A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

[Aitrus]

Userque, after thinking about the conversation, I've come to understand how you and other readers might have taken what I've said to be racist. If that is truly the case, then I might as well sign up to be an East Asian Supremacist or Ashkenazi Jew Supremacist based on what I've said regarding intelligence.

I think that the main problem lies in our definition of racism, which clearly differs. The Oxford definition you provided is absurd because it implies that merely believing that there are differences between the races is sufficient to define one as a racist. It disregards science and the scientists that use the data in their studies. All I'm doing is saying that I agree with the scientists when they say that there are genetic differences between the races which result in greater or lesser potential to generate individuals with certain characteristics that make them more or less suited for certain things based on those characteristics. This isn't racism.

It's going to the next step that makes one racist. That step is assigning a character- or human-value judgement on individuals or groups based on those differences and characteristics. That is, saying that somebody is inherently worth more or less because of their race. I have not done this, and never will. Saying that one group is generally better at something because they tend to produce more individuals who are better at that thing is not racist. If it is, then there's a bunch of scientists out there who must be racist.

If you persist in labeling me a racist, there's nothing I can do about that. I think that your operating definition of racism is leading you down incorrect paths. All I know that race is a hard topic to talk about. It's a topic that most people avoid due to exactly the kind of reaction I'm getting here. It's understandable that we can't seem to have these kinds of conversations in society without it blowing up because many people personally invest themselves when they discuss it. That's why I wanted to discuss the merits of Propertarianism itself - not the racial undertones beneath it - to see if the ideas were worthwhile without the racial component. And perhaps my mistake was not making that clearer in the beginning. It remains to be seen if the Propertarians themselves are racist, or if they are just using the science to inform the underlying structure of their proposals, or if their underlying structure is based on culture and not race and have simply worded things badly. Stilljammi and I seem to be making a little headway in that area.

I wish you well and hope you have a good weekend, and that this conversation doesn't weigh too much on your mind. There's no reason it should ruin what should instead be a celebration of our nation's 244th birthday. I'll be doing the same.

[userque]

From: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=18031&start=90#p86689

You said most of the last paragraph in response to my asking Aitrus about being a racist.

In light of the today's discussions, and the definition of racism, I was curious as to how you feel today about the exact same above topic.

I understand if you don't want to answer ... I'm getting used to that sort of response.

At the risk of sounding condescending to Aitrus, I don't think he realized the roots of that "movement" and he was kind of forced into defending a set of ideas that went way deeper. No person in their right mind would willingly defend a movement with that much baggage. But IMO, it's fair game to criticize those ideas and it's reasonable to question the reasons why someone would support that. As stated previously, it's good to know where exactly people stand. I was indeed the one who brought up many of the horrible and racist ideas of that movement in that thread because it was entirely relevant. No other group is calling for what they are calling for, there's a reason for that. Their solutions are based on those faulty and racist ideas.

When you call someone a racist, the discussion usually ends right there. When you criticize someone's ideas racist, you can get a bit further. I'm really interested in understanding why we view something like the "Propertarianism" as racist. I'm interested in the exact reasons why racism is bad for our society. I think a lot of people pointed that out quite effectively. I pointed out in the other thread why the fact that Whites have attempted to hold Blacks down as a permanent underclass is being ignored.

Now the next logical question would be: can someone support the above line of thinking without being a racist? Can an otherwise moral and logical person support the movement in that other thread? That's something that deserves its own thread.

No doubt, my post wasn't clear.

My post/question to you is in the other thread because I was asking you if you still believed today, as you did then, when you said in that thread, "No one in this forum is racist" and "obviously you're not racist" (referring to Aitrus).

Regarding the first quote, I remember thinking to the effect of, "How can anyone, in these forums, say that no other user of this forum is racist? How could they know? And with all the racism that goes on, what would be the odds that in a cluster of over 1,000 people, no one is a racist?"

One of the first things I said in this thread, was concerning: first, recognizing that there is a problem, in order to find a solution.

Regarding the subject of your response:

I believe Aitrus did, and does, realize the roots of that movement. The same thing that caused you to believe, without any evidence, that there are no racists here; is the same thing that causes you that say (in effect) that Aitrus "couldn't have realized ... ."

That "thing," was the same thing that allowed police misconduct to flourish for years, because non-racist people convinced themselves that, in effect, "no racist police exist."

Since they didn't recognize a problem, it hasn't been fixed ... to this day.

But as you indicated with your subject matter, this topic also deserves its own thread.

[stilljammi]

If that is truly the case, then I might as well sign up to be an East Asian Supremacist or Ashkenazi Jew Supremacist based on what I've said regarding intelligence.

That's another one of those bad faith arguments. If this movement was about establishing city-states in Asia, or Jewish theocracies, we'd be calling you an East Asian Supremacist or Ashkenazi Jew Supremacist. This is about establishing city-states within a white, European, Christian theocracy. There is no separating that from the movement.

All I'm doing is saying that I agree with the scientists when they say that there are genetic differences between the races which result in greater or lesser potential to generate individuals with certain characteristics that make them more or less suited for certain things based on those characteristics. This isn't racism.

They aren't saying there is a genetic difference. They are saying there is a difference, they made no attempt in that book to distinguish environmental vs genetic causes of that study. You and this author are coming to that genetic conclusion without any evidence. That's one of the problems I have.

In regards to the original book:
I respect Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson and I did listen to (some of) that podcast you linked. It is quite interesting. Harris has changed over the years, though. I remember a discussion with him and Christopher Hitchens about the danger of challenging certain ideas. I believe Hitch brought up the very idea of being afraid of the consequences of The Bell Curve (white vs black) being true as an example and dismissing it right in front of Harris. https://youtu.be/1vyIYhGxD40?t=3262 https://youtu.be/TaeJf-Yia3A?t=1490
There's also a long debate that he and Ezra Klein had on the subject of race and IQ. Now, going into it I knew Klein was going to get his clock cleaned pretty good, but he held his own pretty well. Harris is a better debater and thinker, but Klein had the better argument. And that's the reason Harris never even broached the subject with Hitch, because Hitch would've checked him real quick.

The Bell Curve was written to support ideas like this "movement". To embrace the idea that there are cognitive differences between races/cultures/people and to move on to another society that separates based on cognitive differences.

But this is one book on a group of studies. No further studies are needed?

But again, I can grant you the data is empirical and plentiful, but the ideas behind this movement are still racist. I don't know that the data is solid, you may be convinced, I think the data is still out on the subject. But let's say it's true, and I've been very generous at conceding many good points in this thread...

What conclusions can we draw from that data?
The issue that I have is that it supports a caricature of different races and classes (using the IQ example, black people). It was only brought up in this thread because it's supported by this movement or related in some way, right? It offers the definitive "why" behind the data.
Why don't we ask "Is there a reason for this lower IQ trend?" instead of jumping broad generalizations about races, classes, whatever? There's no discussion about how much of it was genetic or environmental, there's no real talk about why. That's something that I think should be apart of the discussion if we are to accept this data. How much of it is due to being subjugated for 400 years in this society, with another 150 of Jim Crow and police brutality and other nonsense? And not just blacks, but other peoples/races/classes have been disenfranchised as well. None mentioned of that on the website, not even taken seriously. Again, that links to the other thread: omitting these things from the discussion is a big problem.

Then you've got another issue on your hands.

What solutions should we enact based on those conclusions?
Ok, let's say the data is empirical. I'll also grant you that the conclusions we are to draw from it are that this race or class is inferior (or that whites are superior, more capable, etc.) not to take away from their value as a human as you state.
The next issue I have is: why is the solution to just separate ourselves from the lower classes? The Jordan Peterson video you posted argues against this point. In the first half, he explains that we should be disturbed by the fact that there are some people who have been basically written off in society. The author of this movement speaks about the lower classes as if they were vermin or a virus.

5 – The conversion of Deep Blue Immigrant Cities to City-States, in the tradition of “Free Cities” of the European Tradition under the Holy Roman Empire. This will account for nearly half of the population. These cities have intentionally defected from the American and European Project in pursuit of the profits for Elites under of The Jewish Cosmopolitan Project. We have made bankruptcy possible for States. Our expectation is that as the continued competitive advantage of the State’s declines, these cities will continue to bankruptcy, write down their debts, restructure, the remaining ‘conservative’ people will flee, causing more reforms, but that over the century they will adapt to necessity. These cities will follow global norms of a small White, Jewish, or East Asian central district surrounded by slums. But the contagion will be contained, and while these cities will continue to die off, new core cities will form outside of them but under the Law and Constitution that has criminalized Cosmopolitan policies.

Why is there no discussion about what we can do to help? How can we better co-exist? How can both parties prosper? Diversity is no longer a virtue? Often times, discussion about reparations, affirmative action, DREAMers and equal rights begins here. Maybe those are solutions, maybe not, but it seems a lot less drastic than totally forming a new society away from those individuals. The author actually concedes that he doesn't believe that these city-states will do well, they will actually fail. Why would someone wish that? Is this entire movement actually a solution to the conclusions and the data that we have discussed? I don't think so. It's an idea for a white utopia: his way is right and you will eventually be forced to fall in line. I believe this is a precursor to wanting to create a separate society without any of those other races and classes in it. This reminds me of the game Bioshock Infinite. That's the one where society post-Civil War has fully embraced white supremacy and decided to make their own city in the clouds lifted up by air balloons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_KOZ0EiM9g I'm only half-joking, this is what I think the author of movement would let happen. They openly say they want a utopian, European, white, Christian theocracy.

When they talk about lower classes, they are talking about Blacks and Mexicans and Jews. The culture and class thing is a dog-whistle. Again, it's buried in a lot of chaff about States' rights in the video and site, but we know what they are talking about. No, I don't believe we need to devolve the country into a bunch of city-states. The reasoning behind it is bad and I don't know of any other movement that is asking for something like this that ISN'T based in white supremacy. Why can't we just keep the same system and country we have now, but give States and cities even more legal power and weaken the federal government? Why go through all this extra trouble? Under a new city-state society, what federal laws would govern? Horrible, vile laws, as I've pointed out. It doesn't remain to be seen if this movement is racist or not, it's pretty clear. I probably won't post more about it, I'll just leave it to the other members to make up their minds about this.

Userque, to answer your question. Would I have said the same thing now that I did then? I don't know. I give people the benefit of the doubt and I hope they do the same with me. You make very good points, but at least now we know more about where people are coming from and people have stated their ideas and their stance. And I think that's worth the debate.

[userque]

Userque, you do have a point. I'll concede that the entire thread is about both Propertarianism and my views as well, and you weren't trying to undermine me by asking me about my views. I apologize for suggesting it.

No problem.

I did bring it up, and continued the conversation along those lines without doing my utmost to bring it back to Propertarianism itself.

A general topic, such as that, is comprised of sub-topics. In my opinion, those sub-topics are correctly considered "on-point."

You can't have a topic: "Speeding on the highway," while calling the discussion of the highway patrol off-topic.

That is why, imo, there was no effort on your part to prevent the race discussion. You only raised the off-topic allegation once you no longer wanted to discuss your racial beliefs.

But I'm still confused by your hostility toward me on this.

I usually have deliberate and exact reasons for every sentence I posted. And I'll tell you once you quote where you believe I was hostile towards you.

I still fail to see why you think I'm a racist when all I'm doing is applying scientific conclusions to reality.

Quote exactly where I said that I think that you are racist.

If you disagree with the science, fine - let's have that discussion. But if you agree with the science and merely disagree following where the data leads, then that's on you and not me. Or maybe you have a problem with my use of the word "superior". Maybe a better phrasing could be "more capable" or "better suited" or "more or less prone to producing individuals".

All that would have been addressed once you answered that simple question.

Take some time and listen to this man's take on race and IQ, and since he's a Psychology professor at Toronto University I would say that he knows what he's talking about. He even states an example - Ashkenazi Jews, and their higher average IQ of 110 to 115 - to make a point about how IQ and race manifests in the world. He also points out - just as I did in our discussion earlier - that different individual attributes about a person / race have nothing to do with the value of that person or race. You seemed to gloss over that part, and zeroed in on the mere fact of noting differences in race - such as IQ. The first part is a lot of detail about IQ tests themselves, so I'd suggest that you start watching at 13:10 to see the portion I'm talking about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h02w5E7FGlY

Here's a professor at the University of California: "Race and ethnicity account for a substantial share of test-score variance after controlling for family income and education."
Source, view at 35:43: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3lZe2OTBfQ

Here's a podcast between Sam Harris - a philosopher and PhD neuroscientist from University of California, and Charles Murray - PhD in political science from MIT, and the author of The Bell Curve, a book covering the relationship between race and IQ. They discuss in depth the relationship between race and IQ - including that race is malleable and one must still interact with an individual on his/her own specific abilities (something I have never disagreed with, rather, something I wholeheartedly support). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YfEoxU82us

Now do you see where I get my understanding of the relationship between race and IQ from? There's tons of science to back it up. It exists.

Now as to the other questions I've asked before in this thread: can Propertarianism be viewed as a viable solution if the racial background and overtones can be taken out of it? If it's based entirely on solving cultural / social disagreements, can it be a solution to what we're facing as a society?

We can talk about whatever, when you're ready to answer the question you left on the table.

** I'll read and respond to your latest post when I get some time. **

[head]

We are the Borg. They will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. Look what happened to the Tea Party.

To quote one of the best books ever written: "All animals are created equal but some are more equal than others."

I agree with you quoting one of my favorite books, Animal Farm.. But remember the quote: All humans are equal, but some are more equal then others.

[Aitrus]

Stilljammi,

You bring up a lot of good points. They reflect a lot of the same questions I've had about the movement as I've read and learned about it. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and for giving me a lot of food for thought.

[bloobs]

I think we all now have a very good idea where Aitrus stands on the matter of race and his vision for America. Thank you for your candor. It's better than than hiding it from us.

I'm sorry that you've misread me, bloobs. I brought this topic - Propertarianism - to the board in order to explore it. I'm not saying I agree with it or not - just that it's thought-provoking and worth exploring to test for validity. I have no "vision for America", and my conclusions on race are reflective of scientific reality. Did you miss the part where I said that no race as a whole is superior to another, and that culture is separate from race?

“What can you do, thought Winston, against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself; who gives your arguments a fair hearing and simply persists in his lunacy?”

- George Orwell, 1984

[Aitrus]

“What can you do, thought Winston, against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself; who gives your arguments a fair hearing and simply persists in his lunacy?”

- George Orwell, 1984

Do you realize that this is exactly what many on the Right have been saying about the Left for years? As in, the Right believes that they are the ones providing sound arguments, and that the Left are the ones persisting in their lunacy (except that the Left long ago ceased giving the arguments any semblance of a fair hearing)?

[bloobs]

“What can you do, thought Winston, against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself; who gives your arguments a fair hearing and simply persists in his lunacy?”

- George Orwell, 1984

Do you realize that this is exactly what many on the Right have been saying about the Left for years? As in, the Right believes that they are the ones providing sound arguments, and that the Left are the ones persisting in their lunacy (except that the Left long ago ceased giving the arguments any semblance of a fair hearing)?

A truly open mind would realize that some people on the left, and more importantly most of those in the center, believe that as well.

The point the quote makes is that we are our own worst judges of our own true character. Look at the man in mirror first before casting judgement on anyone else. Our greatest fears and insecurities we blame on others are nothing more than a projection of our very own. Decades on this planet have taught me this much about us.

[Aitrus]

A truly open mind would realize that some people on the left, and more importantly most of those in the center, believe that as well.

The point the quote makes is that we are our own worst judges of our own true character. Look at the man in mirror first before casting judgement on anyone else. Our greatest fears and insecurities we blame on others are nothing more than a projection of our very own. Decades on this planet have taught me this much about us.

Quite often very true. Good observation, and thank you for sharing it.

[Tomanyiron]

I just watched this, and think it's good to hear a little wisdom once and a while.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rRHmpCq3z4

[userque]

I came across the Propertarianism movement a while back. It has some interesting theories, ideas, and proposals. Admittedly, there's a ton of stuff that this group has covered, but I've read their Declaration of Reformation and their proposed amendments for an updated / restored Constitution. Given all of the rioting and social / political conflict in our society these days, this group seems to be the only ones offering a possible solution.

This coming Saturday, the 4th of July, they'll be meeting in Richmond to kick formally announce their proposal. They make no bones about coming from the conservative side of the aisle, but they seem to be sincere in their efforts, and predict an escalation of the cultural violence we've been seeing if something isn't done sooner or later.

Here's a quick overview of the biggest pieces of what they propose (watch all the way to the end): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciefChL0PJM

Link to their Declaration / Constitution (watch the video first - there's multiple hours of reading in this link): https://seconddeclaration.org/

I'm not entirely decided on what I think about these proposals, and I'm interested in seeing what you guys think. Thoughts?

Aitrus has recently complained that he didn't keep this thread on the above, original topic--more specifically, that he didn't reign in the subtopic of racism.

I may or may not join in the newer, recent posts here, but I just want to get clarity first from the thread originator:

Aitrus, please clarify whether you'll allow racism to be discussed in this thread.

[ArrieS]

Rome lasted a long time, but the comparisons between the USA and Rome are numerical in nature, especially in its last century. Rome fell to internal strife at its end days, before the armies came to Rome, they played "games," up until the army was at the gates of Rome.

Which Rome? It's all nice to say Rome fell but this is an extremely small minded view. There were several Romes. The most important Rome feel in 60 B.C.E.when Caesar Pompey, and Crassus seized control of the Rome Republic and ruled as a triumvirate.

Rome always had strife. It's whole history was violence and a lot of it was mob rule. Especially during the Republic.

What did Rome in was the accumulation of power and wealth in the hands of families. Not mob violence of political strife.

People got too rich and they used wealth to seize power or manipulate the Government for their own ends. Ceasar was paying for his own Armies. I hate to tell you people but no Democracy died except from an outside power or individuals achieving wealth great enough to command armies and ending it because they had the power to do it.

The Republic died because of the wealth of individuals.

So no, it was Ceaser and his personal wealth that did the Roman Republic in. The whole Roman Empire is another thing and I'm sure the Republic and it's down fall is more important to America than the Emperors and their end.

[ArrieS]

I'm not so sure that we are all the same, Bubba. The same under the law - yes, that's what "created equal" means. But I disagree that we're all created the same in terms of ability, IQ, temperment, etc. There are clear disparities by race, nationality, and more (see below attachments - the worldwide one is from Wikipedia, the other one is from a 10-year nationwide IQ study by Bureau of Labor Statistics).

And?

"In America, 82 percent of those who took the Stanford-Binet test in 1978 scored above the 1932 average for individuals of the same age. The average black did about as well on the Stanford-Binet test in 1978 as the average white did in 1932.

Third, when black or mixed-race children are raised in white rather than black homes, their pre-adolescent test scores rise dramatically. These adoptees’ scores seem to fall in adolescence, but this could easily be because their social and cultural environment comes to resemble that of other black teenagers."

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the- ... n-be-done/

Ignorance allows one to use facts to say what they want. Not what the truth is.

Tell me, how these "disparities by race" you speak oh. What race disparities did the average white have in 1932?

When you account for difference in environment we see that it plays a far larger role in influencing IQ.

Please, please, please explain to me how the average black in 1978 was clearly a better "race" than the average white was in 1932. After all if you want to claim disparities by race you need to account for it.

The average IQ has improved dramatically for over 100 years. Because the educational system has improved and the unfortunate truth is it hasn't improved from the same base or the same rate for every one.

Today, if you compare the average IQ by state. Many states with lower black populations have lower average IQ's than states with higher black populations.

https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/we-c ... ening.html

But there seems to be a correlation to lower average IQ states with poorer educational systems. For example West Virgina has an average IQ of 98.7 and has a black population that's 3.58%. Yet Massachusetts state has an Average IQ 104.3 and it's black population is 8.1%. Guess what, it spends considerably more.

Rising IQs also point to environmental causes. Because, guess what, we aren't adapting that fast. Gene's don't change that fast (for humans that is, some species are more prevalent to mutations in their genes). Yet, news flash, as a generation we are statistically significant higher in IQ. Something that can't be accounted for by "race" because that would mean genetic adaption. The Average IQ in 1932 was 80.... F#%&ING 80, today a person with 80 would be considered developmentally challenged. Do you think the average American was developmentally challenged in 1932?

If you disagree, please tell me how about the race disparities between you and your great grandparents.

[Aitrus]

Arries,

The problem is that it's not 100% environmental and not 100% genetic - each plays a large role in IQ. However, we don't know how much for each side - but the conclusion is that there is absolutely a genetic link as well as an environmental one. As discussed in The Bell Curve, environment does play a role. However, per the authors themselves, if environment was 100% responsible for IQ differences, then there would need to be a deviation of at least 1.5 between the environment of whites and that of blacks in order to make up the difference - and that's nowhere near the case.

In regards to the question regarding test scores in 1932 versus today, the current understanding of the answer to that issue is that it is twofold: The Flynn Effect, and nutrition is better now than it was then.

My grandfather was arguably much smarter than I in many areas - such as math, carpentry, and manners / social graces.

Source for both conclusions regarding environment impact on IQ and Flynn Effect and nutrition - from a podcast interview with the authors of The Bell Curve (listen from 13:05 - 20:15): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YfEoxU82us&t=1415s