I’ve been reading, off and on, the excellent anarcho-libertarian site strike-the-root. Years ago I used to participate in its forums, where I would express my views on whatever topic was at hand. My opinions on racial inequality were unwelcome. Anarcho-libertarians did not want to be lumped in with “racists”. But despite their prejudices, these are high-IQ people; they are fully capable of thinking outside the box and of harboring heretical ideas.
Strike The Root is updated very frequently, so there are many articles I’ve missed over the years. Therefore it’s likely I’ve missed a few race-realist links and articles in the past. But I found one today and it’s pretty well-written even though it’s rudimentary. The article is by Professor Walter Williams and is titled “Are We Equal?” He write:
Are women equal to men? Are Jews equal to gentiles? Are blacks equal to Italians, Irish, Polish and other white people? The answer is probably a big fat no, and the pretense or assumption that we are equal — or should be equal — is foolhardy and creates mischief. Let’s look at it.
Male geniuses outnumber female geniuses 7-to-1. Female intelligence is packed much closer to the middle of the bell curve, whereas men’s intelligence has far greater variability. That means that though there are many more male geniuses, there are also many more male idiots. The latter might partially explain why more men are in jail than women.
Watch any Saturday afternoon college basketball game and ask yourself the question fixated in the minds of liberals everywhere: “Does this look like America?” Among the 10 players on the court, at best there might be two white players. If you want to see the team’s white players, you must look at the bench. A Japanese or Chinese player is close to being totally out of the picture, even on the bench. Professional basketball isn’t much better, with 80 percent of the players being black, but at least there are a couple of Chinese players. Professional football isn’t much better, with blacks being 65 percent. In both sports, blacks are among the highest-paid players and have the highest number of awards for excellence. Blacks who trace their ancestry to West Africa, including black Americans, hold more than 95 percent of the top times in sprinting…
A more emotionally charged question is whether we have equal intelligence. Take Jews, for example. They are only 3 percent of the U.S. population. Half-baked theories of racial proportionality would predict that 3 percent of U.S. Nobel laureates are Jews, but that’s way off the mark. Jews constitute a whopping 39 percent of American Nobel Prize winners. At the international level, the disparity is worse. Jews are not even 1 percent of the world’s population, but they constitute 20 percent of the world’s Nobel Prize winners.
There are many other inequalities and disproportionalities. Asian-Americans routinely score the highest on the math portion of the SAT, whereas blacks score the lowest. Men are 50 percent of the population, and so are women; yet men are struck by lightning six times as often as women. I’m personally wondering what whoever is in charge of lightning has against men. Population statistics for South Dakota, Iowa, Maine, Montana and Vermont show that not even 1 percent of their respective populations is black. By contrast, in Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, blacks are overrepresented in terms of their percentages in the general population. Pima Indians of Arizona have the world’s highest known diabetes rates. Prostate cancer is nearly twice as common among black men as white men. Cervical cancer rates are five times higher among Vietnamese women in the U.S. than among white women.
Soft-minded and sloppy-thinking academics, lawyers and judges harbor the silly notion that but for the fact of discrimination, we’d be proportionately distributed by race across incomes, education, occupations and other outcomes. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere, at any time, that proportionality is the norm anywhere on earth…
Williams can get away with this and keep his job; he is black (and I’ve already posted about him here). I applaud him,however, on recognizing the overall intellectual inferiority of his own race. This does take some courage – even though it obviously has no bearing on himself as an individual.
It’s about time sites like Strike-The-Root view racial differences objectively. Like it or not, libertarian thought is closely linked with these differences. Important questions should not be ignored:
1) If a libertarian society can work in a population whose average IQ is 100, does this necessarily mean it can also work in one whose average IQ is 80?
2) If one race is more crime-prone than another, shouldn’t the laws (and punishments) reflect this?
3) Given racial differences, at what point should individual rights yield to group rights when it comes to maintaining the demographics of a society?
4) Could higher fertility, within one group, be considered a form of aggression against other groups in certain situations?
If Strike The Root continues to show such open-mindedness, I might try participating in its forum again.
This is something that makes me bang my head against the wall when dealing with mainstream libertarians.
You just can’t have limited government and a multicultural or even non White population.
Blacks and Hispanics need a vast police force to keep them in line. They also need government jobs and handouts to keep them eating. They also view government differently. They view it as a benevolent force in the universe and always want more of it.
The way that America was built (a White 90% majority country) could easily have limited government.
It shocks me that 95%+ of people who vote libertarian are White yet they still don’t get it. The more non Whites in the country the more the libertarian party just becomes a joke.
Atheist Race Realist Says:
“…You just can’t have limited government and a multicultural or even non White population…”
Glad you used the qualifier “mainstream”, because a genuine (non-mainstream) libertarian would say: “…you just can’t have limited government…” Period. Governance — yes: we all have some model of code, or principle, by which we conduct our lives. Government — no: all government (theft, coercion and monopoly upon violence) will always metastasize and multiply exponentially. All states are police states in the making. There is no such thing as “limited” impounding of the production of others.
But that gets into the science of rulership. Religion of rulership is more appropriate — take an hour and listen to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WirZPJtosc (Larken’s talk starts at 2:00)
So, do “blacks” and/or “Hispanics” need police? No – or at least not as far as I know, but who am I to know? Not unless they individually choose to employ police for their own protection. Of course, if monopoly police (paid by expropriated, “tax-payer” resources) are forced upon them they, like many (most??) will resist, and there will be vast “unintended consequences”.
A police state is a vast, unintended consequence. It might not be unintended. Sam
The closer your population is to a homogeneous group of white IQ 115+ Aspies the more libertarian you can be in practice. The proof, only half-jokingly, is to look at any meeting of libertarians.
“4) Could higher fertility, within one group, be considered a form of aggression against other groups in certain situations?”
Absolutely. Hispanics and Muslims have the highest birth rate. Hispanics will become a majority sometime 2040-2050 usurping representation from Whites.
And…Muslims frequently say they will take the country via the womb.
Both are foreign invasions.
For the best takedown of libertarians, Moldbug seems to have the model:
“In a state of war, work toward peace, in a state of peace, work toward security(martial law), in a state of security, work toward law, in a state of law, work toward freedom.”
Without skipping steps, as the man has so artfully noted.
“Could higher fertility, within one group, be considered a form of aggression against other groups in certain situations?”
I think so. However, there’s obviously no way of fighting back, as the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide says that genocide encompasses acts as:
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Williams makes no bones about it. He will tell you that he supports private property rights, which means that if you own a restaurant and desire to serve no black people, he is good with that. He prefers a society of free association over one of forced association. BTW, he is married to a white woman.
If you knew how Jewish intellectual superiority is inculcated you’d be a far wiser person and if you’re Jewish this will sound ‘antisemitic’ but it’s NOTHING, but FACT.
Briefly, “JEWS” discovered long ago that juxtapositioning trauma and pleasure to children, starting as a new born, stimulated intelligence; American military, Jinsa controlled, has studied this extensively in it’s various Mkultra offshoots. Read Cathy Obrian, listen to “SRA” / Ritual Abuse survivor testimony, mostly Jews survive, and the Brit Milah blood ritual for proof positive!
‘…“JEWS” discovered long ago that juxtapositioning trauma and pleasure to children, starting as a new born, stimulated intelligence…’
I’d be interested in knowing which “JEWS” Rik is referring to — all Jews? Some Jews? A specific committee of “Jews” with the authority to impose their will upon other “JEWS”???
Because I’m a skeptic’s skeptic. I do not believe that anybody can lump “all” of any group of folks — black, hispanic, “Jews”, anarchists or Republicrats into any one philosophy with total knowledge or honesty.
Most of us on these blogs argue amongst ourselves over the most trivial of proclaimed “issues” — a large number of whom go on to imply that the only solution(s) to the “problem” is to call in that group of psychopaths grouped under the mantle of that mindless abstraction called “state” — so this, that or some other “law” can be enacted, forcing us all to “solve” the “problem” that would never have been a problem had there not been a state.
One off-topic comment: I just now discovered that I am responding to an entry that is over 2 years old, with replies mostly over a year old — and I’m probably the only human being who will ever read my own drivel. But I’m old (80), relatively new to the internet, and pleased to observe that anarchy is much, much stronger than it was when the author of this blog posted the article 2+ years ago. Sam
It’s not “drivel.” And I thank you for your thought-provoking comments. Most of the issues I write about are not time-sensitive, so there’s no need to worry about whether or not a post is old. Also, quite a few people are now reading this particular post, so others are seeing your comments.
STR web site off, so I googled into this blog. Interesting. Williams is one of my favorites. He tends to shoot from the hip. 50% of all quoted statistics are from the hip — did you know that? And the other 50% are questionable. I read the initial posting of this and yes, he hits the target.
Most who attempt to define “libertarian (ism}” — I’m not a fan of “ism’s” — start from the statist mindset, so they miss the target altogether:
Does liberty work? If you answered “yes”, you are correct. If you answered “no”, you are also correct. For you. You are not correct for me. Well, there is a 50% chance that you might be correct for me, but you will never know. And that, my dear friends, is “libertarian”. I have no way of speaking for you, and you have no way of speaking for me.
So, does that mean (in my way of thinking) that we should all just sit down, shut up, and not engage in discussions? That might not be a bad idea — for some. But it could get boring. After all, I do have a reason for being here, do I not?
Anarchist “theory” (and libertarian “theory” — note “l” is in the lower case) are losers’ games. Nobody has ever actually experienced liberty. Except me. I am a sovereign state. Ask me about that some time.
For an excellent treatise on “anarchy” I recommend this relatively short essay: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/Obvious.pdf . I suspect one could interchange “libertarian” with “anarchy”, but I’ve not entered my dog in that fight. Sam