Zenaan Harkness zen at
Thu Oct 15 17:09:14 PDT 2020

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 08:39:38AM +1000, jamesd at wrote:

> When people cooperate to create value, when they form a business, hire
> employees, or even have a regular and repeat contracting and contract
> relationship, it is obviously easier to cooperate if you are of the same
> sex, race, religion, culture, and approximately similar IQ.
> So white males should hire people of their own sex, race and religion,
> particularly for positions requiring trust, right?
> When you hire someone for a position requiring trust, Christians tend to
> be more trustworthy, whites tend to be more trustworthy, and males tend
> to be more trustworthy.  So even if you are not white, male, and
> Christian, it makes sense to hire white Christian males, and if you are
> a white Christian male, definitely makes sense.
> Agree?

This is possibly context dependent, but is very much true for example in Syria (and presumably other parts of the M.E. where Christians have not been slaughtered to extinction) where in the Syrian government under Bashar al Assad who is Alawi and who presides over majority Shia and Sunni Muslims, Christians are consistently nominated and elected to certain positions of power and authority, due to being trustworthy.

Note that in Syria about 87% are Islamic (Shia, Sunni and a vew minorities such as Alawi), 10% are Christian and 3% are Druze - so the Christians are a minority, just as the Alawites are, but they all want Christians in important positions, because the Christians (at least relative to the others) are known to be more trustworthy, and trusted by all other sub-groups, and by keeping them in such positions they know that the country is kept much more stable than it would be otherwise ("Greater Israel" war projects notwithstanding...).

> You might disagree with the proposition that Christians tend to be more
> trustworthy, but you cannot plausibly disagree with the proposition that
> whites and males tend to be more trustworthy, nor can you plausibly
> disagree with the proposition that coreligionists tend to be more
> trustworthy with people of their own religion.
> Well, do you disagree?

Absent "facts" (by modern/scientific/statistical methods) some folks will of course 'disagree'.

Prior to making discovery of "the facts by rigorous statistical methods" we might as individuals take positions on grounds other than "the facts disclosed by rigorous statistical methods", such as intuition, emotion, assumption, etc. and it may be anecdotally interesting to discover the degree one's personal position does or does not align with "the facts disclosed by rigorous statistical methods" - which could provide hints as to one's biases, programming from external e.g. MSM sources, etc.

> You claim to be more libertarian than thou.  If you were claiming to be
> more  Christian than thou, I would be hitting you with stuff on the
> Trinity that demon worshipers find uncomfortable to speak.  Since you
> claim to be more libertarian than thou, I am hitting you with
> libertarian positions that government shills find uncomfortable to even
> acknowledge.

Your approach is rigorous.  Except that we make discovery (of those we might work with, trust, etc) then we fail in our duty of care to one another, but more importantly to ourselves.  Effectively assisting one another to make such self discovery seems constructively useful generally.

> If you were telling me that you are more Christian than I am, and I
> should come to Jesus, I would be asking you questions about the trinity
> to test for demon worship.  Since you claim to be more Libertarian than
> I am, and I should come to libertarianism, I am asking you about issues
> of female nature and freedom of association.
> If women are different from men, different rules must apply, rendering
> libertarianism incompatible with progressivism.  Are they different?
> Should different rules apply? What proportion of female complaints
> about rape and sexual harassment are not complaints about rape and
> sexual harassment, but are complaints about failed shit tests?
> Should employers, landlords, the country club, and people who operate
> a pub have freedom of association?
> You will notice that men cannot be themselves when women are around.
> Should a pub be able to maintain a female free zone.  Should a
> restaurant be able to bar unaccompanied women?

Why yes, of course, yes they should indeed :D

How can anything else be "libertarian".  Those who proclaim to be libertarian appear at this point in history to be violently intolerant of any position, idiology, belief, word or thought other than those they and their mob say are acceptable.

It is arguably a blessing to live in this historical moment where such terrorism against freedom is on show in such stark relief.

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list