View RSS Feed


How Rand Paul Can Become President

Rate this Entry
Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
Quote Originally Posted by FvS View Post
Sorry, that doesn't follow. Let's say Ron Paul lied, cheated, blackmailed, etc. himself into the presidency. Why should he then turn into a Communist because of it? Would you have rather had a Ron Paul presidency by any means necessary or no Ron Paul presidency because he was "honorable?" The stakes are too high to not use the enemy's tactics against them.

Race, IQ, cultural compatibility, voting habits, crime rates, welfare use, etc. Would it be good for Japan to become, let's say, 40% Mexican? Is California better off now than when it was 90+% White European?
If Ron Paul lied about his beliefs and misled the public then he would not be Ron Paul and he would not be the kind of man that would try and decrease the power of the State.

The kind of man that would do that is by nature a tyrant just waiting for power and any idiot voting for him is nothing but a fool. You're the one being lied to, not the government bureaucrats. If you use the enemy's tactics the you are the enemy. Only a Communist, Socialist, or equally detestable person untrustworthy with power would even consider the idea.

LOL. Vox Day. Talk about following an idiot. You've been really drinking the Kool-Aid, haven't you?

IQ is largely a delusion. And even if it wasn't it wouldn't matter. Stupid people have all the same rights you do.

However, so far I have never talked to someone who obsessed over the alleged difference in average IQs between races, who didn’t also have an immoral authoritarian agenda they were trying to justify. And so far, every one began by denying having such an agenda, only to later demonstrate that they did.

Because, you see, the concepts of self-ownership and non-aggression don’t have an IQ threshold. “Oops, your IQ is only 70, so it’s okay for you to be enslaved or otherwise violently victimized.” No, it doesn’t work that way.

Oddly, a lot of people who oppose race-based injustice and victimization still get duped into arguing about statistics and studies, as if that is what matters. Instead, whether they want to argue about the data or not, anyone who actually values freedom and justice should begin and end such a discussion by pointing out that, when it comes using state coercion, it doesn't matter what the IQ of any group, or any individual, is. Aggression is wrong, against smart people, against stupid people, against all people. (And how stupid does someone have to be to not understand that?)

There is nothing new about the irrational and immoral notion that, if some categories of humans can be deemed “inferior,” then those categories don’t have to be treated the same way as the “superior” categories. And the agenda might not be something as openly horrendous as genocide or enslavement; it might be something along the lines of, “Well then our immigration policies should favor this group over that group.” But that still means initiating violence based on statistical patterns and probabilities, rather than using force only to defend against actual individual aggressors.

And just as this applies to IQs, it also applies when it comes to crime statistics. If Demographic Group A can be shown to, on average, commit violent crime at twice the rate of Demographic Group B, what does that mean? Does it mean that it’s okay to lock up, or otherwise initiate violence, against everyone who belongs to Demographic Group A, based upon what we think some of them might later do? Of course not. Again, knowing what the statistics are can be useful for trying to understand and solve problems, but never by mistreating individuals based on their categorization, by race, or nationality, or sex, or age, or anything else.

So no, when people harp on IQ as it relates to race, rarely are they “just being scientific.” Usually they are doing the collectivist, pack-mentality routine of trying to concoct an excuse to use authoritarian coercion again some other group of people, for the benefit of their own group. Ironically, these same people are usually the loudest to condemn communism, and the most eager to apply the “communist” label to anyone who doesn’t agree with them—despite the fact that they are just one more flavor of authoritarian, collectivist statist, and share a lot in common with communists. (Even the Nazis were, after all, national socialists.)

The principles of self-ownership and non-aggression do not change based upon race, or place of birth, or sex, or wealth, or education level, or IQ. When it comes to the “political” realm, voluntaryism is (by definition) the only truly tolerant position one can take, and no amount of attempted rationalizations, or appeals to “necessity” or “practicality,” or “scientific studies,” will ever change that. I own me, and you own you. That is, and will always be, the primary and fundamental starting point for a moral, rational society.
That you want to take away their rights because of something so weak and ephemeral as an "IQ" test just tells me you're a tinpot tyrant yourself.

Race absolutely is a delusion. As a very white, blonde, blue eyed man, people afraid that their precious white daughter might marry a "horrible" black man, or Heaven forbid, a Mexican (!) are just ridiculous. They labor under the delusion that 1. there is any race but the human race and 2. that there are such things as "pure" races when there are not and never have been. Go back far enough and we're all African. But more than that, racial intermixing has been one of the constants of human history. The concept of "white" and "black" as racial identifiers as we understand it now was only invented beginning in the late 1700s and really only solidified in the 1920s. Before, during, and sense people have intermixed all across the globe. All people are multinational and multiracial.

A better predictor or criminality isn't race but poverty. White people in poverty act the same way poor black people do. And when you alleviate poverty people stop committing crimes with racial difference.

Which explains why black people commit more crimes. One, certain laws, like the War on Drugs, were created specifically to attack and destroy black communities for doing things like using drugs.

John Ehrlichman, counsel and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under Nixon, in the latest issue of Harper's is one of those moments.

The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
Meaning of course that the government specifically set out to destroy black people and impoverish their communities, communities that had only gained the freedom to actually compete on the market to improve their lives. Segregation ended just over 50 years ago, not even a lifetime to build up wealth and restore a people broken by government violence. And all that time they've been fighting another struggle against the State in the form of the War on Drugs, meant to prevent them from being able to get ahead.

So, you want to make America better? Restore the greatest engine in human history to do that - the free market system. Free market capitalism destroys poverty, increases the standard of living for everyone involved, and does it without caring whether you're black or white. Which of course is why Progressives such as yourself have always hated the free market, it disproves your entire system and you can't handle that.

Oh, and as for California, considering the people who initiated its slide into socialism were, and a majority still are, white people, blaming Mexicans or anyone else for its problems is just stupid. The problem in California, as everywhere else, is the State. Not immigrants.