, groups, and communities are not in fact equal, and require different laws.
No, this is handled by having multiple levels of jurisdiction, pushing the power to the people. If one city doesn't have the laws in your favor, you can move to another who does and see which set of laws help make a better city/county/state/nation/et cetera. \0xD
On Tuesday, October 20, 2020, 10:37:07 PM PDT, jamesd@echeque.com <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote: On 2020-10-21 07:10, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
I'll be waiting for any actual 'cypherpunk' or libertarian to shred donalds 'philosophy' to pieces. I think I'm going to wait a looong time. [snip]
We do not in fact have equality before the law, because actual equality before the law leads to intolerable consequences, because individuals, groups, and communities are not in fact equal, and require different laws.------------------------- Jim Bell's current Comment:The following is a recent draft that I had not yet completed and sent: -------------------About February 6, 2015, Michael Bloomberg gave a kinda-sorta-public speech in Colorado. This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bbjB3jVGRU&t=1794s may be it. I believe that he asked that it not be recorded, but the fact that the audio recording is here apparently resulted from someone sneakily doing just that. The audio is a bit weak, but it's there. The news item from that time said that Bloomberg had proposed that young racial minorities shouldn't be allowed to own guns, maybe younger than 30 years old. Google ' "bloomberg" young blacks guns ' He believed in that idea enough to state it out loud.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150213/bloombergs-comments-add-to-a-long-t... I was not surprised that Bloomberg BELIEVED this, but I was very surprised that he said it, more or less openly, out loud and in front of strangers. Clearly, this put others, gun-control advocates, into a major quandary. If those 'liberals', or 'progressives' actually BELIEVED that anti-gun nonsense, they ought to be in favor of measures that might actually save lives. But they don't, or at least their level of belief doesn't rise to the level of overcoming their loathing of 'discrimination', the idea that people are treated differently as a consequence of race. But are human lives less important than Political Correctness? This is somewhat of a self-inflicted version of the meme, "Islam is right about women". https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/09/26/the-genius-of-the-islam-is-right-ab... "First, they acknowledge – usually with irreducible simplicity – that something that went without saying a moment ago has suddenly become unsayable. Secondly, the outrage they provoke does not come from any epithet, caricature or insult, but rather from having the nerve to draw the viewer’s attention to an act of cognitive dissonance that we are all engaging in, but would rather not acknowledge." "The result is that those who attempt to explain why the act is offensive end up simply tying themselves in knots, while revealing that they have never given a moment’s thought to the position they find themselves defending. This seems to generate even more anger, with the inevitable online mob quickly joined by politicians, journalists and other public figures, eager to see that the heretic is made an example of." [end of quote] On Friday, October 16, 2020, 08:26:48 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote: On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 11:14:06PM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 11:30:24 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Given how vehemently, persistently (even "religiously") that "the left" targets the removal of guns, the removal of the second amendment, it looks to some like guns ARE a thawn in the side of the empire.
me:
I'll be waiting for any actual 'cypherpunk' or libertarian to shred donalds 'philosophy' to pieces. I think I'm going to wait a looong time.
donald:
We do not in fact have equality before the law, because actual equality before the law leads to intolerable consequences, because individuals, groups, and communities are not in fact equal, and require different laws
jim bell:
The news item from that time said that Bloomberg had proposed that young racial minorities shouldn't be allowed to own guns
So you're saying that james donald is as 'libertarian' as bloomberg?(meaning of course he's not libertarian at all), both going against the fundamental principle of equality before the law? By the way, the correct understanding of "equality before the law" is that no person has authority over any other person. And the very existence of any kind of state violates the principle of equality before the law.
On Wednesday, October 21, 2020, 01:06:03 PM PDT, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: me:
I'll be waiting for any actual 'cypherpunk' or libertarian to shred donalds 'philosophy' to pieces. I think I'm going to wait a looong time.
donald:
We do not in fact have equality before the law, because actual equality before the law leads to intolerable consequences, because individuals, groups, and communities are not in fact equal, and require different laws
jim bell:
The news item from that time said that Bloomberg had proposed that young racial minorities shouldn't be allowed to own guns
So you're saying that james donald is as 'libertarian' as bloomberg?(meaning of course he's not libertarian at all), both going against the fundamental principle of equality before the law?
No, I'm not. I was simply pointing out how some people resist the idea of having different laws for different people, even when other people claim there appears to be a need for it. . I had been aware of Bloomberg's amazing comment since just a few days after it occurred (about Feb 6, 2015) and I frequently cite it (and leftists' equally-clueless reactions to it) to expose their hypocrisies. It is quite useful. > By the way, the correct understanding of "equality before the law" is that no person has authority over any other person. I DON'T think that's the same thing.
And the very existence of any kind of state violates the principle of equality before the law. Well, I generally agree 'states' should not exist, but without 'states' that greatly changes the concept of 'laws', and 'equality'. Jim Bell
me:
I'll be waiting for any actual 'cypherpunk' or libertarian to shred donalds 'philosophy' to pieces. I think I'm going to wait a looong time.
donald:
We do not in fact have equality before the law, because actual equality before the law leads to intolerable consequences, because individuals, groups, and communities are not in fact equal, and require different laws
jim bell:
The news item from that time said that Bloomberg had proposed that young racial minorities shouldn't be allowed to own guns
So you're saying that james donald is as 'libertarian' as bloomberg?(meaning of course he's not libertarian at all), both going against the fundamental principle of equality before the law?
No, I'm not.
Ok. So, as expected (by me), you are not providing any libertarian criticism to the garbage donald spouts.
I was simply pointing out how some people resist the idea of having different laws for different people,
yes, the people who 'resist' that idea are the libertarians. So what point are you trying to make, exactly?
even when other people claim there appears to be a need for it. . I had been aware of Bloomberg's amazing comment since just a few days after it occurred (about Feb 6, 2015) and I frequently cite it (and leftists' equally-clueless reactions to it) to expose their hypocrisies. It is quite useful.
useful for what? If your point is not that bloomberg and donald are fascist twins, then what is your point?
> By the way, the correct understanding of "equality before the law" is that no person has authority over any other person.
I DON'T think that's the same thing.
yeah, so what.
And the very existence of any kind of state violates the principle of equality before the law.
Well, I generally agree 'states' should not exist, but without 'states' that greatly changes the concept of 'laws', and 'equality'.
no it doesn't, at all. The libertarian concepts of law and equality are completely independent of 'states', which are just criminal gangs. This is the ABC of libertarian philosophy, by-the-way. So, again, "I'll be waiting for any actual 'cypherpunk' or libertarian to shred donalds 'philosophy' to pieces. I think I'm going to wait a looong time."
Jim Bell
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 07:23:19PM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
me:
I'll be waiting for any actual 'cypherpunk' or libertarian to shred donalds 'philosophy' to pieces. I think I'm going to wait a looong time.
donald:
We do not in fact have equality before the law, because actual equality before the law leads to intolerable consequences, because individuals, groups, and communities are not in fact equal, and require different laws
jim bell:
The news item from that time said that Bloomberg had proposed that young racial minorities shouldn't be allowed to own guns
So you're saying that james donald is as 'libertarian' as bloomberg?(meaning of course he's not libertarian at all), both going against the fundamental principle of equality before the law?
No, I'm not.
Ok. So, as expected (by me), you are not providing any libertarian criticism to the garbage donald spouts.
I was simply pointing out how some people resist the idea of having different laws for different people,
yes, the people who 'resist' that idea are the libertarians. So what point are you trying to make, exactly?
There is an idea here, that say Black cities like Chicongo might find it in their interests to have different laws. If you manage to get ahold of say 1000 acres, "the laws" you choose to institute as Mayorof Juanville, may result in great economic success, but might result in Chicogoans collapsing horribly.
> By the way, the correct understanding of "equality before the law" is that no person has authority over any other person.
I DON'T think that's the same thing.
yeah, so what.
One can imagine Chicago gun shops agreeing to not sell guns to blacks younger than say 30 years old, or until they've got a Letter of Sanity from a community elder. It may be that young Blacks in this hypothetical Chicongo would find this "patriarchal fascism" utterly intolerable and collectively pack up their gear and all move to Juanville... for their freedom to buy guns.
And the very existence of any kind of state violates the principle of equality before the law.
Well, I generally agree 'states' should not exist, but without 'states' that greatly changes the concept of 'laws', and 'equality'.
no it doesn't, at all. The libertarian concepts of law and equality are completely independent of 'states', which are just criminal gangs. This is the ABC of libertarian philosophy, by-the-way.
So, again,
"I'll be waiting for any actual 'cypherpunk' or libertarian to shred donalds 'philosophy' to pieces. I think I'm going to wait a looong time."
I'm looking forward to seeing Juanville in real life :)
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 10:53:30AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 07:23:19PM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
me:
I'll be waiting for any actual 'cypherpunk' or libertarian to shred donalds 'philosophy' to pieces. I think I'm going to wait a looong time.
donald:
We do not in fact have equality before the law, because actual equality before the law leads to intolerable consequences, because individuals, groups, and communities are not in fact equal, and require different laws
jim bell:
The news item from that time said that Bloomberg had proposed that young racial minorities shouldn't be allowed to own guns
So you're saying that james donald is as 'libertarian' as bloomberg?(meaning of course he's not libertarian at all), both going against the fundamental principle of equality before the law?
No, I'm not.
Ok. So, as expected (by me), you are not providing any libertarian criticism to the garbage donald spouts.
I was simply pointing out how some people resist the idea of having different laws for different people,
yes, the people who 'resist' that idea are the libertarians. So what point are you trying to make, exactly?
There is an idea here, that say Black cities like Chicongo might find it in their interests to have different laws.
If you manage to get ahold of say 1000 acres, "the laws" you choose to institute as Mayorof Juanville, may result in great economic success, but might result in Chicogoans collapsing horribly.
> By the way, the correct understanding of "equality before the law" is that no person has authority over any other person.
I DON'T think that's the same thing.
yeah, so what.
One can imagine Chicago gun shops agreeing to not sell guns to blacks younger than say 30 years old, or until they've got a Letter of Sanity from a community elder.
It may be that young Blacks in this hypothetical Chicongo would find this "patriarchal fascism" utterly intolerable and collectively pack up their gear and all move to Juanville... for their freedom to buy guns.
Setting aside for a moment "where the money would come from", instead of California handing 'free cash' to Blacks: California City Begins Handing Out Free Cash To "Address Inequalities For Black People" https://www.zerohedge.com/political/california-city-begins-handing-out-free-... perhaps they should just hand out 'free guns' - the stats show this would solve a lot of the black crime problem, since they mostly shoot each other with those guns - all dedicated "White nationalists" would presumably celebrate at such a policy and do their best to cover up the few "broken eggs" of slightly increased White deaths which also results... Those who don't act like immature babies and instead claim facts as they be, ultimately have an advantage... (Please note I am NOT advocating for such policies which would likely result in such acceleration of "self selected intra-group ethnic darwinism", this is merely a hypothetical.)
And the very existence of any kind of state violates the principle of equality before the law.
Well, I generally agree 'states' should not exist, but without 'states' that greatly changes the concept of 'laws', and 'equality'.
no it doesn't, at all. The libertarian concepts of law and equality are completely independent of 'states', which are just criminal gangs. This is the ABC of libertarian philosophy, by-the-way.
So, again,
"I'll be waiting for any actual 'cypherpunk' or libertarian to shred donalds 'philosophy' to pieces. I think I'm going to wait a looong time."
I'm looking forward to seeing Juanville in real life :)
I was simply pointing out how some people resist the idea of having different laws for different people,
Bat Soup:
yes, the people who 'resist' that idea are the libertarians. So what point are you trying to make, exactly?
You redefine libertarianism as progressivism. You are probably also on a Christian mailing list where you claim to be a Christian and redefine Christianity as progressivism, and on an antisemitism mailing list where you claim to be an anti Semite and redefine antisemitism as progressivism. The libertarian position on law is that there should be more private law and less state law, the anarcho capitalist position being that all of it should be private law, and private law is never equal.
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:17:09 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
The libertarian position on law is that there should be more private law and less state law,
no, that's the conservative/fascist/fake libertarian position. the libertarian position is that 'law' == personal rights. Law is not something a bunch of 'private' scumbags make up. The libertarian position is that personal rights are the only rights, and that states can't exist because a state by defintion violates personal rights. The libertarian position is not less state laws. It is : NO state 'laws'.
the anarcho capitalist position being that all of it should be private law, and private law is never equal.
there's no such thing as narcho capitalism. Now, as is to be expected, nobody is calling out this piece of shit donald as a KKK member. What a surprise.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 09:42:46PM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:17:09 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
The libertarian position on law is that there should be more private law and less state law,
no, that's the conservative/fascist/fake libertarian position.
the libertarian position is that 'law' == personal rights. Law is not something a bunch of 'private' scumbags make up.
The libertarian position is that personal rights are the only rights, and that states can't exist because a state by defintion violates personal rights. The libertarian position is not less state laws. It is : NO state 'laws'.
Including the "right to contract", that is, to create "private law".
the anarcho capitalist position being that all of it should be private law, and private law is never equal.
there's no such thing as narcho capitalism.
afaict, you're trying to say private law (private contracts) would not exist, or are not part of anarchism which is absurd. If instead all you're saying is that "anarcho capitalism" is a useless term, well it may be true that it adds little to nothing over the term anarchy/ anarchism, except perhaps to help educate people.
Now, as is to be expected, nobody is calling out this piece of shit donald as a KKK member. What a surprise.
That's quite a demon you have in you Juan.
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 13:09:27 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 09:42:46PM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:17:09 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
The libertarian position on law is that there should be more private law and less state law,
no, that's the conservative/fascist/fake libertarian position.
the libertarian position is that 'law' == personal rights. Law is not something a bunch of 'private' scumbags make up.
The libertarian position is that personal rights are the only rights, and that states can't exist because a state by defintion violates personal rights. The libertarian position is not less state laws. It is : NO state 'laws'.
Including the "right to contract", that is, to create "private law".
contracts are not 'private law'. A contract is an agreement and it stops existing the the moment the parties stop 'agreeing'.
the anarcho capitalist position being that all of it should be private law, and private law is never equal.
there's no such thing as narcho capitalism.
afaict, you're trying to say private law (private contracts) would not exist, or are not part of anarchism which is absurd.
contracts are not 'private law'.
If instead all you're saying is that "anarcho capitalism" is a useless term, well it may be true that it adds little to nothing over the term anarchy/ anarchism, except perhaps to help educate people.
actually I should rephrase : 'anarcho capitalism' is jargon used by conservative fascists posing as libertarians. it's a mockery of liberal anarchism. Narcho capitalists want the world to be ruled by google, the catholic church and the like, because according to them those criminals are 'private' and can create....'private laws'.
Now, as is to be expected, nobody is calling out this piece of shit donald as a KKK member. What a surprise.
That's quite a demon you have in you Juan.
On 2020-10-22 05:05, jim bell wrote:
On Tuesday, October 20, 2020, 10:37:07 PM PDT, jamesd@echeque.com <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On 2020-10-21 07:10, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
I'll be waiting for any actual 'cypherpunk' or libertarian to shred donalds 'philosophy' to pieces. I think I'm going to wait a looong time. [snip]
We do not in fact have equality before the law, because actual equality before the law leads to intolerable consequences, because individuals, groups, and communities are not in fact equal, and require different laws.------------------------- Jim Bell's current Comment:The following is a recent draft that I had not yet completed and sent: -------------------About February 6, 2015, Michael Bloomberg gave a kinda-sorta-public speech in Colorado. This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bbjB3jVGRU&t=1794s may be it. I believe that he asked that it not be recorded, but the fact that the audio recording is here apparently resulted from someone sneakily doing just that. The audio is a bit weak, but it's there. The news item from that time said that Bloomberg had proposed that young racial minorities shouldn't be allowed to own guns, maybe younger than 30 years old. Google ' "bloomberg" young blacks guns ' He believed in that idea enough to state it out loud.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150213/bloombergs-comments-add-to-a-long-t...
I was not surprised that Bloomberg BELIEVED this, but I was very surprised that he said it, more or less openly, out loud and in front of strangers. Clearly, this put others, gun-control advocates, into a major quandary. If those 'liberals', or 'progressives' actually BELIEVED that anti-gun nonsense, they ought to be in favor of measures that might actually save lives. But they don't, or at least their level of belief doesn't rise to the level of overcoming their loathing of 'discrimination', the idea that people are treated differently as a consequence of race. But are human lives less important than Political Correctness?
This is somewhat of a self-inflicted version of the meme, "Islam is right about women". https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/09/26/the-genius-of-the-islam-is-right-ab...
"First, they acknowledge – usually with irreducible simplicity – that something that went without saying a moment ago has suddenly become unsayable. Secondly, the outrage they provoke does not come from any epithet, caricature or insult, but rather from having the nerve to draw the viewer’s attention to an act of cognitive dissonance that we are all engaging in, but would rather not acknowledge." "The result is that those who attempt to explain why the act is offensive end up simply tying themselves in knots, while revealing that they have never given a moment’s thought to the position they find themselves defending. This seems to generate even more anger, with the inevitable online mob quickly joined by politicians, journalists and other public figures, eager to see that the heretic is made an example of." [end of quote]
I am pretty sure the great majority of blacks would inwardly want a gun law specifically on blacks such as Bloomberg proposed, and a lot of them would be so politically incorrect as to outwardly favor it. The majority of blacks favor laws on crack cocaine that clearly have, and are clearly intended to have, disparate impact, and native Americans support laws on alcohol that are barely wearing a fig leaf to disguise their racial character.
On Oct 21, 2020, at 19:35, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
I am pretty sure the great majority of blacks would inwardly want a gun law specifically on blacks such as Bloomberg proposed, and a lot of them would be so politically incorrect as to outwardly favor it.
I'm pretty sure you are brain damaged.
The majority of blacks favor laws on crack cocaine that clearly have, and are clearly intended to have, disparate impact, and native Americans support laws on alcohol that are barely wearing a fig leaf to disguise their racial character.
Do you have anything to back up either of those statements? You think blacks support laws that lock them up 2 or 3 or 4x as long for the same fucking drug by weight (active ingredient *cocaine* hydrochloride vs *cocaine* & baking soda)? I doubt it. However, in that same vein you never let go, your supposed racial lessers tendency towards *self-destruction* (a vein long mined, but still registering, blood rushing in thick and dark!) - fact-free bigots like yourself have ensured your own *self-destruction*, made sure you will always be fringe morons, good for a laugh, easily riled up, and of zero consequence. Your outspoken, outlandish, fucking disgusting beliefs aren't trendy, they're grotesque, and they aren't catching on. You support such a wide array of backwards takes on social issues - on things like gender equality, race equality, on daddy beating the fuck out of mommy for ..er .. cuz James believes in a patriarchy! Indeed, I've always thought the right wing "christian/European", as he gets more and more extreme, curves back in towards the equally socially backwards and extreme "muslim/Arab", where they (you and your muslim doppelgänger) can meet, astonished to find someone else who believes in essentially the same social mores, customs unchanged for 1000+ year-old. The astonishment comes because its fringe fucking lunatic nonsense. Maybe you can find a high-dollar hooker, James, or a few of them, that will let you play out your fantasy of life in the Maghreb 1200 years ago. Somehow I doubt even this would make you happy. You don't seem the type for happiness. -- John jnn@synfin.org jnn@cachedout.net
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 08:41:11PM -0500, John Newman wrote:
On Oct 21, 2020, at 19:35, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
I am pretty sure the great majority of blacks would inwardly want a gun law specifically on blacks such as Bloomberg proposed, and a lot of them would be so politically incorrect as to outwardly favor it.
I'm pretty sure you are brain damaged.
The majority of blacks favor laws on crack cocaine that clearly have, and are clearly intended to have, disparate impact, and native Americans support laws on alcohol that are barely wearing a fig leaf to disguise their racial character.
Do you have anything to back up either of those statements? You think blacks support laws that lock them up 2 or 3 or 4x as long for the same fucking drug by weight (active ingredient *cocaine* hydrochloride vs *cocaine* & baking soda)?
I doubt it.
However, in that same vein you never let go, your supposed racial lessers tendency towards *self-destruction* (a vein long mined, but still registering, blood rushing in thick and dark!) - fact-free bigots like yourself have ensured your own *self-destruction*, made sure you will always be fringe morons, good for a laugh, easily riled up, and of zero consequence. Your outspoken, outlandish, fucking disgusting beliefs aren't trendy, they're grotesque, and they aren't catching on.
You support such a wide array of backwards takes on social issues - on things like gender equality,
This might be one out of the box for you John, but the two sexes are actually different.
race equality,
And again, we get this is likely a radical concept, but actually the races are different, with different characteristics and different aptitudes - I am simply never going to out-marathon an equivalent Nigerian, given similar training.
on daddy beating the fuck out of mommy for ..er .. cuz James believes in a patriarchy!
Extra extra! Read all about it! Newman's matriarchy is about to take over the world...
Indeed, I've always thought the right wing "christian/European", as he gets more and more extreme, curves back in towards the equally socially backwards and extreme "muslim/Arab", where they (you and your muslim doppelgänger) can meet, astonished to find someone else who believes in essentially the same social mores, customs unchanged for 1000+ year-old. The astonishment comes because its fringe fucking lunatic nonsense.
Except, Islam is Right about women. So who's fringe now? Ha!
Maybe you can find a high-dollar hooker, James, or a few of them, that will let you play out your fantasy of life in the Maghreb 1200 years ago. Somehow I doubt even this would make you happy. You don't seem the type for happiness.
I can only imagine, but sorry to say but I don't think you're his type. Nice try though.
On Oct 21, 2020, at 21:25, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 08:41:11PM -0500, John Newman wrote:
On Oct 21, 2020, at 19:35, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
I am pretty sure the great majority of blacks would inwardly want a gun law specifically on blacks such as Bloomberg proposed, and a lot of them would be so politically incorrect as to outwardly favor it.
I'm pretty sure you are brain damaged.
The majority of blacks favor laws on crack cocaine that clearly have, and are clearly intended to have, disparate impact, and native Americans support laws on alcohol that are barely wearing a fig leaf to disguise their racial character.
Do you have anything to back up either of those statements? You think blacks support laws that lock them up 2 or 3 or 4x as long for the same fucking drug by weight (active ingredient *cocaine* hydrochloride vs *cocaine* & baking soda)?
I doubt it.
However, in that same vein you never let go, your supposed racial lessers tendency towards *self-destruction* (a vein long mined, but still registering, blood rushing in thick and dark!) - fact-free bigots like yourself have ensured your own *self-destruction*, made sure you will always be fringe morons, good for a laugh, easily riled up, and of zero consequence. Your outspoken, outlandish, fucking disgusting beliefs aren't trendy, they're grotesque, and they aren't catching on.
You support such a wide array of backwards takes on social issues - on things like gender equality,
This might be one out of the box for you John, but the two sexes are actually different.
The differences between the sexes, Z*vomit*, does not mean one (the male, of which you at least pretend to be a member) should continue to rape, beat, murder, and otherwise do what the fuck ever, just because. Equality of potential, equality under the "legal system", freedom from de-facto rule by the nearest and strongest man - obviously this is what I meant.
race equality,
And again, we get this is likely a radical concept, but actually the races are different, with different characteristics and different aptitudes - I am simply never going to out-marathon an equivalent Nigerian, given similar training.
Who is the "we" here? You and James? In any case - you're right! Races are different. But not the way you think.. https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/race-is-real-but-its-not-genet... https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-af... https://www.sapiens.org/biology/is-race-real/ Difference beyond a few superficial things in race is due to nurture, not nature. African and native american home countries were systematically exploited, plundered, exterminated, subjugated for slavery, etc, etc (its in even the history books you read) for hundreds of years (and still are). It's no surprise you can point to the fact that they haven't stood back up from their beating yet. I know your lot don't like to acknowledge actual factual, researched science, so I'm not going to keep on going here...
on daddy beating the fuck out of mommy for ..er .. cuz James believes in a patriarchy!
Extra extra! Read all about it! Newman's matriarchy is about to take over the world...
Lol. You're a fucking idiot.
Indeed, I've always thought the right wing "christian/European", as he gets more and more extreme, curves back in towards the equally socially backwards and extreme "muslim/Arab", where they (you and your muslim doppelgänger) can meet, astonished to find someone else who believes in essentially the same social mores, customs unchanged for 1000+ year-old. The astonishment comes because its fringe fucking lunatic nonsense.
Except, Islam is Right about women. So who's fringe now? Ha!
Maybe you can find a high-dollar hooker, James, or a few of them, that will let you play out your fantasy of life in the Maghreb 1200 years ago. Somehow I doubt even this would make you happy. You don't seem the type for happiness.
I can only imagine, but sorry to say but I don't think you're his type.
Nice try though.
Yeah, har-har. Don't worry dude, you'll lose that cherry some day. Lol, just kidding, you fucking noxious freak.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 10:39:19PM -0500, John Newman wrote:
On Oct 21, 2020, at 21:25, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 08:41:11PM -0500, John Newman wrote:
On Oct 21, 2020, at 19:35, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
I am pretty sure the great majority of blacks would inwardly want a gun law specifically on blacks such as Bloomberg proposed, and a lot of them would be so politically incorrect as to outwardly favor it.
I'm pretty sure you are brain damaged.
The majority of blacks favor laws on crack cocaine that clearly have, and are clearly intended to have, disparate impact, and native Americans support laws on alcohol that are barely wearing a fig leaf to disguise their racial character.
Do you have anything to back up either of those statements? You think blacks support laws that lock them up 2 or 3 or 4x as long for the same fucking drug by weight (active ingredient *cocaine* hydrochloride vs *cocaine* & baking soda)?
I doubt it.
However, in that same vein you never let go, your supposed racial lessers tendency towards *self-destruction* (a vein long mined, but still registering, blood rushing in thick and dark!) - fact-free bigots like yourself have ensured your own *self-destruction*, made sure you will always be fringe morons, good for a laugh, easily riled up, and of zero consequence. Your outspoken, outlandish, fucking disgusting beliefs aren't trendy, they're grotesque, and they aren't catching on.
You support such a wide array of backwards takes on social issues - on things like gender equality,
This might be one out of the box for you John, but the two sexes are actually different.
The differences between the sexes, Z*vomit*, does not mean one (the male, of which you at least pretend to be a member) should continue to rape, beat, murder, and otherwise do what the fuck ever, just because. Equality of potential, equality under the "legal system", freedom from de-facto rule by the nearest and strongest man - obviously this is what I meant.
Your clarification is noted, including your vomit :D
race equality,
And again, we get this is likely a radical concept, but actually the races are different, with different characteristics and different aptitudes - I am simply never going to out-marathon an equivalent Nigerian, given similar training.
Who is the "we" here? You and James? In any case - you're right! Races are different. But not the way you think..
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/race-is-real-but-its-not-genet... https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-af... https://www.sapiens.org/biology/is-race-real/
Difference beyond a few superficial things in race is due to nurture, not nature.
Actually, that is not true. You cannot nurture IQ into existence - to some degree, education can "increase" apparent IQ, but to use an analogy, you can only bore out the cylinders so much before the engine will fail in one way or another - the IQ baseline is inherently genetic. "The left", who love to deny reality, ignore this fact, to pretend it aint so and the world is a big ole ball o cotton wool, just not cotton picked by blacks :)
African and native american home countries were systematically exploited, plundered, exterminated, subjugated for slavery, etc, etc (its in even the history books you read) for hundreds of years (and still are). It's no surprise you can point to the fact that they haven't stood back up from their beating yet.
Your framing is ridiculous - the Australian "Aborigines" (actually Southern Indians wha literally ethnically cleansed the actual original Polynesian Australian natives) "exploited" Australia, and never invented the wheel. So what? Evil exists within humans. It is to the individual to cast aside the evil within, to live better. Your "lefty" intention to hold Whites of today to reparation for misdeeds of past generations, but to not hold other "Races" to the same standard, is demonic, and destructive of White communities (which is another demonic intention) and of White built "civilization". Some people say there are "sufficient historical grounds" to destroy "modern civilization", but that is an evil position to take in practice - the majority of White people are good people, and I shall continue to defend good people.
I know your lot don't like to acknowledge actual factual, researched science, so I'm not going to keep on going here...
Oh yes you will...
on daddy beating the fuck out of mommy for ..er .. cuz James believes in a patriarchy!
Extra extra! Read all about it! Newman's matriarchy is about to take over the world...
Lol. You're a fucking idiot.
My what sophisticated arguments you have there Mr Wolf..
Indeed, I've always thought the right wing "christian/European", as he gets more and more extreme, curves back in towards the equally socially backwards and extreme "muslim/Arab", where they (you and your muslim doppelgänger) can meet, astonished to find someone else who believes in essentially the same social mores, customs unchanged for 1000+ year-old. The astonishment comes because its fringe fucking lunatic nonsense.
Except, Islam is Right about women. So who's fringe now? Ha!
Maybe you can find a high-dollar hooker, James, or a few of them, that will let you play out your fantasy of life in the Maghreb 1200 years ago. Somehow I doubt even this would make you happy. You don't seem the type for happiness.
I can only imagine, but sorry to say but I don't think you're his type.
Nice try though.
Yeah, har-har. Don't worry dude, you'll lose that cherry some day. Lol, just kidding, you fucking noxious freak.
Ad-homs do appear to be a forte of yours.
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:54:12 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
You cannot nurture IQ into existence -
'IQ' is pseudo scientific bullshit. The fundamental fact is that morality has fuck to do with being clever or good at math. Clever people can be evil as fuck and 'dumb' people can be honest(or not) just like the 'elites'. If anything 'clever' people are more likely to be assholes.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 03:54:36AM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:54:12 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
You cannot nurture IQ into existence -
'IQ' is pseudo scientific bullshit. The fundamental fact is that morality has fuck to do with being clever or good at math. Clever people can be evil as fuck and 'dumb' people can be honest(or not) just like the 'elites'. If anything 'clever' people are more likely to be assholes.
Although it certaily seemc true that morality has nothing to with IQ, that's irrelevant to the point here: that there are genetic "racial" based differences. John wants to pretend those differences don't exist, and to the extent he believes his own rubbish, he is in practice at a disadvantage, but in t/his case I'm pretty sure it's merely political chicanery on his part (that is, that "even he doesn't believe the bullshit he types up").
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 18:08:07 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 03:54:36AM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:54:12 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
You cannot nurture IQ into existence -
'IQ' is pseudo scientific bullshit. The fundamental fact is that morality has fuck to do with being clever or good at math. Clever people can be evil as fuck and 'dumb' people can be honest(or not) just like the 'elites'. If anything 'clever' people are more likely to be assholes.
Although it certaily seemc true that morality has nothing to with IQ, that's irrelevant to the point here: that there are genetic "racial" based differences.
skin color is completely irrelevant for morality/politics, just like 'IQ'.
John wants to pretend those differences don't exist, and to the extent he believes his own rubbish, he is in practice at a disadvantage, but in t/his case I'm pretty sure it's merely political chicanery on his part (that is, that "even he doesn't believe the bullshit he types up").
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 05:06:10AM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 18:08:07 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 03:54:36AM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:54:12 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
You cannot nurture IQ into existence -
'IQ' is pseudo scientific bullshit. The fundamental fact is that morality has fuck to do with being clever or good at math. Clever people can be evil as fuck and 'dumb' people can be honest(or not) just like the 'elites'. If anything 'clever' people are more likely to be assholes.
Although it certaily seemc true that morality has nothing to with IQ, that's irrelevant to the point here: that there are genetic "racial" based differences.
skin color is completely irrelevant for morality/politics, just like 'IQ'.
Keep arguing an unrelated point I see :) Anyway, on the point at issue, IQ is at least 50% correlated with genetics: https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/traits/intelligence/ Many studies rely on a measure of intelligence called the intelligence quotient (IQ). Researchers have conducted many studies to look for genes that influence intelligence. ... These studies suggest that genetic factors underlie about 50 percent of the difference in intelligence among individuals.
John wants to pretend those differences don't exist, and to the extent he believes his own rubbish, he is in practice at a disadvantage, but in t/his case I'm pretty sure it's merely political chicanery on his part (that is, that "even he doesn't believe the bullshit he types up").
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 19:33:18 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
skin color is completely irrelevant for morality/politics, just like 'IQ'.
Keep arguing an unrelated point I see :)
unrelated to what? This 'thread' was about how KKK members like donald pose as 'libertarian' 'cypherpunks' and how other 'cypherpunks' don't care or are actually the same as donald.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 04:04:35PM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 19:33:18 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
skin color is completely irrelevant for morality/politics, just like 'IQ'.
Keep arguing an unrelated point I see :)
unrelated to what? This 'thread' was about how KKK members like donald pose as 'libertarian' 'cypherpunks' and how other 'cypherpunks' don't care or are actually the same as donald.
It was not properly responsive to what I'd said/ my point. Yes the thread is started by you and mainly covers what you started talking about, but there was a sub-thread about IQ being related to genetics and IS therefore "race" based. This is, as Jordan Peterson has pointed out, very significant.
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 10:44:16 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 04:04:35PM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 19:33:18 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
skin color is completely irrelevant for morality/politics, just like 'IQ'.
Keep arguing an unrelated point I see :)
unrelated to what? This 'thread' was about how KKK members like donald pose as 'libertarian' 'cypherpunks' and how other 'cypherpunks' don't care or are actually the same as donald.
It was not properly responsive to what I'd said/ my point. Yes the thread is started by you and mainly covers what you started talking about, but there was a sub-thread about IQ being related to genetics and IS therefore "race" based.
Sorry I don't care about your racist nonsense. The concept of 'race' is based on some irrelevant traits like skin color and details about shape, and it's useless for any serious discussion about politics. Except of course for KKK members like donald and friends. Now, by pretending to discuss 'race' and 'IQ' in 'scientific' terms you're showing you're just the typical pseudo scientific charlatan who use 'science' as an excuse to push his totalitarian garbage. Exactly like, say, the fucking assholes behind the 'covid' PSYOP.
This is, as Jordan Peterson has pointed out, very significant.
LMAO. Can't you do better than that?
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 09:37:48PM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
The concept of 'race' is .. useless for any serious discussion about politics.
Your position that IQ is useless to any serious discussion about politics, is in dispute.
Now, by pretending to discuss 'race' and 'IQ' in 'scientific' terms you're showing you're just the typical pseudo scientific charlatan who use 'science' as an excuse to push his totalitarian garbage.
Your inability to see important connections between IQ and politics (/socio-political matters) does not make the significance/relevance disappear.
This is, as Jordan Peterson has pointed out, very significant.
LMAO. Can't you do better than that?
You don't listen to JP, it appears you cannot stand him in fact, so you wouldn't know now, would you?
On 2020-10-23 10:37, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
Sorry I don't care about your racist nonsense. The concept of 'race' is based on some irrelevant traits like skin color and details about shape, and it's useless for any serious discussion about politics. Except of course for KKK members like donald and friends.
Race is based on ancestry - different groups have different evolutionary histories, resulting in important inward differences. Some of the descendants of the common ancestor of chimp and man remained in an environment very similar to that of chimps, and were in consequence subject to less evolutionary pressure to make them into a creature very different from a chimp. Some of the descendants of the common ancestor of chimp and man headed north, a long way north, and eventually inland, and adapted to extremely cold winters and large changes in seasonal availability of food, not by changing physically, but by changing mentally - making much higher use stored food, shelter, clothing, and tools. This required higher levels of forethought and more extended cooperation than was required in Africa. The important difference is not the skin, it is what is inside.
On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 04:25:51PM +1000, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2020-10-23 10:37, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
Sorry I don't care about your racist nonsense. The concept of 'race' is based on some irrelevant traits like skin color and details about shape, and it's useless for any serious discussion about politics. Except of course for KKK members like donald and friends.
Race is based on ancestry - different groups have different evolutionary histories, resulting in important inward differences.
Some of the descendants of the common ancestor of chimp and man remained in an environment very similar to that of chimps, and were in consequence subject to less evolutionary pressure to make them into a creature very different from a chimp.
Some of the descendants of the common ancestor of chimp and man headed north, a long way north, and eventually inland, and adapted to extremely cold winters and large changes in seasonal availability of food, not by changing physically, but by changing mentally - making much higher use stored food, shelter, clothing, and tools.
This required higher levels of forethought and more extended cooperation than was required in Africa.
The important difference is not the skin, it is what is inside.
Also Rhesus negative blood types (global minority) are a different species, unexplained by "science". Fallen Angels. Rhesus negative females reject Rhesus positive fetus (without anti-rejection drugs) - different species. We are not taught. Miscegenation ("brownification", reducing biological diversity) is agenda for a reason - destroy latent capacity, reduce competition at top of the blue blood pyramid. Giants of yore, photos online, Noah's flood. Know yourself. Align with the Creator's will, tune yourself, you are an aerial, and a voice.
On 2020-10-22 18:06, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
skin color is completely irrelevant for morality/politics, just like 'IQ'.
What is moral depends on one's reasonable and realistic predictions of other people's behavior. For example under some circumstances it is right to kill a stranger on your property on sight, under other circumstances very wrong. Race is a startlingly reliable predictor of other people's behavior.
Evil exists within humans. It is to the individual to cast aside the evil within, to live better.
Step one, evil is within, and as usual the question for each individual is which actions he chooses in the face of both internal and external evil. By the Blessing of my Creator, I was born with a conscience. By my conscience, I know good from evil. I choose to do good, and not evil. I humbly stand for the righteous, In the name of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Here's a write up which some might find a little more palatable: WHAT YOU CALL “FUN” IS THE POINT OF EXISTENCE. THE GOAL OF EVERY SOUL IS IDENTICAL; EVERY SOUL THROUGHOUT CREATION WANTS TO BE HAPPY. https://thegalacticfederation.com/123aa Allow us to be frank with you – why does evil exist, you ask? Because it's fun to be evil. Yes, it's fun to have friends to share life and joys with, but it can also be fun to have enemies to fight and win victorious battles against. What you call “fun” is the point of existence. The goal of every soul is identical; every soul throughout Creation wants to be happy. However, there are many ways to achieve happiness (pleasure). It is not always achieved in a sharing manner; it can be achieved through acts of selfishness and greed as well, by exalting yourself at someone else’s expense. Positive realities are based on mutual pleasure for everyone involved; one for all. Negative realities are based on pleasure only for the winner or superior; all for one. This is true in your reality, yes? You have collectively created a reality in which only one percent of the population is afforded an abundance of power and freedom while the majority is left in poverty and all manner of ruins. ... In need of a Soul tuning? Consider sound, the very foundation of this marvellous creation within which we be: These are 1hr plus, so consider downloading just the audio, e.g. using the youtube-dl program on the command line: youtube-dl https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EfOLkRJ4-8 -f140 To see the available formats, use this command: youtube-dl https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EfOLkRJ4-8 -F Here's a few: 417Hz - these are very calming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsMqhVfUC9w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ4MnNIhqEI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy_yE0Y8ZP0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sYK7lm3UKg 432Hz, for what it's worth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EfOLkRJ4-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-hrBhA4XkM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clLtr-4Y1r0 Unsure, but I think it's at 417Hz, since it is so peace-inducing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA4XX15xatk And for actual healing, this is just around the corner: Frequency healing and transformation/ uplifting of the Soul - 440Hz vs 432Hz vs 417Hz We've Found The Magic Frequency (This Will Revolutionize Our Future) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBL9pS6GMdA Shattering cancer with resonant frequencies: Anthony Holland at TEDxSkidmoreCollege https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0_kazbb_U "Music Is Frequency Programming" 440HZ "You've Been Frequency Programmed" https://youtu.be/rTJVWCUpJEI
On 2020-10-22 13:39, John Newman wrote:
The differences between the sexes, Z*vomit*, does not mean one (the male, of which you at least pretend to be a member) should continue to rape, beat, murder, and otherwise do what the fuck ever
Women really don't like consent culture, and it is obvious that our rape and sexual harassment laws are not working, due to failure of females to cooperate with them. "No" is frequently a shit test, and you get rape and sexual harassment charges for failing shit tests, not for passing them. Because I know women, when I read "A rape on campus", I instantly knew it was a fantasy because it showed obvious indications that it had been typed up one handed. And so it proved to be. Consent culture is a projection of male nature onto women. Evolutionary Game Theory predicts that women will act in manner that we see them acting. Among other things, Evolutionary Game Theory predicts that our rape and sexual would fail in the way that we see them failing.
On 2020-10-22 11:41, John Newman wrote:
The majority of blacks favor laws on crack cocaine that clearly have, and are clearly intended to have, disparate impact, and native Americans support laws on alcohol that are barely wearing a fig leaf to disguise their racial character.
Do you have anything to back up either of those statements?
The laws on crack cocaine were a reluctant response to black demand. Politicians would have preferred to avoid the embarrassment. The laws on alcohol for Indian communities were similarly a response to native American demand. Again, all the white folks would have preferred to be politically correct and pretend that there was no specifically Indian alcohol problem. These laws are a huge embarrassment, a reluctant accommodation to forceful community demand.
On 2020-10-22 11:41, John Newman wrote:
Maybe you can find a high-dollar hooker, James, or a few of them, that will let you play out your fantasy of life in the Maghreb 1200 years ago. Somehow I doubt even this would make you happy. You don't seem the type for happiness.
Every happy successful marriage is quietly and furtively eighteenth century. Some time ago, I regret I cannot give you the link, a bunch of academics surveyed a bunch of academics on sharing the housework. They found very few marriages equally sharing the housework, in those marriages that were equally sharing the housework, the husband was living in a man cave and sleeping on the couch, and none of those marriages survived to the next survey. All happy families are alike - which means there is only one way to have a happy family, and all families that differ from this are unhappy. Deviation from patriarchy has a simple one hundred percent failure rate, resulting in divorce and single motherhood.
participants (6)
-
\0xDynamite -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
jim bell -
John Newman -
Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 -
Zenaan Harkness