Anarchocrapitalism, "libertardianism", et al.

[Kurt Buff]

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:32 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen at 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 at 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