Re: Anarchocrapitalism, "libertardianism", et al.
“Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all.” -John Maynard Keynes There IS NO SUCH THING as "kinder, gentler capitalism. Stop lying to youself and admit it. You're a greedy scumbag. Rr
On 1/4/2018 1:26 PM, g2s wrote:
There IS NO SUCH THING as "kinder, gentler capitalism. Stop lying to youself and admit it.
How many murders by capitalists? How many murders by communists? How many murders of communists by capitalists? How many murders of *communists* by communists?
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 7:26 PM, g2s <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
“Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all.” -John Maynard Keynes
There IS NO SUCH THING as "kinder, gentler capitalism. Stop lying to youself and admit it. You're a greedy scumbag.
Rr
Capitalism is the belief that free men in free exchange of privately owned resources (including especially themselves) will result in prosperity, peace and more freedom. Authoritarianism (of which corporatism, communism, fascism, socialism, progressivism, etc. are branches, some more virulent than others), holds that men must be forced to be free, that ownership of self and resources is a crime, and that the hierarchs are justified in killing anyone who believes differently. Remember - when a law is passed, it's with the firm understanding that anyone who refuses to obey it is worth killing. Therefore, more laws means more reasons for the state to kill, or to use the threat of death. to enforce it. Kurt
On 1/4/2018 1:56 PM, Kurt Buff wrote:
Capitalism is the belief that free men in free exchange of privately owned resources (including especially themselves) will result in prosperity, peace and more freedom.
g2s is trying to manufacture tribalism on the basis of covetousness, envy, and theft. Libertarianism is a response to this effort The left wing effort to turn econonomic categories into tribes was never terribly successful, and now the left is more focused on trying to generate tribalism on the basis of sexual identity and race, generate tribalism on the basis of actually existent tribes. Which is a lot more successful. Also a lot more likely to lead to genocide. Libertarianism is paralyzed by this turn, which renders libertarianism irrelevant. Instead of stealing the bakery, or price controlling baker's inputs and outputs, they demand the baker cheer at a gay wedding. Which, on the face of it, does not directly lead to mass murder the way stealing, covetousness, and envy does. But fighting over status is just as likely, indeed more likely to turn deadly as fighting over stuff. It has become apparent that there is no stopping point. Males are just naturally superior to women in the male sphere, and white males are just naturally superior to nonwhites in most spheres. This results in endless, and endlessly escalating efforts, to crush this natural superiority. And this endless escalation has no stopping point but genocide. OK, white men cannot jump and cannot dance, and our running is seriously underwhelming, but in most spheres, obviously superior. In particular and especially, white males are superior soldiers to any other race by far. Notice the hilarious underperformance of the black posterboys of both sides in the civil war. Similarly, notice that any military that incorporates females as soldiers never wins a war against a military that does not, irrespective of the races. You might argue that the Vietnam war was a counter example to this, but that was a proxy war between the blue empire and the red empire, whites fighting over browns, rather than with browns. Today's chinese art is obviously superior to today's white art, but this reflects our current decadence. China is coming out of a dark age, while we are sliding into a dark age. Some blame the Jews for the current undeniably crappy state of white art. But the Chinese always had good art, even in their dark age. We have done better in the past than now, but OK, whites are not obviously better than East Asians at art, and it is plausible that East Asians are better at art than whites. Whites, on the other hand, are better at technological creativity than anyone, even East Asians (though the Japanese are pretty good), and, closely related to this, better at war. The current technological superiority of East Asia is substantially dependent on white and Eurasian emigres, among them emigres fleeing the tribal violence and political repression in California and Silicon Valley. The current white inferiority at war is the result of women in the military. If we return to the early nineteenth century style army, where logistics are classified as camp followers rather than soldiers, and part of the duty of camp followers is getting soldier's dicks wet, where the soldiers are all male and the camp followers disproportionately female, we will return to winning.
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:33 PM, <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On 1/4/2018 1:56 PM, Kurt Buff wrote:
Capitalism is the belief that free men in free exchange of privately owned resources (including especially themselves) will result in prosperity, peace and more freedom.
g2s is trying to manufacture tribalism on the basis of covetousness, envy, and theft.
Libertarianism is a response to this effort
The left wing effort to turn econonomic categories into tribes was never terribly successful, and now the left is more focused on trying to generate tribalism on the basis of sexual identity and race, generate tribalism on the basis of actually existent tribes.
Which is a lot more successful.
Also a lot more likely to lead to genocide.
Libertarianism is paralyzed by this turn, which renders libertarianism irrelevant.
Instead of stealing the bakery, or price controlling baker's inputs and outputs, they demand the baker cheer at a gay wedding.
Which, on the face of it, does not directly lead to mass murder the way stealing, covetousness, and envy does.
But fighting over status is just as likely, indeed more likely to turn deadly as fighting over stuff.
It has become apparent that there is no stopping point. Males are just naturally superior to women in the male sphere, and white males are just naturally superior to nonwhites in most spheres.
This results in endless, and endlessly escalating efforts, to crush this natural superiority. And this endless escalation has no stopping point but genocide.
OK, white men cannot jump and cannot dance, and our running is seriously underwhelming, but in most spheres, obviously superior. In particular and especially, white males are superior soldiers to any other race by far. Notice the hilarious underperformance of the black posterboys of both sides in the civil war. Similarly, notice that any military that incorporates females as soldiers never wins a war against a military that does not, irrespective of the races. You might argue that the Vietnam war was a counter example to this, but that was a proxy war between the blue empire and the red empire, whites fighting over browns, rather than with browns.
Today's chinese art is obviously superior to today's white art, but this reflects our current decadence. China is coming out of a dark age, while we are sliding into a dark age. Some blame the Jews for the current undeniably crappy state of white art. But the Chinese always had good art, even in their dark age. We have done better in the past than now, but OK, whites are not obviously better than East Asians at art, and it is plausible that East Asians are better at art than whites.
Whites, on the other hand, are better at technological creativity than anyone, even East Asians (though the Japanese are pretty good), and, closely related to this, better at war. The current technological superiority of East Asia is substantially dependent on white and Eurasian emigres, among them emigres fleeing the tribal violence and political repression in California and Silicon Valley.
The current white inferiority at war is the result of women in the military. If we return to the early nineteenth century style army, where logistics are classified as camp followers rather than soldiers, and part of the duty of camp followers is getting soldier's dicks wet, where the soldiers are all male and the camp followers disproportionately female, we will return to winning.
I used to be much more an admirer of Rand - nowadays not so much. However, sometimes quotes from her are so very apropos: “Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes.” -- Ayn Rand The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors. Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men. Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination." -- Ayn Rand “Racism,” The Virtue of Selfishness "Today, racism is regarded as a crime if practiced by a majority—but as an inalienable right if practiced by a minority. The notion that one’s culture is superior to all others solely because it represents the traditions of one’s ancestors, is regarded as chauvinism if claimed by a majority—but as “ethnic” pride if claimed by a minority. Resistance to change and progress is regarded as reactionary if demonstrated by a majority—but retrogression to a Balkan village, to an Indian tepee or to the jungle is hailed if demonstrated by a minority." -- Ayn Rand “The Age of Envy,” Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution
On 1/4/2018 5:21 PM, Kurt Buff wrote:
“Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes.”
Are you white? If so, you will not get far using that argument against affirmative action. Google up some pictures of high school valedictorians. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=valedictorian&iax=images&ia=images Observe that they are mostly brown, or female, or brown and female. And I bet the rare light skinned males are Jews or light skinned hispanics. If you are white and not Jewish, and you have a have a son at school, he is going to be discouraged and punished for showing ability, and for being male. If you complain that that this is racist, if you complain when a pack of blacks who are biologically adults, even though the same chronological age as your son, beat him up, you will be called a racist, no matter how piously you condemn me. "Racist" is just a hate word for "white". When you call me a racist, it is no different from you calling a black man a nigger, or a Jew a kike. It is just an angry hateful word for people of a particular ethnic group. Observe that no one called Trayvon Martin a racist even though the he indicated to his girlfriend that the fact that Zimmerman was light skinned was a major reason Martin decided to attack Zimmerman. Because Martin Trayvon was not racist. When a gang of blacks beat up a white man because he is white, that is not racism, that is anti racism. Everyone instinctively calls it anti racism. Because that is what it is. No one is going to spontaneously call Martin Trayvon "racist" because he was in the habit of physically attacking people for being lighter skinned than himself, any more than they are going to call me "gay" for being light hearted and happy.
On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 11:21:25PM -0800, Kurt Buff wrote:
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:33 PM, <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
Whites, on the other hand, are better at technological creativity than anyone, even East Asians (though the Japanese are pretty good), and, closely related to this, better at war. The current technological superiority of East Asia is substantially dependent on white and Eurasian emigres, among them emigres fleeing the tribal violence and political repression in California and Silicon Valley.
The current white inferiority at war is the result of women in the military. If we return to the early nineteenth century style army, where logistics are classified as camp followers rather than soldiers, and part of the duty of camp followers is getting soldier's dicks wet, where the soldiers are all male and the camp followers disproportionately female, we will return to winning.
I used to be much more an admirer of Rand - nowadays not so much. However, sometimes quotes from her are so very apropos:
“Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes.” -- Ayn Rand The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism
"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.
It is politically correct to acknowledge that the black man is genetically predispositioned to physical prowess - running for example. To acknowledge genetic features such as the sloped/slanty eyes of the asian, is also accepted as politically reasonable. But to ever suggest that the genetic characteristic of mental (as opposed to physical) aptitude is ascribed to the white fella's genome, is an immediate cause for summary lynching; as the "enlightened" Ayn Rand here apparently vehemently belittles, “Racism is … crude primitive collectivism … [and ascribing/ saying that] intellectual traits are produced and transmitted by internal body chemistry”; Aka, acknowledging that genetics plays any part, whatsoever, in mental aptitude, is one of the greatest sins of our time! Quite incredible when you think about it, becuase either the fact is true, or it is not, and in either case, the age of reason was meant to result in humans who simply enquire as to what the fact truly is, rather than how quickly can we crucify someone who ponders or tests such a trait, to determine its veracity. Simply astounding, but this is the "modern" world where white skinned folk (men in particular) are vilified in general, even for broaching such subjects. Welcome to The Ministry of Truth. Continuing the Ayn Rand quote:
Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control.
and there she creates and strikes down her straw man, juxtaposing racism, genetic traits, tribalism and now beliefs (the nuture part of nature vs nurture) to thoroughly program the little daisies before they grow up. Welp, Ayn Rand certainly shows her mental <ahem> "rigorousness" :) <sarcasm trigger warning for the brain cell challenged>
This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy
Ayn Rand, the philosophy queen.
and science.
Showing us true "science". Alright, alright, I'll stop here...
Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.
Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination." -- Ayn Rand “Racism,” The Virtue of Selfishness
"Today, racism is regarded as a crime if practiced by a majority—but as an inalienable right if practiced by a minority. The notion that one’s culture is superior to all others solely because it represents the traditions of one’s ancestors, is regarded as chauvinism if claimed by a majority—but as “ethnic” pride if claimed by a minority. Resistance to change and progress is regarded as reactionary if demonstrated by a majority—but retrogression to a Balkan village, to an Indian tepee or to the jungle is hailed if demonstrated by a minority." -- Ayn Rand “The Age of Envy,” Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:32 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 11:21:25PM -0800, Kurt Buff wrote:
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:33 PM, <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
Whites, on the other hand, are better at technological creativity than anyone, even East Asians (though the Japanese are pretty good), and, closely related to this, better at war. The current technological superiority of East Asia is substantially dependent on white and Eurasian emigres, among them emigres fleeing the tribal violence and political repression in California and Silicon Valley.
The current white inferiority at war is the result of women in the military. If we return to the early nineteenth century style army, where logistics are classified as camp followers rather than soldiers, and part of the duty of camp followers is getting soldier's dicks wet, where the soldiers are all male and the camp followers disproportionately female, we will return to winning.
I used to be much more an admirer of Rand - nowadays not so much. However, sometimes quotes from her are so very apropos:
“Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes.” -- Ayn Rand The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism
"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.
It is politically correct to acknowledge that the black man is genetically predispositioned to physical prowess - running for example.
To acknowledge genetic features such as the sloped/slanty eyes of the asian, is also accepted as politically reasonable.
But to ever suggest that the genetic characteristic of mental (as opposed to physical) aptitude is ascribed to the white fella's genome, is an immediate cause for summary lynching;
as the "enlightened" Ayn Rand here apparently vehemently belittles, “Racism is … crude primitive collectivism … [and ascribing/ saying that] intellectual traits are produced and transmitted by internal body chemistry”;
Aka, acknowledging that genetics plays any part, whatsoever, in mental aptitude, is one of the greatest sins of our time!
Quite incredible when you think about it, becuase either the fact is true, or it is not, and in either case, the age of reason was meant to result in humans who simply enquire as to what the fact truly is, rather than how quickly can we crucify someone who ponders or tests such a trait, to determine its veracity.
Simply astounding, but this is the "modern" world where white skinned folk (men in particular) are vilified in general, even for broaching such subjects.
Welcome to The Ministry of Truth.
All human characteristics can be plotted and fall on a bell curve, including intelligence. this is also true of definable sub-populations. I'm guessing that you fall within 1/2 standard deviation from the mean for intelligence, one way or the other. Let us presume that, for the purposes of argument, that the median for African-Americans is shifted left 1/2 standard deviation (which I don't believe to be true, but bear with me). If both of my assumptions are correct, that means that millions of African-Americans are smarter than you. That must really burn, to know that. Kurt
On 1/6/2018 2:13 PM, Kurt Buff wrote:
All human characteristics can be plotted and fall on a bell curve, including intelligence. this is also true of definable sub-populations.
Lewontin's Fallacy Yes, if you take black man at random, and a white man at random, there is a significant chance that the black man will be smarter than the white man, and a very good chance that he will not mug you. But, if you are in a street with hundred black men and no cop in sight, you will be mugged. If you are in a street with a hundred white men, you don't need a cop, you will not be mugged. And if you are in a city ruled by blacks, for example Detroit, that city will burn.
On 1/6/2018 2:13 PM, Kurt Buff wrote:
I'm guessing that you fall within 1/2 standard deviation from the mean for intelligence, one way or the other.
Let us presume that, for the purposes of argument, that the median for African-Americans is shifted left 1/2 standard deviation (which I don't believe to be true, but bear with me).
If both of my assumptions are correct, that means that millions of African-Americans are smarter than you.
Pretty sure I am three standard deviations above the mean. Pretty sure that African Americans are, on average, two thirds of a standard deviation below the mean. There are forty million African Americans, two hundred million whites. It follows there are five thousand African Americans smarter than me, fifty three thousand whites smarter than me. But this is irrelevant, since you are committing Lewontin's Fallacy Blacks differ from whites in many respects, not just IQ. These differences make them inherently a separate tribe. If they differed only in IQ, they could likely be assimilated, but they do not, one other big difference, one of many, being the propensity to criminal behavior. Two tribes cannot coexist in the same territory. One must rule, one must be ruled. When we get ruled by blacks, cities burn. Recall Obama saying "You did not build that" Though, of course, we did build that. Industrial civilization is the gift of whites to the world, along with the rule of law, and all that. Now recall Juan saying what Obama said, but spelling out the implications: "a casual look at 'race' and crime shows that whites got the world record on crime." Our crime being that we have a disproportionate share of the nice stuff, therefore, since we "did not build that", must have stolen it. The remedy for this terrible theft being mass murder, since Juan in the same paragraph denies the crimes of the Pol Pot regime. By the way, what race are you? If Trayvon Martin caught you alone would he attack you on the basis of your race? Would Obama hold the police back while a mob of blacks burned down your home and business as he did in Ferguson, because 'You did not build that". When Ayn Rand was a young girl in Russia, you could not tell who were the looters and who were the builders by race, because the left was trying to mobilize people, tribalize people, on the basis of their relationship to the means of production. Now they are mobilizing people, tribalizing people, by race, which has the logical and necessary consequence that Detroit burned, Ferguson burns. When they come for me, will they be coming for you?
On 1/6/2018 4:43 PM, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
Pretty sure I am three standard deviations above the mean.
Pretty sure that African Americans are, on average, two thirds of a standard deviation below the mean.
There are forty million African Americans, two hundred million whites.
It follows there are five thousand African Americans smarter than me, fifty three thousand whites smarter than me.
Oops, correction two hundred and seventy thousand whites smarter than me, five thousand black smarter than me. But this is irrelevant: Lewontin's Fallacy The problem is tribe formation and tribalism. Diversity plus proximity necessarily leads to war, and the rhetoric of Obama and Juan prove it. If we "did not build that", then we must have stolen it, so people of other races are going to take it back. And when it all turns to shit, they will conclude that we are somehow still stealing it.
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 16:43:08 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com vomited:
Blacks differ from whites ... one other big difference, one of many, being the propensity to criminal behavior.
Didn't you understand a single word of what I explained to you regarding the industrial scale crimes of the 'white race' ? So, we now have empirical evidence that your IQ is WELL BELOW average since you are completely unable to grasp basic facts. Or are you saying that whites are A LOT MORE CRIMINAL than blacks? That's the difference you allude to?
On 1/7/2018 3:12 AM, juan wrote:
Didn't you understand a single word of what I explained to you regarding the industrial scale crimes of the 'white race' ?
You are just fantasizing absurd justifications for white genocide. We industrialized the entire world, we raised everyone's standard of living immensely. We founded science. The slave trade consisted of us buying blacks who would otherwise have been eventually eaten by their black owners. Colonialism consisted of us imposing order on disorder.
On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 07:22:33 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 1/7/2018 3:12 AM, juan wrote:
Didn't you understand a single word of what I explained to you regarding the industrial scale crimes of the 'white race' ?
You are just fantasizing absurd justifications for white genocide.
We industrialized the entire world, we raised everyone's standard of living immensely.
industrialized? You are the retards responsible for the electronic global surveillance state. How's that for a white christian achievment? and do you retard understand what the surveillance state means? It means that you will get automatically droned because of the racist garbage you spew. And before being droned all your 'property' will be automatically seized. And do you know who owns and controls the electronic infrastructure to spy on and drone racist retards like you? Are you able to take a half an educated guess? Why, the infrastructure to drone retards like you is onwed by the all white supreme scum eric schmidt (pure aryan nazi) and the mostly white supreme scum fuckerberg and all the rest of the non-black non-brwon supreme ruling 'aristocracy'. yes, your white race has done a very good job at creating the most efficient totalitarianism the world will ever see.
We founded science.
yes, at the salem 'trials'
The slave trade consisted of us buying blacks who would otherwise have been eventually eaten by their black owners. Colonialism consisted of us imposing order on disorder.
On 1/8/2018 2:18 AM, juan wrote:
It means that you will get automatically droned because of the racist garbage you spew. And before being droned all your 'property' will be automatically seized.
And do you know who owns and controls the electronic infrastructure to spy on and drone racist retards like you? Are you able to take a half an educated guess? Why, the infrastructure to drone retards like you is onwed by the all white supreme scum eric schmidt (pure aryan nazi) and the mostly white supreme scum fuckerberg and all the rest of the non-black non-brwon supreme ruling 'aristocracy'.
You imagine yourself as one of the guards in the Khmer Rouge killing fields, but recollect what happened to those guards.
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:13:07 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 1/8/2018 2:18 AM, juan wrote:
It means that you will get automatically droned because of the racist garbage you spew. And before being droned all your 'property' will be automatically seized.
And do you know who owns and controls the electronic infrastructure to spy on and drone racist retards like you? Are you able to take a half an educated guess? Why, the infrastructure to drone retards like you is onwed by the all white supreme scum eric schmidt (pure aryan nazi) and the mostly white supreme scum fuckerberg and all the rest of the non-black non-brwon supreme ruling 'aristocracy'.
You imagine yourself as one of the guards in the Khmer Rouge killing fields,
what - the fuck - are you talking about I explained how your fellow nazis will treat you. It won't be nice. Are you too stupid to understnad, or just playing dumb like women do?
but recollect what happened to those guards
On Jan 8, 2018, at 10:00 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:13:07 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 1/8/2018 2:18 AM, juan wrote: It means that you will get automatically droned because of the racist garbage you spew. And before being droned all your 'property' will be automatically seized.
And do you know who owns and controls the electronic infrastructure to spy on and drone racist retards like you? Are you able to take a half an educated guess? Why, the infrastructure to drone retards like you is onwed by the all white supreme scum eric schmidt (pure aryan nazi) and the mostly white supreme scum fuckerberg and all the rest of the non-black non-brwon supreme ruling 'aristocracy'.
You imagine yourself as one of the guards in the Khmer Rouge killing fields,
Holden Killingfield?
what - the fuck - are you talking about
yeah James is fucking *out there* moronic. His little platitudes are just beyond “what the fuck?!”
I explained how your fellow nazis will treat you. It won't be nice.
Are you too stupid to understnad, or just playing dumb like women do?
but recollect what happened to those guards
On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 08:13:58PM -0800, Kurt Buff wrote:
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:32 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Aka, acknowledging that genetics plays any part, whatsoever, in mental aptitude, is one of the greatest sins of our time!
Quite incredible when you think about it, becuase either the fact is true, or it is not, and in either case, the age of reason was meant to result in humans who simply enquire as to what the fact truly is, rather than how quickly can we crucify someone who ponders or tests such a trait, to determine its veracity.
Simply astounding, but this is the "modern" world where white skinned folk (men in particular) are vilified in general, even for broaching such subjects.
Welcome to The Ministry of Truth.
All human characteristics can be plotted and fall on a bell curve, including intelligence. this is also true of definable sub-populations.
I'm guessing that you fall within 1/2 standard deviation from the mean for intelligence, one way or the other.
Let us presume that, for the purposes of argument, that the median for African-Americans is shifted left 1/2 standard deviation (which I don't believe to be true, but bear with me).
If both of my assumptions are correct, that means that millions of African-Americans are smarter than you.
That must really burn, to know that.
The presumption opposite to reason - whatever the actual statistic is, it is, and my presumption may or may not be false, or true, just as yours. The projection of "must really burn" is the exact opposite of reason - my first quick google search on the topic shows significant standard deviations, with East Asians above whites and Jewish Americans at the top of the heap - if I wanted to burn, this fact would be the moment :D The underlying point is that in this "modern" "tolerant" age, discussion of such facts leads to projected assertions such as "that must really burn" - the opposite result to if we actually lived in an age of reason. Ipso facto, we do not live in an age of reason - discussion of politically incorrect facts almost invariably brings out straw men, character assassinations and other illogical and non-fact based "arguments". That's my point, which you just demonstrated perfectly. Good luck, Z
jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
white males are superior soldiers to any other race by far.
On 1/5/2018 2:58 AM, juan wrote:
in other words, they are the worst scum on the planet, by far.
Scum make criminals. The virtues required for a warrior are the most honorable virtues of them all. There is a very large difference between the man who mugs you in an alley, and the man who takes care of the mugger.
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 12:30:37 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
white males are superior soldiers to any other race by far.
On 1/5/2018 2:58 AM, juan wrote:
in other words, they are the worst scum on the planet, by far.
Scum make criminals. The virtues required for a warrior are the most honorable virtues of them all.
There is a very large difference between the man who mugs you in an alley, and the man who takes care of the mugger.
there is indeed a large difference between a honest mugger who mugs you in an alley and a soldier. The soldier being a hundred times more dangerous, more corrupt and a bigger coward. Ever heard of that guy spooner that you link in your site? "The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave."
On 1/5/2018 1:26 PM, juan wrote:
there is indeed a large difference between a honest mugger who mugs you in an alley and a soldier. The soldier being a hundred times more dangerous, more corrupt and a bigger coward.
If soldiers were cowards, you and your kind would have already murdered me and taken my stuff. Your frequent announcements that everyone who as more stuff than you do is some kind of criminal are indicative of intent to take what is someone else's, and kill him, as is your propensity to deny the crimes of those who proceeded to do exactly that.
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 16:00:39 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 1/5/2018 1:26 PM, juan wrote:
there is indeed a large difference between a honest mugger who mugs you in an alley and a soldier. The soldier being a hundred times more dangerous, more corrupt and a bigger coward.
If soldiers were cowards, you and your kind would have already murdered me and taken my stuff.
Your frequent announcements that everyone who as more stuff
you are just a thief and a coward james - the stuff you have does not belong to you. Again, this is basic libertarian philosophy. notice also how you and your soldiers are the most despicable cowards on the planet, who murder brown children for fun and profit. If you had to personally and directly steal from your neighbors you wouldn't do it becuase you don't have the balls to do it. So what you cowards do is gang together and that's how we end up with your 'capitalist' thieves and the army of scum cowards who are behind them.
than you do is some kind of criminal are indicative of intent to take what is someone else's, and kill him, as is your propensity to deny the crimes of those who proceeded to do exactly that.
oh you mean your propaganda about commies which you used to deflect attention from all your thieving and murdering 'capitalistic' enterprises?
On 1/6/2018 4:03 AM, juan wrote:
oh you mean your propaganda about commies which you used to deflect attention from all your thieving and murdering 'capitalistic' enterprises?
You deny the crimes of Pol Pot, while issuing rhetoric justifying them. You say he did not do it, and also say his victims had it coming to them.
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 11:33:26 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 1/6/2018 4:03 AM, juan wrote:
oh you mean your propaganda about commies which you used to deflect attention from all your thieving and murdering 'capitalistic' enterprises?
You deny the crimes of Pol Pot, while issuing rhetoric justifying them. You say he did not do it, and also say his victims had it coming to them.
"The Size of the Bank Bailout: $29 Trillion " https://www.cnbc.com/id/45674390
On 1/6/2018 2:40 PM, juan wrote:
"The Size of the Bank Bailout: $29 Trillion " https://www.cnbc.com/id/45674390
The reason the banks needed to be bailed out was affirmative action lending, that they were pressured to lend money to illegal immigrants with no income, no job, and no assets to buy million dollar houses in the Bay Area. It is not exactly that they were forced to do it, though the Bank of Beverly Hills was destroyed because the regulators sensed insufficient enthusiasm for the program, which seems very close to forcing them to do it, rather it was politically correct to do it, and politically correct bankers, most infamously Angelo Mozilo, were empowered by the regulators to take over less politically correct bankers.
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 17:21:29 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 1/6/2018 2:40 PM, juan wrote:
"The Size of the Bank Bailout: $29 Trillion " https://www.cnbc.com/id/45674390
The reason the banks needed to be bailed out was affirmative action lending,
stop lying, scum
On 1/6/2018 5:55 PM, juan wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 17:21:29 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 1/6/2018 2:40 PM, juan wrote:
"The Size of the Bank Bailout: $29 Trillion " https://www.cnbc.com/id/45674390
The reason the banks needed to be bailed out was affirmative action lending,
stop lying, scum
I was in Sunnyvale, which was ground zero of the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown: Almost every dud mortgage in Silicon valley, as near to all of them as makes no difference, was a loan to a non white, usually a recent immigrant, frequently illegal, usually with poor English or no English. The Bank of Beverly Hills was destroyed for doubting that lending to people with no income, no job, and no assets was a good idea. During the takeover bidding wars when banks were buying each other up, rather than the bidders promising the shareholders more money, the bidders would promise the regulators more mortgages to nonwhites and single women. With Angelo Mozilo always getting the winning bid by promising astonishingly large amounts of affirmative action loans to Hispanics.
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 19:31:49 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 1/6/2018 5:55 PM, juan wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 17:21:29 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 1/6/2018 2:40 PM, juan wrote:
"The Size of the Bank Bailout: $29 Trillion " https://www.cnbc.com/id/45674390
The reason the banks needed to be bailed out was affirmative action lending,
stop lying, scum
I was in Sunnyvale, which was ground zero of the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown: Almost every dud mortgage in Silicon valley, as near to all of them as makes no difference, was a loan to a non white, usually a recent immigrant, frequently illegal, usually with poor English or no English.
lawl - all the shit you make up as you go is even more absurd than 'jesus existence' - you are a compulsive scammer (what else would you expect from a thief) no doubt all the white scum who 'flipped' houses were actually brown, homeless and didn't speak english.
-------- Original message --------From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> Date: 1/6/18 9:02 AM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: Anarchocrapitalism, "libertardianism", et al. On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 19:31:49 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 1/6/2018 5:55 PM, juan wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 17:21:29 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 1/6/2018 2:40 PM, juan wrote:
"The Size of the Bank Bailout: $29 Trillion " https://www.cnbc.com/id/45674390
The reason the banks needed to be bailed out was affirmative action lending,
stop lying, scum
I was in Sunnyvale, which was ground zero of the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown: Almost every dud mortgage in Silicon valley, as near to all of them as makes no difference, was a loan to a non white, usually a recent immigrant, frequently illegal, usually with poor English or no English.
I met a WHITE waitress whose job and her parent's credit garnered her a 300k mortgage on a house in the Santa Cruz mountains in the late 90s. First time she needed to see a doctor for a yeast infection or somesuch her white picket fence dream went bye bye fershure. Further, At LEAST 90% of all those junk mortgages were used to buy investment properties which the owners attempted to pay down by leasing and renting, and later airbnb-ing them, driving up housing costs nationwide. Iow you dont have the vaguest fucking idea what youre talking about and youre spewing racist nonsense because thats all you really know. Racist. Nonsense. Rr Ps. The only reason i saw your idiocy at all was because it was quoted by Juan. Your posts have been junkfiled for months. (Juan continues ) lawl - all the shit you make up as you go is even more absurd than 'jesus existence' - you are a compulsive scammer (what else would you expect from a thief) no doubt all the white scum who 'flipped' houses were actually brown, homeless and didn't speak english.
On 1/7/2018 3:27 AM, g2s wrote:
I met a WHITE waitress whose job and her parent's credit garnered her a 300k mortgage on a house in the Santa Cruz mountains in the late 90s.
Yes single white women as well. But single white women were also able to borrow because of affirmative action. The intended beneficiaries of affirmative action were primarily blacks, but the actual beneficiaries were primarily hispanics, primarily recent illegal immigrant hispanics with very little ability to speak english, but yes, single women, some of them white, also got some of the gravy, and indeed a lot more of the gravy than blacks did.
On 1/7/2018 3:02 AM, juan wrote:
no doubt all the white scum who 'flipped' houses were actually brown, homeless and didn't speak english.
Lots of white people, myself among them, flipped houses. But from 2005 onwards to 2007, all the white people who flipped houses were unloading them on brown people, usually brown people with no income, no job, no assets, and no credit rating, in a large proportion of cases brown people with little English, in quite a few cases, brown people who tended to drink too much. In a few cases, we unloaded them on white people, but still white people who were single white females, usually recent immigrants with no income, no job, no assets, and no credit rating. Nearly all of the end purchasers were brown and broke, and those were not brown and broke were single females and broke.
juan juan.g71 at gmā́il.com Sat Jan 6 09:02:56 PST 2018
no doubt all the "white" scum who "flipped" houses were actually brown, homeless, and didn't speak english.
That's because all "Hispanics" and "Latinos" are "White", newfoundloveforcommunismanon. [Pic related]
On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 07:19:05 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 1/7/2018 3:02 AM, juan wrote:
no doubt all the white scum who 'flipped' houses were actually brown, homeless and didn't speak english.
Lots of white people, myself among them, flipped houses.
thanks for personally admitting that you are a thieving scammer. Well the fact that you are a thieving scammer has been self-evident for quite a while actually... so do you understand my point? - you fucking pieces of americunt thhieving shit stole from people holding dollars all over the world. And your bailouts caused more than 100% inflation since 2009 - you fucking pieces of thieving shit.
But from 2005 onwards to 2007, all the white people who flipped houses were unloading them on brown people,
as to the rest of your lunatic rantings, seriously even a retarded 3 year old can tell lies that are less ridiculous than yours
usually brown people with no income, no job, no assets, and no credit rating, in a large proportion of cases brown people with little English, in quite a few cases, brown people who tended to drink too much.
In a few cases, we unloaded them on white people, but still white people who were single white females, usually recent immigrants with no income, no job, no assets, and no credit rating.
Nearly all of the end purchasers were brown and broke, and those were not brown and broke were single females and broke.
Lots of white people, myself among them, flipped houses.
On 1/7/2018 8:33 AM, juan wrote:
thanks for personally admitting that you are a thieving scammer.
Buying something and selling it is not theft, nor is it a scam if the thing is as it is represented to be. The thieving scammers were those who purchased houses with no intention or ability to repay the mortgage - people who purchased houses with no assets. And you cannot purchase a house with no assets, unless you are a beneficiary of affirmative action. Thus precisely zero white males or married white women were thieving scammers in housing boom. The financial crisis was the result of dud mortgages. The dud mortgages, all of them, were affirmative action mortgages. What drove the housing boom is that *if* *you* *were* *a* *beneficiary* *of* *affirmative* *action* *then* you could buy an expensive house despite being stone broke. The housing boom was the result of affirmative action mortgages. White males were involved in this process only as flipping houses with the intent of unloading the houses on affirmative action purchasers. A white male would buy a house with the intention and capability of paying the mortgage if things went bad, but with the expectation that he could unload on an affirmative action borrower before things went bad. And for the most part, that is exactly what we did. And the reason we chose to do this is that we know that white males are forced to honor contracts, while affirmative action beneficiaries can walk away with no problems. So we, unlike the end purchasers, told the truth and honored all agreements. The housing boom was the result of affirmative action loans. The financial crisis was the result dud mortgages. The dud mortgages, all of them, were affirmative action loans.
On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 09:29:44 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
Lots of white people, myself among them, flipped houses.
On 1/7/2018 8:33 AM, juan wrote:
thanks for personally admitting that you are a thieving scammer.
Buying something and selling it is not theft, nor is it a scam if the thing is as it is represented to be.
you are a thieving scammer - people bought and sold because your commie goldman-sachs-government was 'subsidizing' the market. It was 'understood' that 'real state prices never go down' (when your commie government keeps printing money) You can vomit as much 'rationalizations' as you want. But I just happen to know the ABC of money and government-bank communism, so all your highly stupid commie lies have no effect on me. Anyway, the bottom line here is that you are just a dumb racist commie of the right wing variety.
The thieving scammers were those who purchased houses with no intention or ability to repay the mortgage - people who purchased houses with no assets. And you cannot purchase a house with no assets, unless you are a beneficiary of affirmative action.
Thus precisely zero white males or married white women were thieving scammers in housing boom.
The financial crisis was the result of dud mortgages.
The dud mortgages, all of them, were affirmative action mortgages. What drove the housing boom is that *if* *you* *were* *a* *beneficiary* *of* *affirmative* *action* *then* you could buy an expensive house despite being stone broke.
The housing boom was the result of affirmative action mortgages.
White males were involved in this process only as flipping houses with the intent of unloading the houses on affirmative action purchasers.
A white male would buy a house with the intention and capability of paying the mortgage if things went bad, but with the expectation that he could unload on an affirmative action borrower before things went bad.
And for the most part, that is exactly what we did.
And the reason we chose to do this is that we know that white males are forced to honor contracts, while affirmative action beneficiaries can walk away with no problems.
So we, unlike the end purchasers, told the truth and honored all agreements.
The housing boom was the result of affirmative action loans. The financial crisis was the result dud mortgages. The dud mortgages, all of them, were affirmative action loans.
On 1/7/2018 9:45 AM, juan wrote:
you are a thieving scammer - people bought and sold because your commie goldman-sachs-government was 'subsidizing' the market.
Giving free money to single women and minorities is not "subsidizing the market". It is white males carrying everyone else on their backs. Just as we have been doing since Clive restored order in India.
On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 09:29:44 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
White males were involved in this process only as flipping houses with the intent of unloading the houses on affirmative action purchasers.
lawl - you are THAT stupid. that's right - you white male thieving shit had the intent of passing the bag to other white males who were more stupid than you and thus were left holding the bag - except they didn't beacuse your white male commie gov't 'bailed' everybody out at the expense of all the dollar holders in the world you little pieces of thieving shit
On 1/7/2018 9:52 AM, juan wrote:
that's right - you white male thieving shit had the intent of passing the bag to other white males who were more stupid
I know who got the bag. The taxpayer. And the reason the taxpayer got the bag is that we, all of us, passed the bag to people protected by affirmative action. And, starting 2005 November, we did so because, when the end came in sight, and it came in sight in 2005 November, only people protected by affirmative action would accept the bag from us.
On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 18:08:56 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 1/7/2018 9:52 AM, juan wrote:
that's right - you white male thieving shit had the intent of passing the bag to other white males who were more stupid
I know who got the bag.
The taxpayer.
You are wrong as always. The people who ended up 'holding the bag' and footing the bill are all the people who hold dollars. Not just 'american taxpayers' but people all over the word who use have/use dollars. Do - you - understand? Or are just playing dumb, like women do?
And the reason the taxpayer got the bag is that we, all of us, passed the bag to people protected by affirmative action.
And, starting 2005 November, we did so because, when the end came in sight, and it came in sight in 2005 November, only people protected by affirmative action would accept the bag from us.
After 2005 November, it became very difficult to sell a house except to someone who had no assets, because the peak of the market was in sight. In consequence, if you unloaded a house after 2005 November, you were necessarily unloading it onto someone who was a beneficiary of an affirmative action mortgage.
On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 06:16:02PM +1000, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
After 2005 November, it became very difficult to sell a house except to someone who had no assets, because the peak of the market was in sight.
In consequence, if you unloaded a house after 2005 November, you were necessarily unloading it onto someone who was a beneficiary of an affirmative action mortgage.
And since the game is rigged, the actual beneficiaries were mostly the banks (they were bailed out after all), and those who sold their houses and so cashed in on the general Investment Theatre, and "the tax payer" foot the bill for those got in on the scam. But the banks were the most significant beneficiaries - they always are. I've recently had the thought - when a loan is issued, the banks somewhere in the system, issue or "print" the money for that loan; when interest repayments are made, the bank makes a profit; when capital repayments are made, the original money printed for the loan, is "unprinted"; And so the question arises - when someone goes bankrupt and does not repay the loan, that "printed" money may not get unprinted - if not, then the monetary system is healthier, since more money is available for other people to repay interest on their loans. Now when a bank wipes off a bad debt, and "suffers" a "loss" for the money they "printed", and then they are "bailed out" with more money borrowed by the government and paid for by the tax payer, is the bank double dipping, by getting paid for money they printed but did not "wipe out upon repayment of loan"?
On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 06:16:02PM +1000, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
In consequence, if you unloaded a house after 2005 November, you were necessarily unloading it onto someone who was a beneficiary of an affirmative action mortgage.
On 1/7/2018 7:21 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
And since the game is rigged, the actual beneficiaries were mostly the banks (they were bailed out after all), and those who sold their houses and so cashed in on the general Investment Theatre, and "the tax payer" foot the bill for those got in on the scam. But the banks were the most significant beneficiaries - they always are.
Lot of banks went bust, and were bailed out. But in many cases, for example the biggest and villainous of them all, Countrywide, those running the bank lost their jobs, and their shareholders lost their investment. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Countrywide+mozilla&ia=web Indymac bank (which held most of the Countrywide assets) was seized by the regulators. Countrywide financial was sold to Bank of America Homeloans for four billion, which represented a huge loss to Countrywide shareholders, though not a total wipeout. Meanwhile a whole lot of brown people and single women got to live in nice houses free for quite a while. Yes, what was intended as a big handout to blacks, browns and single women, largely wound up in the pockets of white folk, myself among them, as such handouts tend to do. But it was still a big handout to blacks, browns, and single women.
On January 6, 2018 12:02:56 PM EST, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 19:31:49 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 1/6/2018 5:55 PM, juan wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 17:21:29 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 1/6/2018 2:40 PM, juan wrote:
"The Size of the Bank Bailout: $29 Trillion " https://www.cnbc.com/id/45674390
The reason the banks needed to be bailed out was affirmative action lending,
stop lying, scum
I was in Sunnyvale, which was ground zero of the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown: Almost every dud mortgage in Silicon valley, as near to all of them as makes no difference, was a loan to a non white, usually a recent immigrant, frequently illegal, usually with poor English or no English.
lawl - all the shit you make up as you go is even more absurd than 'jesus existence' - you are a compulsive scammer (what else would you expect from a thief)
no doubt all the white scum who 'flipped' houses were actually brown, homeless and didn't speak english.
James is spreading an old and LONG debunked myth about the mortgages. He's so full of shit he's browner than all the "illegal immigrants" he hates with such vitriol. If only he'd been born on the other fucking side of the fence line. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2009/hud-debunks...
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 16:33:28 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
Instead of stealing the bakery,
why don't you tell us what races the small oligarchy that controls the financial system belongs to? You are pretending to be concerned about 'race' and theft, so surely you've looked into that. I'm assuming that you, as a Supreme Libertarian, are aware of the fact that the theft committed by the financial sector overshadows any other theft by orders of mangnitude.
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 16:33:28 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
Instead of stealing the bakery,
On 1/5/2018 3:15 AM, juan wrote:
why don't you tell us what races the small oligarchy that controls the financial system belongs to?
Since you asked, overwhelmingly Jewish. Goldman Sachs, Benie Madoff, etc. But I am not terribly interested in this topic. It is a general problem, not specifically limited to Jews, that when outsiders of group A have disproportionate power in the country of group B, they are going to behave badly to members of group B. Therefore, Jews should not be allowed to have quasi state positions outside of Israel, and non Jews should not allowed to have quasi state positions inside of Israel.
I wrote:
It is a general problem, not specifically limited to Jews, that when outsiders of group A have disproportionate power in the country of group B, they are going to behave badly to members of group B.
Therefore, Jews should not be allowed to have quasi state positions outside of Israel, and non Jews should not allowed to have quasi state positions inside of Israel.
This position is, of course, horribly racist when applied to Jews exercising disproportionate power in America, but absolutely anti racist when applied to whites exercising disproportionate power in Africa.
participants (8)
-
\0xDynamite -
Adolfo Whitey Hitlerito -
g2s -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
John Newman -
juan -
Kurt Buff -
Zenaan Harkness