The Alt Right is an Ideologically Diverse Movement

[NewRightLibertarian]

You left out immigration fanboy.

You never extend voting rights to group who will vote against you, this has been the norm for all of time, why? Because it is not in your best interests to do so.

I have no obligation to raise an army, arm it, and unleash it against myself.

I don't think Rand ever abandoned his closed borders position, but you wouldn't have been able to tell from his rhetoric.

[adissa]

I like some people within the alt-right, but there's a reason I identify with Neoreaction instead.

Explain the distinction between the two, please.

[helmuth_hubener]

Explain the distinction between the two, please.

Mises Institute seminar vs. Ron Paul sign wave.

[undergroundrr]

However, I have the intelligence and the basic decency not to call something I haven't read a "Nazi tract" or anything similar.

Sorry, we have to draw our conclusions from the conclusions of others. Our time in life is limited. I may never read Mein Kampf or Das Kapital either, but I'm content to take the word of people I trust. There's no shortage of drooly, insubstantial, unconditional rave reviews of "IQ and..." out there by people who are feeding their confirmation bias, but most of the substantial commentary where somebody has really considered the depth of the hypothesis has been very critical. I put a fair bit of weight on writing found on mises.org. But you know, it's a site named after a Jew, so YMMV.

It's my experience that the critics of hereditarianism constantly strawman the proponents and often simply argue for a softer hereditarian model instead of something actually distinct. On the alt-right as a whole, there is a tendency to overestimate race and underestimate statecraft and economics. On the other hand, race and IQ predicts wealth and levels of violence in the US exceedingly well.

So you guys get off your asses and define a distinct hereditarian model. To do that, someone's going to have to establish
a) if IQ measures something and if so what it measures,
b) for purpose of research - what a race is, defined by allowable variance of specific markers on the genome,
c) that the data is collected according to the definition in b),
d) that the data is strong, not dubiously derived, and from a very large sample,
e) the direction of causation.

I know, "But that would take too long and be too expensive, and before we can do that the world will be overrun by immigrants and civilization will have collapsed."

Notably, in positive accounts of "IQ and..." rigor is cast to the wind. There are only varieties of "This book is right because it has lots of tables and if you don't think so you're a cuck." And, "These guys have the balls to say what nobody else would say." And most evocatively, "Don't listen to the detractors."

Determining IQ by average readings from a sample within a political boundary results in only a very tentative correlation to ethnicities in most cases. On top of that, determining the IQ for an un-sampled country by averaging two bordering countries (which if claims are correct were done for almost half the numbers in their original "IQ and..." list) is a data distortion that can only be labeled malicious negligence. No, let me go further. It's idiotic, moronic and brazenly unscientific.

I formed my libertarian opinions in an environment where sociology as a discipline was highly questioned and generally dismissed as junk science. I have my doubts that such modes of thought can be objective, let alone libertarian.

[helmuth_hubener]

Sorry, we have to draw our conclusions from the conclusions of others. Our time in life is limited. I may never read Mein Kampf or Das Kapital either, but I'm content to take the word of people I trust.

And yet you're going to rail so stridently against it, with such certainty, that it's the most evil thing ever invented by man? Have you at least read the Communist Manifesto? I mean, come on. And yet you're an expert on communism and feel qualified to hold such strong opinions about it?

"I hate the Mormons; they're the most evil plague even unleashed by Satan!"

"Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?"

"Of course not -- I don't have to!" <--- YOU

[undergroundrr]

And yet you're going to rail so stridently against it, with such certainty, that it's the most evil thing ever invented by man? Have you at least read the Communist Manifesto? I mean, come on. And yet you're an expert on communism and feel qualified to hold such strong opinions about it?

"I hate the Mormons; they're the most evil plague even unleashed by Satan!"

"Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?"

"Of course not -- I don't have to!" <--- YOU

What a non sequitur. LaVey's Satanic Bible, The Compleat Witch, or Dianetics would have made more sense for your example. I haven't read any of those and I doubt you have either.

EDIT: To address your concern, no I'm not an expert on communism. But I feel pretty solid on collectivism, which I believe is the true antithesis of individual liberty.

[helmuth_hubener]

Could you define and explain collectivism to me? And then explain why it is the antithesis of liberty?

What collectivist works have you read?

[Tywysog Cymru]

What was Rand Paul supposed to do to win? Only appeal to the GOP base and win the primary but lose the election?

[NewRightLibertarian]

What was Rand Paul supposed to do to win? Only appeal to the GOP base and win the primary but lose the election?

Not piss on his base, for starters.

[undergroundrr]

Could you define and explain collectivism to me? And then explain why it is the antithesis of liberty?

What collectivist works have you read?

I'll let you have the socratic initiative.

You're intelligent and can find textbook definitions all over the place. What I'm talking about is when a group's rights supercede those of an individual, or conversely when an individual is judged to have less rights due to belonging to a group.

Ron Paul (echoing Ayn Rand a little) made one of the most perfect statements regarding the latter point -

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."

Pertinent to this thread, the alt.right has made the mistake of adopting the group mentality of the diversity nazis.

Collectivism isn't defined by a tract or a single author. Collectivism encompasses communism, fascism, racism, progressivism, alt.right and any number of other isms that consider the collective over the individual, new takes of which pop up in all parts of the world on a regular basis. Focusing on orthodox communism in this day and age is tunnel vision at its finest.

Anti-collectivist voices that I've studied include Skousen, President Benson, Mises, Rothbard, Spooner, Ron Paul, Harry Browne, Milton Friedman, Andrew Napolitano, Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, Hoppe, Nozick and Hayek. (No, I haven't read Bastiat, Locke and many others yet). Strong messages about the individual vs. the collective are also found in Disney movies and even Star Trek episodes (try "I, Borg"). Not only conservatives and libertarians, but also liberals such as MLK, Orwell and Huxley have addressed the evil of collectivism, even if they didn't necessarily take the argument to its end.

By the way, Ayn Rand's quote from which Dr. Paul's is obviously derived is the following (emphasis mine) -

"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."

[RestorationOfLiberty]

Sorry, we have to draw our conclusions from the conclusions of others. Our time in life is limited. I may never read Mein Kampf or Das Kapital either, but I'm content to take the word of people I trust. There's no shortage of drooly, insubstantial, unconditional rave reviews of "IQ and..." out there by people who are feeding their confirmation bias, but most of the substantial commentary where somebody has really considered the depth of the hypothesis has been very critical. I put a fair bit of weight on writing found on mises.org. But you know, it's a site named after a Jew, so YMMV.



So you guys get off your asses and define a distinct hereditarian model. To do that, someone's going to have to establish
a) if IQ measures something and if so what it measures,
b) for purpose of research - what a race is, defined by allowable variance of specific markers on the genome,
c) that the data is collected according to the definition in b),
d) that the data is strong, not dubiously derived, and from a very large sample,
e) the direction of causation.

I know, "But that would take too long and be too expensive, and before we can do that the world will be overrun by immigrants and civilization will have collapsed."

Notably, in positive accounts of "IQ and..." rigor is cast to the wind. There are only varieties of "This book is right because it has lots of tables and if you don't think so you're a cuck." And, "These guys have the balls to say what nobody else would say." And most evocatively, "Don't listen to the detractors."

Determining IQ by average readings from a sample within a political boundary results in only a very tentative correlation to ethnicities in most cases. On top of that, determining the IQ for an un-sampled country by averaging two bordering countries (which if claims are correct were done for almost half the numbers in their original "IQ and..." list) is a data distortion that can only be labeled malicious negligence. No, let me go further. It's idiotic, moronic and brazenly unscientific.

I formed my libertarian opinions in an environment where sociology as a discipline was highly questioned and generally dismissed as junk science. I have my doubts that such modes of thought can be objective, let alone libertarian.

So dont learn for yourself, just trust the words of others...How Serfish of you.

More over you just hate IQ and genetics as it proves you wrong, we are not all the same, we are not equal, and some cultures/people are better at some things then others.

[undergroundrr]

cultures/people are better at some things then others.

Individual people are. Collectives aren't.

Regarding books - Are things said in book form somehow more valid than things one reads outside of a hard cover? I mean, I read plenty of books, but it doesn't mean I completely disregard anything that hasn't been through the editorial gauntlet of a New York publisher.

[helmuth_hubener]

Collectivism isn't defined by a tract or a single author.

Is it defined by *any* tracts or authors? That you've read?

Sorry, but your opinion is sounding very low-value from what you've written so far. You have only read, seen, or experienced in any way, propaganda for one side of the argument. How can you even be sure what the other side is that the cartoon bugs and talking animals are supposedly arguing so devastatingly against?

What collectivist works have you read?

[Tywysog Cymru]

Not piss on his base, for starters.

His base was liberty minded Conservatives and Libertarians, his base is just small.

[undergroundrr]

What collectivist works have you read?

Why so angry?

Not much in book form since my "conversion" in college. Tell me what I should put on my list.

You're obviously too overwhelmed to address the substance of my points (such as it is). Have I convinced you that your claim for the superiority of white, straight males over other groupings of eternal souls is fallacious? Or are my arguments automatically invalidated because I haven't read "History and Class Consciousness?"

[helmuth_hubener]

Why so angry?

Since I am not angry, I suppose I will never know. I thought I was just asking a simple, relevant question.

Which will not be answered.

You are content to form opinions -- extremely strident, immutable opinions! -- based on little to nothing. You are "content to take the word of people I trust". Well, it seems sufficient for you. Fine, fine. I am much too curious and intellectual and enterprising to ever be satisfied with that. I rather agree with this proverb: "What a shame, yes, how stupid, to decide before knowing the facts."

[otherone]

You are content to form opinions -- extremely strident, immutable opinions! -- based on little to nothing. You are "content to take the word of people I trust". Well, it seems sufficient for you. Fine, fine. I am much too curious and intellectual and enterprising to ever be satisfied with that. I rather agree with this proverb: "What a shame, yes, how stupid, to decide before knowing the facts."

The same can be said for trusting in those who have published work. Speaking of talking animals, Animal Farm is a nice easy read. I'm not sure that anything written would ever convince me that the rights of any individual should ever be denied based on circumstance of birth. In regards IQ, there will always be individuals who are dullards or savants...averages are meaningless.

[undergroundrr]

Which will not be answered.

My answer was not much since college. It would be appropriate at this juncture for you to tell me all the anti-race consciousness literature you've studied (now don't just skim!) that gives you the authority to claim that straight, white males are a superior grouping.

I am much too curious and intellectual and enterprising

My congratulations. Although you can't really take credit because it's apparently your straight, white male-dom and not any effort of your own that grants you these positive attributes. Still, I'd like to hear more of your substantive thought and fewer attempts to assign ignorance. Or you could just add "evasive" to that list of straight, white male qualities.

[dannno]

@Tywysog Cymru and anybody who thinks like the OP -

PLEASE FFS watch the new South Park that was on last night - I mean, you should REALLY watch all of last season and get caught up, but last night's South Park is EXTREMELY relevant to this thread.

**SPOILER ALERT**

Cartman is NOT Skankhunter42!!!!

[dannno]

//

[undergroundrr]

//

I agree with what you said but my point was different. I was addressing his assertion that I need to read Marx and Engels to make a valid argument against communism.

I was responding that if that's so, he'd need to read heretical works to validate the Book of Mormon.

He blanked on it and barrelled on with the same line of argument. Whatevs.

EDIT: Thanks for the tip about South Park.

[dannno]

I agree with what you said but my point was different. I was addressing his assertion that I need to read Marx and Engels to make a valid argument against communism.

I was responding that if that's so, he'd need to read heretical works to validate the Book of Mormon.

He blanked on it and barrelled on with the same line of argument. Whatevs.

EDIT: Thanks for the tip about South Park.

lol ya I got confused back-reading posts

[helmuth_hubener]

He blanked on it and barrelled on with the same line of argument. Whatevs.

My point is not hard. My points never are. My point is this: To have a valid opinion on Topic X, one must know something about Topic X.

This is really, really easy to understand.

Someone, somewhere, reading this thread will understand.

Anyway, you are somewhere off in la-la land as far as who you think I am and what you think I support and want to defend.

EDIT: Thanks for the tip about South Park.

Honestly. Just sad.

[A Son of Liberty]

Is it defined by *any* tracts or authors? That you've read?

Sorry, but your opinion is sounding very low-value from what you've written so far. You have only read, seen, or experienced in any way, propaganda for one side of the argument. How can you even be sure what the other side is that the cartoon bugs and talking animals are supposedly arguing so devastatingly against?

What collectivist works have you read?

Hey, there's this sect of immunology which contends that influenza virus is caused by contact with sunlight.

Individual sovereignty is self-evident. Who but me owns my life? If I don't own my life, who does? It's elementary.

Just because there's a quack school of thought out there which holds that humans owe some or all of their life to some "group" does not mean that rational people must study it in order to reject it. One can be familiar enough with an ideology by encountering it's broader implications to know that it's bunk. I couldn't recite the 10 pillars of communism. I've never read the Communist Manifesto. But I'm familiar enough with the broad concepts of communism to reject it out of hand. Christ, if you demand a thorough background in every two-bit ideology, we'd spend our lives studying stupidity, rather than in worthwhile pursuits.

[undergroundrr]

Honestly. Just sad.

Thank goodness I can rest assured you only offered that opinion after watching all 19 seasons of South Park. Surely you didn't form it based on some other criteria.

You are content to form opinions -- extremely strident, immutable opinions!

The relevant opinion you're challenging is this: That it's self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[A Son of Liberty]

So dont learn for yourself, just trust the words of others...How Serfish of you.

More over you just hate IQ and genetics as it proves you wrong, we are not all the same, we are not equal, and some cultures/people are better at some things then others.

That's at least twice you've rejected a sound, coherent argument with pablum.

If nothing we can applaud your ability to persevere beyond the point of total failure.

[undergroundrr]

if you demand a thorough background in every two-bit ideology, we'd spend our lives studying stupidity, rather than in worthwhile pursuits.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to A Son of Liberty again.

Who knows? Maybe I'd read "The Communist Manifesto" or its intellectual cousin "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" and find out I've been wrong all this time. It's sad that I may never know. But if it helps, @helmuth_hubener, you've piqued my interest in anti-liberty literature.

[A Son of Liberty]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to A Son of Liberty again.

Who knows? Maybe I'd read "The Communist Manifesto" or its intellectual cousin "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" and find out I've been wrong all this time. It's sad that I may never know. But if it helps, @helmuth_hubener, you've piqued my interest in anti-liberty literature.

You're a better person than I. I haven't the least interest in reading confused ramblings.

Again, individual sovereignty is self-evident; it is an objective fact, and any philosophy springing from some other foundational principle is a house built upon the sands. I suppose in order to dissect the argument from roof to foundation one must know it top to bottom, as it were. But one can also simply recognize that the ground upon which the philosophy stands is unstable and by that knowledge alone condemn the whole damnable artifice.

[helmuth_hubener]

Thank goodness I can rest assured you only offered that opinion after watching all 19 seasons of South Park. Surely you didn't form it based on some other criteria.

See, I'm giving you ammo! It's called making you think. No, I have never watched any episodes of that filth, and I never will. Maybe dannno has some hot tips for you on the latest Playboy issues or the latest new marijuana strain. Don't knock it 'til you try it!

What a hypocrite I am, eh? Or am I?

The relevant opinion you're challenging is this: That it's self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Oh am I? Is that something that I am challenging now? It is always so helpful to me when you will come out and tell me exactly what it is I believe and think rather than beating around the bush -- that way I can know if I agree with myself or not.

In this case, I disagree.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

Individual people are. Collectives aren't.

Regarding books - Are things said in book form somehow more valid than things one reads outside of a hard cover? I mean, I read plenty of books, but it doesn't mean I completely disregard anything that hasn't been through the editorial gauntlet of a New York publisher.

And what happens when you have large numbers of better individuals in a group? How does that negate their skills, abilities?

A if a fact is true the it is true regardless if it is in a book, heard by voice, read online, or learned first head. And call it names does nothing to change anything.