Welcome
Welcome to the Forums of the Libertarian Left

This is the place for agorists, mutualists, voluntaryists, geolibertarians, left-Rothbardians, individualist anarchists, green libertarians, libertarian socialists, radical minarchists, and others on the Libertarian Left to discuss theory, history, and how to smash the state. Registration is fast, simple, and free, so join the revolution today!

Some left-libertarian links: Alliance of the Libertarian Left, Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left, Agorism.info, Mutualist.org, Voluntaryist.com, Geolibertarian Homepage, Molinari Institute, LeftLibertarian.org, Center for a Stateless Society, ALL Ad Hoc Organizing Committee

Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Most of the discussions on these forums have a set of shared premises. If you want to challenge, discuss, or criticize those premises, this is the place.

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby Dadalama » Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:01 pm

you notice how little has changed though? I mean I don't really care about the intelligence differences between black people and asians. Paramount to baseball statistics as someone said earlier. But, despite the now more humanistic approach of "taking care of them poor dumb niggers" she still has the same basic obsession with how much someone is worthy to them.

Perhaps it is raceism, perhaps it's not. But it seems to follow a benevolent form of tender misanthropy. Society has to take care of now, who was originally considered prime material for sex slaves. I can still tell the difference between an intelligent man and an idiot as far as it concerns me without the use of handful of haplogroups or whatever's flapping in between their legs. It's not even the branch of science I find particularly interesting. But she thinks everyone should find it so important like she does. Everyone should be obsessed with how things are ranked according to their intelligence.

We've had more interesting fascists on this board in the past though.

Oh btw detachment is HUGE in Asian philosophy. Which are apparently superior too us or something? If you know wisdom when you see it why do you actively reject it?
User avatar
Dadalama
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:20 am

 

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby Sophia Thalatth » Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:06 pm

Here's another reason we can say those of you who call me racist are full of shit. Are you familiar with the phenomenon of white women getting into sex tourism in the Caribbean, traveling down there to bump and grind (in more ways than one!) with young dreadlocked black men? I sure am, I know several middle aged white women who are into that. And guess what? I've never complained. My only real concern was that I didn't want them to catch any STDs or get knocked up and give birth if they weren't willing to take care of the baby or babies. 'Cause most likely they would be going it alone - more often than not, black men don't stick around to help. Which is another racial difference related to reproductive strategy. So much for "race is only skin deep." You guys have no fucking clue what a racist is. A real racist would want to KILL such women. I'd kill the racists in a heartbeat before letting them do that.

Yet such women also prove that race is real. When I ask them what's the appeal, they say it's because the black men are more aggressive, have nicer bodies, thicker dicks, nicer asses, are more confident, better dancers, more rhythm, stronger sex drive, fewer inhibitions, etc., etc. Basically all the stereotypes Royce claims to be false. I guess this means the women are RACIST by Royce's picket fence limousine liberal standards, the lace curtain fuck. Yet think about it: if black men were the same as white men, what would be the appeal? If black men were NOT different, there'd be no point in these white women traveling thousands of miles to go on sex tours seeking out dreadlocked black men. Think about it: difference is exciting. It's also why interracial porn is popular. If race were only skin deep, nobody would bother to watch interracial porn, pretty much. But it's not just skin deep: black men are more primitive in their traits. This is especially obvious if you see one with a petite white woman, or a little oriental woman. It's like they evolved to fuck and fight all night long for the fun of it. I'm sure you'll find this offensive, but fuck it, it's true. Evolution is real and this is the way things are where black men evolved. There's a lot of sex and a lot of death. Lots of tribal skirmishing which looks suspiciously like gang warfare. I'm not racist for stating the truth in a colorful way.

Once again, I am not a racist. You're full of shit when you say that. I'm just being honest, too honest for you to handle because you're sanctimonious PC pricks. Hopefully you can stop being that way, it's really stuffy and dare I say, reeks of white privilege. You've never been woken up by gunshots in the middle of the night have you? My friend has. You've never had to live with hypertension (more common among blacks for partially GENETIC reasons) have you? My friend has. You've never been attacked by a gang in your own apartment have you? My friend has. Has your car been broken into not just once, but three times, with the radio stolen every time and something new stolen each time? That's what happened to my friend Jada. If she lived in a white or asian neighborhood, IT WOULDN'T HAVE. You can babble your PC bullshit til the sacred cows come home to be butchered, but that fact does not change!
Last edited by Sophia Thalatth on Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:49 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Sophia Thalatth
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:27 am
Location: N. America

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby Dadalama » Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:20 pm

Sophia Thalatth wrote:Here's another reason we can say those of you who call me racist are full of shit. Have you heard of the phenomenon of white women getting into sex tourism in the Caribbean, traveling down there to bump and grind (in more ways than one!) with young dreadlocked black men? I sure am, I know several middle aged women who are into that. And guess what? I never complained. My only real concern was that I didn't want them to catch any STDs or get knocked up if they weren't willing to take care of the baby or babies. You guys have no fucking clue what a racist is. A real hatemongering racist would want to KILL such women. I'd kill the racists in a heartbeat before letting them do that.

But such women also prove that race is real. When I ask them what's the appeal, they say it's because the black men are more aggressive, have nicer bodies, thicker dicks, nicer asses, are more confident, better dancers, more rhythm, stronger sex drive, fewer inhibitions, etc., etc. Basically all the stereotypes Royce claims to be false. I guess this means the women are RACIST by Royce's picket fence limousine liberal standards, the lace curtain fuck. Yet think about it: if black men were the same as white men, what would be the appeal? If black men were NOT different, there'd be no point in these white women traveling thousands of miles to go on sex tours seeking out dreadlocked black men. Think about it: difference is exciting. It's also why interracial porn is popular. If race were only skin deep, nobody would bother to watch interracial porn, pretty much. But it's not just skin deep: black men are more primitive in their traits. This is especially obvious if you see one with a petite white woman, or a little oriental woman. It's like they evolved to fuck and fight all night long for the fun of it. I'm sure you'll find this offensive, but fuck it, it's true. Evolution is real and this is the way things are where black men evolved. There's a lot of sex and a lot of death. Lots of tribal skirmishing which looks suspiciously like gang warfare. I'm not racist for stating the truth in a colorful way.

Once again, I am not a racist. You're full of shit when you say that. I'm just being honest, too honest for you to handle because you're sanctimonious PC pricks. Hopefully you can stop being that way, it's really stuffy and dare I say, reeks of white privilege. You've never been woken up by gunshots in the middle of the night have you? My friend has. You've never had to live with hypertension (more common among blacks for partially GENETIC reasons) have you? My friend has. You've never been attacked by a gang in your own apartment have you? My friend has. Has your car been broken into not just once, but three times, with the radio stolen every time and something new stolen each time? That's what happened to my friend Jada. If she lived in a white or asian neighborhood, IT WOULDN'T HAVE. You can babble your PC bullshit til the sacred cows come home to be butchered, but that fact does not change!

You mad cause I'm styling on you.
User avatar
Dadalama
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:20 am

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby RoyceChristian » Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:43 pm

Sophia Thalatth wrote:Strawman.


Ummm... yeah. Whatever troll. If you can't even correctly identify a straw man, I'm not going to take you very seriously.

You're a palefaced puritan with stick up his ass and a huge amount of sanctimony.


Totally. Love me some sanctimony.

Except it's empirically TRUE that they are much more likely to commit violent crime. It's your racist myth that black people are just like white people, rather than their own unique race, which harms black people more than anyone. Over 90% of the victims of black violence are other blacks. This is confirmed by numerous angles. By denying the reality of black violence you help to perpetuate needless suffering and death.


Oh, here's another to add to the list of why you're completely racist: you're taking what may be a genuine issue of crime and disempowerment and are promoting it as representative of an entire community, thereby suggesting that all "blacks" are going to exhibit the same behaviour.

Racist.

I'm not racist because unlike you I accept black people as they are and I don't have any hatred for any other races. So when you call me a racist, you're lying.


You don't have to hate to be racist.

Racist.

The race IQ theories are not debunked at all. They're mainstream among psychometricians who actually study intelligence, as opposed to liberal creationist activists on the internet.


Yup, assert all you like. But if the shoe fits...

Anonymous because I know she'd be in danger otherwise. Someone like you hates black people who don't conform to your sanctimonious Cotton-Briefs Mather, 21c edition white expectations.


You can deflect all you like, but that doesn't make you any less racist. Fact is, you wrote it, you said it and your own words identify you as a racist.

I've got many more examples. A pattern is definitely emerging more and more: black women are far more open and honest about these subjects than sanctimonious white 'liberal' jerkoffs.


Deflect, deflect, deflect.

You've already shown that you're full of shit in that regard.


Hey, I'm pointing out the facts from your own words. If you don't like the conclusions that can be drawn from them, don't post and show everyone you're stupidity.
They're not white tests of intelligence you fool. Jews and Orientals do better than whites on what you call "white" tests of intelligence. So you're totally full of shit on that as with everything else.


Yup, so you now show you completely didn't understand my argument at all at the start of this thread. Good on you.

These particular racial stereotypes happen to be true. Whites and Asians do tend to be nerdier, quieter, and not as good of dancers. If you weren't an isolated idiot with 15 jugs of piss around your computer desk then maybe you'd be able to actually hang around people and notice some differences between the races.


Racist.


RoyceChristian wrote:Racist.
You use that word often. I guess you think it helps since your arguments are so embarrassingly weak - when they exist at all, which is not often.


I am calling you a racist often and frequently, because you are racist. And you seem to hate having the word accurately applied to you.
Why would I even have real black friends if I were racist?


Racists are both ignorant and irrational. That is assuming, of course, your friends you so frequently cite are actually real. Though I'm starting to wonder, given your emphasis on their "realness" and your over-reliance on them to attempt to justify what you are saying.

RoyceChristian wrote:Racist.
Asshole. Murder is the NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH for young black people in America. By dismissing that as a "racist stereotype" you help to perpetuate it. If there are no racial differences involved - LOL - then just picture this suddenly being true tomorrow in, say, North Dakota. Or Denmark. And I don't mean by immigrants - I mean by native Europeans. Do you think anyone would consider that normal?


Dodging the issue entirely, coupled with personal insults to distract from the deflection and a rewording to make it appear as if something else is being discussed. Nice try, troll moar please.

Whites do lead in *organized* violence, at least compared to blacks and browns. I'm referring to disorganized violence - the reason my black woman friend has to fear for her life every night - and even in broad daylight. If I were racist why would I give a fuck? Why would I be trying to get her the hell out of there despite having so many problems of my own? If I were a racist I wouldn't care about her safety.


Racism doesn't have to involve hatred. Racists are by nature irrational and ignorant. You have shown yourself to be both.

Jesus fucking christ you are a sanctimonious politically correct prick.


Oh, Keith Preston?... Is that you?

And you do it the way only a WHITE asshole can do it. As it happens, it's scientifically well established that mulattos tend to be both lighter and more intelligent than blacks without europid admixture. Actually it makes excellent sense considering the averages of the respective racial groups and the high heritability of IQ.


Personal attack to dodge the issue. Again. Then a complete tangent. Troll moar please.

Exactly, your bullshit. I never mentioned "Great Chain of Being."


Didn't have to. What you're promoting pretty much fits all the characteristics of that theory. Racist.

Extremely creationist on your part. Black people are primates. So are white people. Your jew god is just a bullshit tribal mascot. He didn't create anything other than shit. Never will.


Dodging the issue coupled with personal attack attempting to make the "discussion" about me rather than Sophia's racism.

Bullshit. I have nothing to do with that theory. You're the only one who keeps babbling about it, white boy.


As above.

I don't give a shit about what terms politically correct white assholes want me to use.


Actually, "Khoikhoi" would be the term the Khoikhoi people want you to use when referring to them, rather than some derogatory imposed term. Your complete disregard and refusal to respect the "black people you love so much" shows that you are a hypocrite and a racist.

No, it's honest truth seeking. Unless you are a human supremacist there's no reason to consider such a hypothesis to be degrading. There's nothing wrong with bonobos. They are awesome animals. Humans - whatever their race - are also animals. Deal with it.


False argument.

Using a word that you don't like isn't a massacre or incitement to massacre, you fool.


But promoting the same ideas and theories which providing a theoretical framework and justification for those massacres in the first place is asking for those events to be repeated in the future.

Most massacres have been perpetrated by whites who fancied themselves to be "liberal" but were actually sanctimonious pricks.


Sounds like you're kind describing yourself, actually.

RoyceChristian wrote:Extremely racist.
You are extremely creationist.[/quote]

Please learn to use terms, logic and arguments correctly or stop posting.

But hey, least you've given me good fodder for the "list of racist things Sophia Thalatth promotes" I'm currently keeping. For fun, I might add. And you should be proud to know, you've also made my about page. Along with Keith Preston!
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. -Aesop
RoyceChristian
 
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:10 pm

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby ctmummey » Sat Feb 19, 2011 3:33 am

Sophia is keeping it real in this thread you guys. Let's put aside our liberal guilt . At this point she has given so many facts and science and truth bombs about brain and dick size that if we aren't convinced we never will be.
ctmummey
 
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 12:10 am

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby Francois Tremblay » Sat Feb 19, 2011 3:44 am

Thank you for the list, RC. Please keep it updated. We need to inform people on what this person believes. It seems that Sophia likes to go from board to board spreading her hate rhetoric. This will be useful in countering her baleful influence.
"Man was created by Nature in order to explore it. As he approaches Truth he is fated to Knowledge. All the rest is bullshit." --from the movie Solyaris
http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Francois Tremblay
 
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:48 pm
Location: United States of Coca-Cola

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby ctmummey » Sat Feb 19, 2011 3:56 am

Its so weird. I went out to the mailbox and got the latest edition of the NEJofM and there is a huge, comprehensive study of all the races. The looked at brain size, dick size (w/hard on, w/out, girth and length), rhythm, propensity to violence, etc. It turns out Sophia was right all along. I guess black women all have huge bonobo clits too.

It's crazy, but it makes so much sense now. I realize I was allowing my creationist liberalism cloud my judgement. I feel like everything needs to be reevaluated now. I think this will ultimately be good for the blacks though - now they'll know their place. We'll just explain it to the rappers and Tyler Perry and they'll let everyone know.
ctmummey
 
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 12:10 am

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby RoyceChristian » Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:06 am

ctmummey wrote:Its so weird. I went out to the mailbox and got the latest edition of the NEJofM and there is a huge, comprehensive study of all the races. The looked at brain size, dick size (w/hard on, w/out, girth and length), rhythm, propensity to violence, etc. It turns out Sophia was right all along. I guess black women all have huge bonobo clits too.

It's crazy, but it makes so much sense now. I realize I was allowing my creationist liberalism cloud my judgement. I feel like everything needs to be reevaluated now. I think this will ultimately be good for the blacks though - now they'll know their place. We'll just explain it to the rappers and Tyler Perry and they'll let everyone know.


Win.

Mmmmmm, that's good satire.
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. -Aesop
RoyceChristian
 
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:10 pm

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby Sophia Thalatth » Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:07 pm

Duh-dalama
I mean I don't really care about the intelligence differences between black people and asians.

That's because your "liberalism" and "leftism" are superficial. You are an incurious authoritarian. As long as we're unable to frankly discuss these differences and apply them to public policy, both blacks and asians will needlessly suffer and die. As long as we keep setting up blacks to fail, leading to frustration which foments violence, people of all races will needlessly suffer and die. You don't give a shit, though. To you, the fact that murder is the leading cause of death for young blacks is not bad; what's bad is honestly pointing out that fact. This is how any honest observer can tell that you really are about taboos and shame rather than free thought and free inquiry. You, Shawn, Prosthetic, Ct, all of you puritanical whiteboy phony liberals.

You and Shawn are idiots for claiming that IQ does not matter. As a result of idiocy like yours, there is a massive amount of suffering and death. Idiot Shawn claimed we don't need any more people with Xenia's high intelligence being born. That would mean no more inventions to speak of - especially advanced inventions such as the ones Shawn uses to post his stupid bullshit.

"The results from one study showed:
* 31% of those with IQs below 75 were on welfare, compared with 8% of those in the 90 to 110 IQ interval, and 0% in those with IQs above 125.
* 55% of mothers with IQs below 75 went on welfare after the birth of their first child, compared with 12% of those with IQs between 90 and 110, and 1% of those with IQs above 125.

"Adults in the bottom 5% of the IQ distribution (below 75) are very difficult to train and are not competitive for any occupation on the basis of ability. Serious problems in training low-IQ military recruits during World War II led Congress to ban enlistment from the lowest 10% (below 80) of the population, and no civilian occupation in modern economies routinely recruits its workers from that below-80 range. Current military enlistment standards exclude any individual whose IQ is below about 85."

"People with IQs between 75 and 90 are 88 times more likely to drop out of high school, seven times more likely to be jailed, and five times more likely as adults to live in poverty than people with IQs between 110 and 125. The 75-to-90 IQ woman is eight times more likely to become a chronic welfare recipient, and four times as likely to bear an illegitimate child than the 110-to-125-IQ woman."
"The General Intelligence Factor", Scientific American Presents "Exploring Intelligence", pg. 24, 1999, Linda Gottfredson

Right, IQ doesn't matter. :roll: Durrrrrrrrrrr, talking about it is racist. Idiots.

Image

Image

Don't forget that Orientals and to a lesser extent Europids tend to have hundreds of millions more neurons than blacks. How did you think intelligence worked anyway, the soul? These realities affect vast numbers of people very day. Little facts like these further show liberal creationism to be the antiscientific and irrational joke it is.
User avatar
Sophia Thalatth
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:27 am
Location: N. America

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby vaguelyhumanoid » Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:28 pm

Just because there are IQ differences doesn't mean they're genetic. Black people are underrepresented in colleges because they're generally poorer then other races, seeing as they were enslaved for about a century. As for Asians, it could be cultural as easily as genetic. Perhaps the cultures of East Asian people (or "Orientals" as your chart so anachronistically refers to them) prioritize academic pursuits more then those of "Europids". Violence among black people is at a higher rate because many of them are poor and live in the inner city, where people are more desperate. Slight differences in skull size won't convince me, either. You're way too smart to jump to conclusions like this. You're also way too smart to resort to slurs like "towelhead" and "Abo", which I've seen you do in the past.
vaguelyhumanoid
 
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 12:46 am

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby shawnpwilbur » Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:00 pm

Sophia Thalatth wrote:You and Shawn are idiots for claiming that IQ does not matter. As a result of idiocy like yours, there is a massive amount of suffering and death. Idiot Shawn claimed we don't need any more people with Xenia's high intelligence being born. That would mean no more inventions to speak of - especially advanced inventions such as the ones Shawn uses to post his stupid bullshit.

:lol: For the record, I believe I said there was no particular need for more Xenias being "spawned," since you had just admitted your interest in eugenics was related to your specific desire to breed a larger crop. I've expressed no opinions about who should and shouldn't be born—despite all the temptations you have provided.

In terms of this notion that treating human beings like human beings breeds "a massive amount of suffering and death," specifically because the less fit are subjected to conditions for which they are not, well, fit—even if I accepted your premises, you're going to have to find someone else to blame. After all, you've made it clear you don't think most of us here could pose much threat to the unfit. You've pretty well claimed that only the most highly intelligent can even invent anything. And if they do invent these things, impose them on lesser mortals, being fully aware of the horrible depths in which those lesser mortals are forced to remain, well, who can we blame but them for the pain and suffering? If you want to reduce pain and suffering, you should reconsider your stand.

Now, the truth of the matter seems to be that innovation is not a game for a few geniuses. The worst the debunkers of "black inventions" have been able to assert is the same that that is so frequently asserted against all inventors—that the more we know about the historical record, the more likely it is we'll find unknown, isolated precursors or early instances of invention. It's always been true that technological innovation is massively multiplayer affair, and now it's more true than ever.
-Shawn P. Wilbur / Contr'un / Corvus Editions

"It may be said in a general way...that we are believers in liberty, in justice, in equality, in fraternity, in peace, progress, and in a state of happiness here on earth for one and all. What we mean by all this defines itself as we go along. It is a practical, working belief..."--Sidney H. Morse
User avatar
shawnpwilbur
 
Posts: 1503
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 pm

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby Sophia Thalatth » Sun Feb 20, 2011 12:26 am

So fucking true.

Image
User avatar
Sophia Thalatth
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:27 am
Location: N. America

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby shawnpwilbur » Sun Feb 20, 2011 1:29 am

Sophia Thalatth wrote:So fucking true.

:lol: You're just silly. Nobody has denied evolution. "Liberal creationist" is just a handy name to call, one of several you resort to that are simply the instead-of-actually-talking points of your particular racialist crowd. William Saletan, who seems responsible for the term "liberal creationist," admits that he's in over his head. He's not a scientist, and doesn't seem to be a social scientist, and the Slate articles he wrote are pretty minor, speculative stuff. Saletan is pretty comfortable keeping the discussion to IQ testing, and he has even less to say about why IQ tests exhaust the question of intelligence than you do. Saletan actually makes a point of listing the ways in which the IQ differential doesn't threaten "equality."

So, as with the WSJ article (a popular account, disavowed by half the scientists it was submitted to), you're trying to make the sources do work they can't go. Saletan's "liberal creationist" stuff is just a provocative buzz-phrase from a Salon article. If you deny that "races" are taxonomical conventions, you're on shaky scientific ground. If you try to claim that those who see no practical value in mediating research on genetics through those conventions are "denying evolution," you just look ridiculous. Saletan makes the point that "race" has no specific predictive value, and, according to him, even hardcore hereditarians credit environment with 20-50% of the variation in IQ. I have yet to see a hereditarian who has an adequate grasp on the long-term, systematic nature of western prejudices about "difference," so it's not unreasonable to suggest the environmental influence might tip over past the 50% mark—by which point the appeal to racial conventions is really just one research decision among others. And then there are the philosophical, practical and overtly political reasons for treating actual human biodiversity in all its, ahem, diversity, rather than through a racial filter. Your account of lesser races tormented by integration in more advanced systems is, after all, as compelling an argument against colonialism as it is for "nature preserves" or similar foolishness. You obviously have a particular set of presuppositions and a positive agenda, despite your constant backing away from practical specifics. Maybe you think your constant name-calling and your projection of fabricated nonsense onto others will draw attention away from those issues. But the truth will out. And, as you say, when evasion and denial take the place of candor, people can be expected to assume the worst.

Honestly, I suspect that the worst about you is that you have a huge need for attention.
-Shawn P. Wilbur / Contr'un / Corvus Editions

"It may be said in a general way...that we are believers in liberty, in justice, in equality, in fraternity, in peace, progress, and in a state of happiness here on earth for one and all. What we mean by all this defines itself as we go along. It is a practical, working belief..."--Sidney H. Morse
User avatar
shawnpwilbur
 
Posts: 1503
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 pm

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby vaguelyhumanoid » Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:33 am

Sophia Thalatth wrote:So fucking true.

Image


I like how, given the opportunity to address my arguments, you instead posted a strawmannish chart. Anyways, test score and income disparities can be chalked up to economic privilege and cultural factors as much as they can genetic factors. Even if genetic factors do play a part, they aren't everything.

Also, I attended a diverse school, and I didn't notice any significant differences in behavior or intelligence based on race.
vaguelyhumanoid
 
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 12:46 am

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby Francois Tremblay » Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:45 am

The ironic part of this is that it was Alison and I who debunked the Banana Argument with Ray Comfort as our guest, and got Comfort to concede that we were right on our podcast. In fact, that's pretty much all our podcast is known for.
"Man was created by Nature in order to explore it. As he approaches Truth he is fated to Knowledge. All the rest is bullshit." --from the movie Solyaris
http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Francois Tremblay
 
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:48 pm
Location: United States of Coca-Cola

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby James » Sun Feb 20, 2011 7:00 am

Francois Tremblay wrote:The ironic part of this is that it was Alison and I who debunked the Banana Argument with Ray Comfort as our guest, and got Comfort to concede that we were right on our podcast. In fact, that's pretty much all our podcast is known for.


Do you have a link for that? Anything involving the Banana man amuses me :razz:
James
 
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby ctmummey » Sun Feb 20, 2011 1:26 pm

elephant in the thread:

vaguelyhumanoid wrote:Anyways, test score and income disparities can be chalked up to economic privilege and cultural factors as much as they can genetic factors.


and obv. urgent and key to the kind of analysis left-libertarians do.
ctmummey
 
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 12:10 am

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby lordmetroid » Sun Feb 20, 2011 1:39 pm

Why is this racists thread still going strong?
User avatar
lordmetroid
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:23 pm

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby Francois Tremblay » Sun Feb 20, 2011 3:43 pm

"Why is this racists thread still going strong?"

It's a train wreck, I guess.


"Do you have a link for that? Anything involving the Banana man amuses me :razz: "

Not really, but I could find the show and upload it somewhere if you want to listen to it.

Here is a transcript someone did of the concession:

"Alleee : I'm just saying that, that there are very few plants, and we argue - with some environmentalists a lot who don't believe in bioengineered food, because all, because most of the food that we eat of course is farmed, and is done through horticulture, and we've engineered these - these fruits and vegetables to be more tasty to us. So actually, the banana seems to be not, not made by God at this point, it's more like um... what, what came first, the banana or the hand ? [laugh] You know ? Man took the banana and made it better for man...

Ray Comfort : Okay, you've got that one. You can have the banana.

Franc : WE WIN ! WE WIN ! WE'VE WON THE BANANA !"
"Man was created by Nature in order to explore it. As he approaches Truth he is fated to Knowledge. All the rest is bullshit." --from the movie Solyaris
http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Francois Tremblay
 
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:48 pm
Location: United States of Coca-Cola

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby Dadalama » Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:47 pm

Francois Tremblay wrote:"Why is this racists thread still going strong?"

It's a train wreck, I guess.


"Do you have a link for that? Anything involving the Banana man amuses me :razz: "

Not really, but I could find the show and upload it somewhere if you want to listen to it.

Here is a transcript someone did of the concession:

"Alleee : I'm just saying that, that there are very few plants, and we argue - with some environmentalists a lot who don't believe in bioengineered food, because all, because most of the food that we eat of course is farmed, and is done through horticulture, and we've engineered these - these fruits and vegetables to be more tasty to us. So actually, the banana seems to be not, not made by God at this point, it's more like um... what, what came first, the banana or the hand ? [laugh] You know ? Man took the banana and made it better for man...

Ray Comfort : Okay, you've got that one. You can have the banana.

Franc : WE WIN ! WE WIN ! WE'VE WON THE BANANA !"

nomnomnom
Banana good
User avatar
Dadalama
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:20 am

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby RoyceChristian » Sun Feb 20, 2011 10:17 pm

lordmetroid wrote:Why is this racists thread still going strong?


It became productive ever since they started talking about bananas.
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. -Aesop
RoyceChristian
 
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:10 pm

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby Sophia Thalatth » Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:21 am

I notice how not one of you supposed "left libertarians" with such pretenses of moral indignation toward my racism (which isn't) has expressed any concern whatsoever that black people with IQs under 75 are being used in the production of hardcore pornography - including pornography with racist themes such as "Ghetto Gaggers." Intelligence expert Linda S. Gottfredson writes,

"An IQ of 75 is perhaps the most important threshold in modern life. At that level, a person's chances of mastering the elementary school curriculum are only 50-50, and he or she will have a hard time functioning independently without considerable social support."

So right in the U.S. there are black people basically with the minds of children getting bamboozled into appearing in porn productions in which they are called nigger whores, slapped around, brutally gang banged, urinated upon, made to choke on penises and to vomit, and made to lick anuses of strangers. The average white gentile pornographer likely has an IQ slightly higher than the white average -- about 110. The average white Jewish pornographer, it's likely slightly higher than the U.S. Ashkenazi average -- about 115 or 120. In both cases, is there not a potential issue with power imbalance when we have shrewd pornographers bullshitting someone with the mind of a child into being used in a for-profit porno, a production which once released can never be recalled? This is all the more true when it comes to Jewish pornographers, as like it or not, it is not merely an "antisemitic stereotype" that Jews disproportionately possess the Gift of the Gab. About 17% of black Americans have IQs under 70. An IQ of 70 corresponds with a mental age of 11. But ctmummey finds rational discussion regarding intelligence differences to be "boring" as would any incurious and immoral asshole, so we should shut up about it, amirite?

The fact that none of you sanctimonious jerkoffs who unthinkingly call me "racist" or "antisemitic" has voiced even the slightest concern about mental children being urinated upon for profit and sadistic sexual gratification speaks volumes. Among other things, this indicates that for all your pretenses of thickness, your commitment to "equality" is shallow, superficial, and dare I say, a fraud. On the other hand, suddenly you are deeply concerned when I break the most powerful taboos - that is, taboos which serve the most powerful. You reflexively defend established power elites by means of authoritarian aggression against those who even recognize their existence, let alone engage even in mild criticism!

The power dynamics of modern industrial society have more to do with taboos than formal law (except when "reinterpreted" by filthy rich swindler lawyers). Full-blown fascism is economically inefficient. This is one of the reasons why elite bankers, industrialists, and finance capitalists (all these power elite groups are, like it or not, disproportionately Ashkenazi Jews) in power would usually rather use it as a last resort. In the mean time, as we can see, taboos are remarkably effective in blinding and frightening otherwise smart people - e.g., many of you - into craven submission to authority. In some cases, some of you such as ctmummey even engage in blatantly sadistic bullying behavior toward some of us who are more free-spirited, honest and courageous in questioning authority - even knowing that I have an officially terminal diagnosis for brain cancer!

Considering that ctmummey and several others here evince such a hatefully sadistic mentality, it is all the less surprising that you're so blatantly unconcerned about mental children being sexually exploited and when they're all used up, possibly infected with HIV, tossed into the figurative garbage heap. No, you're concerned about my "bigotry" - as if some of you're not acting like the textbook definition of bigots when you gang up upon me, dismiss what I have to say and insult me - and let's not forget "hatred," as if there is anything "hateful" about an honest and consistent opposition to supremacism, no matter who does it - gentile or Jew.

On the other hand, the power elites who run the status quo system - dominated by the United States of America in geopolitical terms and a perverse 'alliance' of white Jews and white gentiles in racial terms - are hateful exploiters, swindlers, and militarists, yet because the power elites are disproportionately Jewish whites rather than gentile whites, many of you reflexively defend such people from criticism. Y'know, I can't really think of you as anti-authoritarian considering that you're on the hangman's side.
User avatar
Sophia Thalatth
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:27 am
Location: N. America

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby James » Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:00 pm

I thought we were talking about bananas now :sad:
James
 
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby Francois Tremblay » Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:14 pm

Image
"Man was created by Nature in order to explore it. As he approaches Truth he is fated to Knowledge. All the rest is bullshit." --from the movie Solyaris
http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Francois Tremblay
 
Posts: 3709
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:48 pm
Location: United States of Coca-Cola

Re: Why HBD isn't inherently reactionary

Postby Sophia Thalatth » Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:02 am

It's quite telling how many here support white supremacy as long as it is kosher - i.e., Jewish and Zionist.

According to The Jewish Phenomenon: Seven Keys to the Enduring Wealth of a People by Steven Silbiger and Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment by J.J. Goldberg (editor of the Jewish community magazine Forward), U.S. Jews represent:

* 33% of millionaires
* 45% of billionaires
* 50% of Wall Street executives

So how can you be an oppressed group while being part of the white club, comprising half of Wall Street and well nigh half the billionaires of the country? Oh yeah, there's also no Driving While Jewish, unlike Driving While Black.

If we're to be concerned about white privilege, perhaps we should be especially concerned about white Jewish privilege.

The strong taboo - likely the strongest taboo there is - upon rational discussion of these topics is all the more evidence that white Jews occupy a position of great power and privilege.
__________________
User avatar
Sophia Thalatth
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:27 am
Location: N. America

PreviousNext

Return to Dissent

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron
suspicion-preferred