This Black Life Doesn't Matter

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Tue, 2015-11-24 01:02

While driving, a medical student, Peter Gold, sees some trash trying to mug a woman. He backs up his car, gets out and remonstrates with the trash. The trash then shoots him in the belly. He tries to shoot him again in the head, but his gun jams. All caught on camera.


Muslims and Other Religiosos

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

I agree with most Passionate Objectivists here (in this discussion) that Muslims are properly seen as guilty until proven innocent. They shouldn't normally be Western citizens or visitors. They're like communists, Nazis, Satanists, or genocidists. They have to answer for their remarkably evil philosophy.

Still, Muslims come in a wide variety today. I think a tiny number are semi-liberal and trustworthy. Maybe 1-5% or so, as stated above. They just need to be carefully vetted beforehand. And forever "profiled" afterward. Passionate and principled Christians, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, and Buddhists need and deserve the same treatment. After long personal experience and intellectual study, I don't trust them. I even think they will perpetrate Muslim-style atrocities soon enough. Strong, pure, consistent religiosos of high integrity and virtue are objectively dangerous. They need to be forever watched. Or deported like cur'anic dogs. Eye

The difference between a Muslim seeking immigration today, and a German Nazi seeking immigration in 1943, is Muslims today are only engaged in an unofficial and low-level war with Western nations -- not a formal, really high-level one like in the early 1940s. Some Muslims might be mere cultural ones like Bosch Fawstin or Hirshi Ali. Some Muslims may hate Islam.

It's worth noting that of all the Muslims over the past few decades who perpetrated massacres, none were high-level secularists and liberals. All had something wrong with them. For the non-PC and non-MC observer (all seven of us!), all generated pretty obvious warning signs.

Kyrel - My Answer

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Do you really not understand the phenomenon of investigation? Do you really think I personally couldn't suss out the jihadis? Do you really think an experienced investigator tasked with determining the truth, and protecting America, couldn't do his job?

I can't speak for Mark, but my answer is: Yes, no investigator could suss out Jihadis. Also, it ignores the broader point that Jihadis are an outgrowth of Islam itself. Muslims bring with them their culture, and part of that culture is their religion and its history and its theology. If a good Muslim family immigrates here with no intention of harming infidels, but their son or daughter has a life experience which causes them to study Islam (sound familiar) and, as Hugh Fitzgerald from JihadWatch says, they immerse themselves "in the atmospherics of Islam" (the original texts) then they will become "radicalized" or stated in less PC terms: violent.

When people become serious about Islam that is what they find; warfare against infidels glorified by the unerring Prophet and sanctioned by god. Understand this: Islam's view of piety is murder and subjugation in the name of Allah, his prophet, and the Ummah. That is the most important way in which it is different than Christianity for all those stupid Objectivists that believe that "all religions are epistemologically the same" blah, blah, blah. Once Muslims are within your borders, Islamic violence is inevitable. Immigrants are not "self selected for their virtues". Binswanger should be tarred and feathered for that type of stupidity. And then he should be forced to abandon his elite home in 94% whitetopia and live in a Muslim enclave in Paris; along with Angela Merkel.

That is why any ideological screening or investigations or any type of screening protocol is mental masturbation. With Muslims come violence. Period. Like Lindsay said: "Not One Muslim". Only I would add the word "Forever".

Update: I just listened to Stephan Mollyneaux make an excellent point. He said that the Muslim parents of the latest Muslim butchers in San Bernardino did not know (allegedly) that their son was a Jihadist. Think of that, if parents can't know if their 2nd generation children are becoming "radicalized", then how the hell is the FBI or an other agency going to know either? How can you possible "vet" a Muslim immigrant? You cant. Violence is endemic to that immigrant population.

Thanks for the Corrections

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Mark is right about the Von Mises Institute. What I have noticed is that lately in the comments section over there, there is alot of criticism of open immigration, some even along racial lines. And I overstressed the Hans Herman Hoppe and Hospers articles. Its just that there is a significant recognition of the problems with open immigration. That is miles ahead of some insane libertarians like Bryan Caplan. The Lew Rockwell crowd is even better on the immigration subject, and the Cultural Marxist issue as well.

Regarding Ed Mazlish, I respect that he is engaging the ARI elite on this subject. And Mark is entirely right in his breakdown of the disagreements between the organizational elites and the rank and file (now that is a very common and fascinating development that happens in seemingly all intellectual, religious, and political movements). Mazlish, from what I can tell based on his comments in the Amy Peikoff blog post (and she's a dim bulb on immigration too) on the subject, kind of sort of gets the problem. But he is terrified of any "nativist" position; ie any position that would be explicitly pro-European or stated another way, pro-white. So he is twisting himself in nots with his "ideological screening" solution. A position which is easily shredded. I have not really encountered a mainstream O'ist who is comfortable with saying that all Muslims should be prohibited from immigrating here. If you can't get them to agree with that piece of low hanging fruit, how can you get them to understand the dangers of Hispanics or other 3rd worlders. I don't even think Objectivists would agree with the actual data on the subject of voting patterns and welfare usage among immigrant groups. Pure cognitive dissonance.

What I notice with open immigration Objectivists is the following arguments:

1) its racist to oppose non-white immigration - standard leftist party line, nothing new
2) it violates individual rights - apparently all humans have a right of unfettered movement to any country on the planet
3) immigration restriction violates freedom of association of Americans - you have a right to associate with all those Somali tribesman no matter what danger they represent and if you disagree see #1
4) immigration restriction is a crime against the hopes and dreams of Guatemalans or Ethiopians who want to come here to achieve their dreams - Onkar Ghate's view - violating the dreams of foreigners destroys the Objectivist benevolent view of the universe premise; ie its fatalism
5) advocating immigration restriction undermines the case for liberty - related to #2 - Brook's argument
6) immigration restriction is bad for the economy - its a form of price controls - this imo takes a valid principle of economics and commits sophistry with it. It also is the primacy of economics type stuff that Rand disagreed with
7) immigration restrictions ignores the fact that all immigrants assimilate within a few generations just like my Polish grandparents - right out of the mouth or keyboard of Robert Tracinsky (yes he's become a Cuckservative but he said this crap when he was an O'ist)

There are others, but these are what I can come up with now. We should keep a list of them. Objectivists are so often rationalists. They just don't care about empirical data or anything coming from the social sciences. Its all "determinism" or "collectivism" to them. Everything is deduced from philosophical starting points or as they would say "the nature of man qua man". No data wanted though in their minds. Its very sad because they are providing NO good arguments at all, either politically or economically. I posted links to Mollyneaux's videos on immigration. He is light years beyond any Objectivist movement head. (I'd love to see him debate Yaron Brook.)

Objectivists share with mainstream libertarians (Reason, Cato) the desire to be "post-nationalism". So no considerations of race or ethnicity or assimilation or voting patterns or anything is legitimate. A nation is just a bunch of individuals with individual rights and there is no collective patterns worth studying. Really, when you get out of the Objectivist hive mind, you see how insane that is. I'm not saying abandon liberty. But it needs to have context and parameters. But that is fascism to an Objectivist. Incredible.

Not Serious

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Well, now!

Was your goal to be the world's worst interviewer, Mark? Mission accomplished! Smiling How precisely do you think this technique will result in a 95-99% failure rate?

If fairness to yourself, I've been hawking this view to my virulently anti-muzzie friend Josh for over five years now, and he still rejects it, telling me they'll just casually easily lie, and thus pass the test.

But here's a hint of how to go about it:

(1) No yes-or-no questions.
(2) Many open-ended questions.
(3) Twenty different versions of "tell me what jihad and sharia mean to you" and "how will you practice them in America" etc. questions.
(4) Many loud, aggressive, hateful "Fuck Mohammad!", "Death to Islam!", "Curse Allah for all eternity, that evil fuck!", "I hate your wretched, ridiculous, stupid, evil, fucking religion and hope to hell all you miserable, monkey, maggot, monster, Muzzie, goat-fucking sand-niggers just DIE!", etc. questions and remarks shouted directly into his face.

Then I'd see how he reacts and proceed from there. He'd also have to sign an infinite number of statements repudiating these concepts -- and making videos of this too. He'd have to read all the Islamaphobe essays in my book (for example), and correctly eloquently repeat and summarize the arguments, and then confirm or deny them at length. The interrogation would last for days. And be repeated maybe 5 or 10 times over the first year. He'd really really (really really) know we Americans loathe these Islamic ideals, and thus he has to reject them too or get out.

Also:

(5) Personal history questions.
(6) Philosophy questions.
(7) Maybe art and sex questions.

And many other techniques.

Do you really not understand the phenomenon of investigation? Do you really think I personally couldn't suss out the jihadis? Do you really think an experienced investigator tasked with determining the truth, and protecting America, couldn't do his job?

Vetting interview

Mark Hunter's picture




Interrogator: Our all seeing, all knowing operatives have determined that you have no terrorist or criminal background. Do you plan on becoming a model U.S. resident?

Future terrorist: Yes, Sir.

Interrogator: You don’t plan on engaging in a low-level persistent war on Westerners, do you?

Future terrorist: What?

Interrogator: You don’t plan on making a nuisance of yourself?

Future terrorist: No, Sir.

Interrogator: Recite the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

Future terrorist: [Recites the Declaration word for word perfectly.]

Interrogator: Recite the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

Future terrorist: [Recites the Bill of Rights perfectly.]

Interrogator: OK. Next.

Future terrorist: [softly, while walking out] Allahu Akbar.

No Jihadis or Shariaists

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Mark -- I would never say "whites only" or "immigration moratorium." But I think Muslim current residents and potential immigrants need to be questioned closely on their intellectual support for jihad and sharia, with maybe 95-99% not passing the test, and thus being denied access to the semi-civilized West.

People need to remember: Muslims world-wide are currently involved in a low-level but very persistent war with Westerners. Where I live, in New York City, is now evidently in a permanent state of lock-down -- like Israel. I'm amazed, horrified, and incredulous. Virtually everyone else, unfortunately, is bored and 100% accepting. They can't even remember when things were different, and have no desire for such.

Who objects

Mark Hunter's picture

“... in my reading many Objectivists seem to worry about or object to open borders.”

There are the self-styled “official leaders” of Objectivism – the hired hands at ARI/ARC and TAS – on the one hand and the “rank and file” (or independent) Objectivists on the other. The leaders are for open borders. The others vary from going along, to criticizing (usually not very well), to confused, to adamantly against. I don’t know the proportions.

It’s like religious groups. Religious leaders of the Catholics and all denominations of the Protestants are for unrestricted immigration, whereas the laity are against.

Or like most politicians versus their constituencies.

When it comes to immigration ARI and it’s hardcore followers really are as insane as Doug makes out. Those who only generally support ARI and criticize open borders, use pathetically weak arguments. Take Ed Mazlish. He writes eloquently and well about immigration and culture. Then the same man says the solution is to ask prospective immigrants a few questions, and if they answer correctly let them in. It’s absurd. He and the other ARI-friendly critics cannot bring themselves to say “whites only” or “immigration moratorium.” Probably the reason is fear. The Cultural Marxists have done their work well installing this internal policeman.

Open Invasion of Socialists and Cultural Enemies? No, Thanks.

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Thanks for all that, Mark! Food for thought. Still, despite what Doug and you seem to think, in my reading many Objectivists seem to worry about or object to open borders.

Various Replies

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Hi Doug! It's frequently fun and fascinating to read your wide-ranging views. Especially when you explain yourself a bit, and contrast your views with that of conventional Objectivism. Entertaining and enlightening!

I have to think about a lot that you say. I also evidently have to study Stephan Mollyneaux, the Frankfurt school, and YouTube anarchists.

About 6 months ago I had many furious, knock-down-drag-out fights with Facebook anarchists under a pseudonym (a space alien called Gen. Fury Sticking out tongue ). It was fun, but they were so weak intellectually. Just aggressive and malicious, without much substance or consistency. Randroids and anarchists are the great failures of the current neo-liberal movement. Just two cult groups who aren't open to reason, and which flee all sustained or quality debate, and whose obnoxious pitiful members I easily intellectually dispatch. I can hit both groups where they live. They're irrational illiberal kissing-cousins and philosophical losers who deserve each other spiritually and in debate.

When you call most O'ists today radical egalitarians -- and thus like progressives -- I assume you mean they both deny human nature and human diversity. They both wildly claim that the nature and nurture of blacks and whites, women and men, gays and straights, etc. are all the same. Even engineers and artists, athletes and intellectuals. I hadn't thought of that! Both groups are indeed absurd and depraved on these issues.

I too have studied Christianity and religion. I also remember my youth and church-going days. "God" seems like the fountainhead of practically all evil. The more you learn about its history and current nature, the more you hate and fear it. I can suggest some books for you. But we may simply strongly disagree here. Disagreement between radical individualists, intellectuals, liberals, and firebrands like you and I is precisely what makes life fun! Cool

Just as strategically it makes more sense to concentrate our liberal firepower on the Right rather than the Left -- since the Right is the more powerful and fundamental enemy -- so too it makes more ultimate sense to attack loathsome fearsome Christianity than silly sissy Islam. Eliminate the first two, and the second two will almost fall of their own accord. Otherwise you're mostly-impotently hacking at the branches of evil -- not the all-important roots.

My view of ARI and TAS is very simple. The first are malicious, weird, cultist Bad Guys, while the second are somewhat unprincipled, somewhat unpassionate Good Guys.

Meanwhile, the moon needs to be colonized, space explored, warp drive achieved, and transhumanist immortality achieved. I spoke to Yaron Brook personally about six months ago and he fatuously, hilariously had no knowledge of Zoltan Istvan's novel, and could not identify the term "transhumanism". Talk about a sad-sack cultist freak who is isolated from reality, socially irrelevant, and intellectually impotent!

Oh, well! Just a few quick replies to your high-quality and thoughtful comments, Doug. I'll ponder a bit on the others.

Anyone else should feel free to jump in, and confirm, deny, or amend my various brief replies.

The Mises Institute on immigration

Mark Hunter's picture

One minor comment on Doug's excellent post ("various points"). The Mises Institute published Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s “The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration” and John Hospers’s “A Libertarian Argument Against Opening Borders” (both in 1998) and maybe other anti open borders articles I don’t know about, but they are swamped by article after article advocating open borders. If you Google
... von mises institute immigration ...
the first ten webpages you get are:

1. “The Libertarian Immigration Conundrum” by Per Bylund.
He says immigration is OK if by some miracle the migrants stay on the property of those who welcomed them. He neglects to point out the miracle part.

2. “A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration” by Walter Block.
Pro open immigration for both a free and mixed society.

3. “Free Immigrants, Free Capital, Free Markets” by David Howden.
Pro open immigration, makes no distinction between free and mixed.

4. “Immigration and Misplaced Blame” by Joel Poindexter.
Pro open immigration, makes no distinction between free and mixed.

5. “Is Immigration Really the Problem?” Stefano Mugnaini.
His answer is No.

6. “A Libertarian Theory of Free Immigration” by Jesús Huerta de Soto.
Pro open immigration for a free society, doesn’t address the mixed society case.

7. “Refugees, Property Rights, and Open Borders” - audio interview with Per Bylund. See #1.

8. “Immigration Policy Must Be Decentralized” by Ryan McMaken.
There should be no federal immigration policy, it should be a private affair.

9. “The Ludwig von Mises Legacy: A Reality Check” by Jacob Huebert.
“... the Mises Institute takes no official position on immigration at all. ... the Institute’s senior faculty members are split on the question ...” They may take no official position, still practically all their articles are pro open immigration.

10. “Mises on Immigration” by Ivan Osorio.
He claims Ludwig von Mises was pro open immigration. (In fact Mises was very inconsistent. For the opposite of what Osorio quotes see Ilana Mercer’s “Nation, State & Mass Immigration” where she quotes from Mises’s Liberalism in the Classical Tradition.)

A clean sweep of page one.

Sexual Degeneracy and CRISPR

Luke Setzer's picture

Doug, since you long ago on this board identified yourself as a "Lothario," can we accuse you of "sexual degeneracy"?

These racial arguments may soon become meaningless with CRISPR technology bringing us GMO people on demand:

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/he...

various points

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Objectivists are racial egalitarians. So are leftists. They share that and since racial egalitarianism and its resulting hatred of white non-liberals is the MAJOR plank of modern leftism, Objectivist are impotent to fight the left as it is currently organized. That's how they are similar.

Objectivists are beyond myopic, they are criminally insane on issues of foreign policy. Their "invade the world invite the world" is Neo Conservatism on steroids (ie with nukes). Objectivists are militantly open immigration (with some exceptions) which will ensure the death of America (which actually might not be a bad thing considering where its going) when whites become a minority or a plurality. Objectivists are completely unaware and nonplussed by the anti-white politics of the left. They are also oblivious to the war against men. These are all signs of the growing irrelevancy of the Objectivist movement.

The market anarchist movement has a large YouTube community. There are far more informed and interesting AnCap social commentators than Objectivist ones. Stephan Mollyneaux whatever his flaws has no equivalent among Objectivists. His YouTube channel puts out more quality content in a few weeks than the ARI puts out in years. The Von Mises Institute is full of people that understand that open immigration in today's context is neither free market nor beneficial; something next to no one in the Objectivist movement understands. That doesn't make market anarchism right, it just means that it has more appeal to white middle class people (especially men ie "male and pale" which is who is attracted to libertarianism) than Objectivism. IMO, that is because AnCaps will touch race and gender issues. OrgOism will not.

Branden and Kelley have produced good work on broader issues in philosophy. So have Stephen Hicks and a few others. But that doesn't change the fact that the movement is ossified and sterile in the modern era. Also, Kelley is terrible as a spokesman for Objectivism. His interviews are inarticulate messes. He personally strikes me as a Milquetoast type.

Rand did not fight Cultural Marxism. That movement hit America's shores in the 1940s when Hitler expelled the Jewish Communists that would go on to become "The Frankfurt School". America stupidly let them immigrate here where they ended up in Manhattan (in the village). They were a bunch of Jewish leftists that combined the Marxist worldview with their ethnic Jewish hatred of white gentile society. Like Freudianism (another Jewish movement) before them they created a movement which pathologized white, Christian family oriented society as inherently fascist (Google the "F scale"). It is their leftist movement which has become the standard liberalism of today. Rand did not deal with them and their anti-white, anti-male, anti-family, pro-sexual degeneracy arguments. Rand only dealt with the Elsworth Tooey types that were the old style Stalinists. The Frankfurt School was different. Which is why I say that today's Objectivism is not equipped to deal with the new left.

Your suggestion that Objectivism is better for being anti-religious is IMO wrong. By that I mean Objectivism has this Christianity hating component to it that is common with secular leftists. Rejecting religion is part of advocating rational philosophy. But a demonic hatred of Christianity represents a complete failure to understand the history of the European world. Replacing Christianity is necessary. But mindless hatred against Christianity which often takes the form of refusing to distinguish between Christianity and Islam, something basically all Objectivists do, is anti-philosophical and stupid as well as off putting. I know because I used to be a mindless Christianity hater myself. After studying Christian historical theology to some extent, I don't hate Christianity but appreciate the journey it went through, and the European thinkers that ushered it along. Also, Rand's appreciation of American Christians and of Christ himself is something I have come to respect her for. So I'm glad she wasn't the Christianity hater you wanted. She had more sense than that.

No, Rand did not see black racism. There you are right. But she wasn't dealing with the problems of multi-racialism in her work. That could be argued to be her great blind spot. But America was 90% white up until the 1970s. She died in 1982. America's racial problems were starting to escalate by then. But she was old. The rise of the new left and its alignment with non-whites and the emergence of anti-white politics which has become the essence of the left, those are all things that the modern Objectivist movement should have become aware of. But echoing your sentiments, the modern Objectivist movement has based its advocacy efforts against the Christian right. Between boring economic boilerplate, over the top Christianity hatred and open immigration, Objectivism has become one big borefest (not to mention intellectually impotent).

Randroidism is basically what Objectivism is. The two wings are the ARI cookie cutters and the TAS appeasers. There are some individual bright spots to the movement though. Alex Epstein impresses as someone who actually has studied a subject outside of cookie cutter Objectivism (nuclear energy and climate change). His recent interviews with Stephan Mollynuex showed him in a very good light. But he is not the norm. Most O'ist commentary is ill-informed and poorly argued (ie Yaron Brook, Craig Biddel, or Ari Armstrong).

And of course Ed Hudgins is still colonizing the Moon.

Nope, Nope, Nope...

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Doug writes:

"Rand wasn't a moral failure. She waged war against the old Left about as vehemently as was possible. She gave great tools for understanding the evil of Leftism. Now due to the time in which she lived, she did not understand the mutation of Leftism from its economic form to its cultural form. She did not live and write in a time where the egalitarians were not just economic but racial and gender oriented. She did not see the Left become an army dedicated to the "hatred of the White for being the White." Rand did not design her philosophy to challenge Cultural Marxism.

"That should have been the job of the intellectual movement that bears her name. Modern Objectivists should have seen the mutation of the Left and redeployed Rand's philosophy to specifically address the modern egalitarians. But alas they did not do that. In fact, they agree with the modern egalitarians in significant ways. The modern Objectivist movement has come to stress its atheist component and find greater offense in the dying Christian elements of American society than the Cultural Marxists. That is what I find contemptible. But I don't blame Rand for that. Whatever flaws may exist in Objectivism, today's Objectivists have become myopic and sterile. The movement is not growing imo and I see greater vigor coming from the market anarchists than Objectivists. And I say that as someone who is not an AnCap."

Well, I disagree with practically all of that. Here's a précis:

Rand did fight the Left. That was her mistake. She should have fought the Right equally. And she should have grouped the two.

The Objectivist community's current fight against religion is good -- and superior to what Rand did and evaded.

Rand saw black racism clearly. She must have. She simply chose to fall silent. This is how evil triumphs.

But she did fight cultural Marxism pretty hard and well.

I'm not aware that the the egalitarians and Objectivists of today are similar.

Rand created Randroidism. She's chiefly to blame for it even now, maybe.

I don't find current Objectivists especially myopic or sterile. Starting with NB's 1984 work, BB's 1986 work, and NB's and David Kelley's 1989 works, they're far stronger and better.

I see zero vigor and hope in the anarchists -- which I recently studied in detail.

Truly Great -- But Not Perfect

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

However great Ayn Rand was, she made intellectual and moral errors, and these need to be noted. Those who deliberately close their eyes to her weaknesses are not true friends of Objectivism, Rand, mankind, or themselves.

Kyrel

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Rand wasn't a moral failure. She waged war against the old Left about as vehemently as was possible. She gave great tools for understanding the evil of Leftism. Now due to the time in which she lived, she did not understand the mutation of Leftism from its economic form to its cultural form. She did not live and write in a time where the egalitarians were not just economic but racial and gender oriented. She did not see the Left become an army dedicated to the "hatred of the White for being the White." Rand did not design her philosophy to challenge Cultural Marxism.

That should have been the job of the intellectual movement that bears her name. Modern Objectivists should have seen the mutation of the Left and redeployed Rand's philosophy to specifically address the modern egalitarians. But alas they did not do that. In fact, they agree with the modern egalitarians in significant ways. The modern Objectivist movement has come to stress its atheist component and find greater offense in the dying Christian elements of American society than the Cultural Marxists. That is what I find contemptible. But I don't blame Rand for that. Whatever flaws may exist in Objectivism, today's Objectivists have become myopic and sterile. The movement is not growing imo and I see greater vigor coming from the market anarchists than Objectivists. And I say that as someone who is not an AnCap.

Good Point

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

With the exception of IQ denialists who think IQ doesn't measure anything useful. This view is confined to the far left as well as some Objectivists.

That's the tragic thing. Most Leftist intellectuals don't actually deny IQ. Its true that its only the far Left that does that. And its also true that the mainstream Objectivist movement is basically in agreement with the far left on IQ denial. That's just depressing.

Rand and Race

Neil Parille's picture

Jennifer Burns (in Goddess of the Market) says that in Rand's Journals (before Peikoff and Harriman bowdlerized them) there is one mention of the "degeneration of the white race."

Rand did most of her mature thinking following World War II when the evils of Nazism made discussions of race nearly forbidden. In addition, it was the high tide of behaviorism. So in one of her Q&A she said that a person could raise his IQ from 110, moderately above average, to 150, borderline genius.

Peikoff was once asked if Rand thought there was a genetic component to intelligence. She responded that it didn't really matter because we use only a small amount of our brain power. This is rather naive, if I get traumatic brain injury its not such a big deal because I can summon more brain?

Rand's 1963 essay "Racism" was of course written before Jensen's seminal essay.

FUCK Randbashing

Tore's picture

Fuck off and go to hell, everyone who bashes Rand.

May I remind people that she fucking wrote Atlas Shrugged? The greatest book ever written, and probably the greatest book ever to be written?

Lowlifes.

IQ and Morality

Neil Parille's picture

Linz:

"I'll agree that race determines IQ and character when I've seen persuasive evidence."

Putting aside the issue of race, there is no question that there is a relationship between IQ and character. While you can be bright and evil and dull and moral, there is a connection between IQ and behavior. Low IQ is correlated with crime and other social problems such as illegitimacy.

The Black IQ is 85. Everyone* (Charles Murray, Tom Sowell, James Flynn, etc.) agrees that if you could raise the IQ of Blacks to 100, it would do a lot to solve the problems of Black life. I'm not saying that the rap culture isn't doing its share of harm, but it is only a partial explanation for Black dysfunction.

NP

__________
* With the exception of IQ denialists who think IQ doesn't measure anything useful. This view is confined to the far left as well as some Objectivists.

Complete rubbish ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... to accuse Rand of "moral failure" on race. Jesus Christ, was it not enough to achieve what she achieved??!!

She identified racism for what it was: the lowest form of collectivism. That is true. It's also true that there's a lot of black trash out there. It's on a par with white trash that worships headbanging caterwauling, and is impervious to music of the Romantic era. As are most Objectivists, who pass by The Romantic Manifesto 'cos it's too close to home.

"Moral failure," Kyrel, has been on the part of your PC pin-ups, the Brandens, who tried to PC-ify Objectivism. They and their heirs are who neutered OrgOism. I'm just a tad surprised ARI in the end went along with them.

Relevant and Important Philosophical Issues

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Ayn Rand was a moral failure when it came to addressing the gestalt of issues and pathologies represented by American blacks during the 1964-1982 period. The Atlas Society and Ayn Rand Institute are even worse moral failures today. Their dishonesty, cowardice, and lack of integrity is appalling, infuriating, and inexcusable. Ayn Rand variously called this sin "evasion" and "blanking out".

Yes, there is a certain nobility in trying not to add to the pain of a race which was formerly victimized by slavery and Jim Crow. Yes, no intellectual group wants to be readily called supporters of the Ku Klux Klan and Hitler. But at some point -- half-a-century after innocent whites became routinely vilified and demonized! -- the unwillingness and inability of the Objectivist community to confront these issues is simply wretched. It's a monumental intellectual and ethical failure.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'll agree that race determines IQ and character when I've seen persuasive evidence. I keep seeing too many civilised, intelligent blacks to think blacks qua blacks are genetically predisposed to be trash. How about Allen West, whose excellent piece on Syria Olivia just posted? My battle is against trash whatever its colour, and for European civilization, as you say. I am constantly dumbstruck by the impotence and folly of Obleftivism. TAS seems to be entirely MIA. AWI do videos about pwivatising the fish. Ari Armstrong has just resurrected Leonard's fatwa. It's exasperating. Just imagine Rand thundering forth about all that is going on!! I think she would take a brave black like West above a cowardly, gelded white male any time!

An extension of your argument would be that whites are genetically predisposed to cowardice, since there are so many white cowards around. I say it's the PC culture (and of course, ultimately, the gutless choices of KASSless individuals). When that culture infests OrgOism as it has, things must be really dire.

I was interviewed for some internet show by a moronnial today. He had led me to believe he wanted to talk about my view of the current state of the media given that I walked out on TVNZ 22 years ago calling it "braindead." His actual agenda, revealed only at the end, was to tell me this website is "braindead." He fumbled the ball rather badly, but he did read an extract from my op-ed on moronnials rather well. Anyway, he's part of the problem, not the solution. And he's white.

Race is a distraction. We need more heroes, of any race. And much less trash.

Kyrel

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

"their crime, welfare, low culture, and socialism"

You know, its interesting, I have seen recurring data on the correlation between low IQ people and three political / ideological positions:

1) religion
2) social / sexual conservatism
3) economic socialism (any variant)

This is endemic to *every* black society in the world and every black enclave in America and formerly European countries. It is common to Amerindian, Arab and other non-white cultures also. It does seem unavoidable that liberty has a genetic component and that only higher IQ people can hope to achieve a pro-liberty society; and then even that isn't easy (it took centuries for Europeans to get where they are). Can liberty be spread to lower IQ people? Maybe, but not by letting them immigrate to the West in its current state and helping to destroy everything. Spreading liberty to Africa or Honduras for example would require some type of libertarian colonialism that no one is capable of today. Whatever the Chinese do in Africa, I doubt it will be benevolent.

I don't hate black people. That's a bogus leftist straw man that being a racial hereditarian means you are a "person of hate". But it is clear that the combination of altruist supported welfare statism and a black or brown population creates a far worse society than a homogenous European population would create. And the 99% brain washed people you refer to includes all leftists of every variety, mainstream Conservatives and sadly many libertarian types. Not alot of wisdom going around these days.

We've become a nation of cowards, or more specifically gelded white men who will not stand up to defend European civilization and its best political accomplishment which was American Republicanism. Not even Objectivists have the KASSness to do this. They've been gelded too as Lindsay has been saying in his own way for years now. I appreciate Lindsay as I keep saying and think he represents the best strain of Objectivism. I just wish he would acknowledge that genetics plays some role in the whole affair. And I wish he would finish his book. Its needed.

Blacks

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Blacks degrade the quality-of-life in America to an amazing extent with their crime, welfare, low culture, and socialism. They're also incredibly racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, etc.

But there's another group which degrades the quality-of-life in America to an amazing extent: the brain-washed 99% or so of the citizenry which absolutely forbids honest or rational discussion of this topic. Because the problem goes unaddressed, so it also goes unsolved. And the black rape of American culture continues apace.

This happens everywhere in America

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

This is common all over America; in every city where there are significant percentages of blacks. In America the color of crime is black. But the media will not allow the real crime statistics to be discussed. They forbid it by destroying anyone who talks the truth. There is a feral black underclass that is simply put inhuman. There is no equivalent of this type of violent behavior patterns in the white world as a mass phenomenon. Its endemic to blacks which is why I am sympathetic with the growing white identarian movements despite being a minarchist. If America were an all white country with the same exact bullshit semi-socialist economic system, it would be a relative utopia.

For more information on the phenomenon of savage black crime here is a link to the YouTube channel of Colin Flaherty. He reports on black crime and has written a book: "White Girls Bleed A Lot".

https://www.youtube.com/user/C...

When you watch some of the violence committed by blacks in his welcome video it could make your blood boil.

Here is a video on a ruthless murder that was just committed by two savage blacks:

The above video is an excellent one where Flaherty makes a great point about what the "hoodie" really symbolizes and who is using it. And yes, I do think that there is a genetic component to this. It is NOT just culture. Its an intersection of culture and biology.

Justice

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Justice demands that he be executed within a few weeks or sooner. That's enough time for a full fair trial. Justice delayed is justice denied. He's a murderer; he shouldn't get any credit for a jammed gun. If he goes to jail for life instead that will probably eat up about $50,000/year for 50 years or 2.5 million dollars. That money is far better spent on police officers to stop other crimes. Otherwise that ultra-thug is responsible for maybe murdering one or two more.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.