Race and Economic Inequality on a Free Market

I am not going to be coddling demons or try to ease this in. There's been too much of that.

What's at stake?

What's at stake is a key battle against the state. “Racism” is used as an excuse for statism. There
is an income gap between "white" people and "black" people. Is the income gap a result of
environment, aggregate genetic differences, or a mixture of both?

If the gap is almost entirely the result of genetic differences, then nothing is amiss on this front
and there is no modus for state intervention. If the gap is caused by the effects of current and / or
prior violence, then that can (and is) used as an argument for extortion and statism.

Victory for the pro-freedom side is that the gap is caused internally, either by genetics or
“culture”. Since “culture” is vague and unfalsifiable, I'm going to focus on genetics.

Victory for the anti-freedom side is that the gap is caused by current and / or prior violence:
slavery and race-based employment laws.

IQ

Lets talk about IQ. You may think you know where I'm going with this, but unless you're already a
heredetarian you probably don't. You don't know. You may think you do, but you don't. People are
generally conditioned to believe two things:

1. IQ is bullshit and
2. They are smart for believing IQ is bullshit

First off don't worry about your IQ, it doesn't matter and you would be better off not knowing it.
Simple willingness to think and accepting yourself (allowing your life to emerge) is systematically
more important. Obsessing over standardized test scores in general is an extremely dangerous
thing and I want to be clear that I do not put much stock in IQ as a measure of any individual
man.

It is a mismeasure of mAn, but it is an excellent measure of mEn.

Lets say you gave two men, Bob and James, a vocabulary test. You know nothing about these two
men except that they have the capacity to take a vocabulary test. Bob scores a 6 out of 10, James
scores a 5 out of 10. Who is smarter?

Well if I was forced to choose, I would say Bob is "smarter". And by that I mean if both Bob and
James were subjected to a battery of tests regarding the brain, Bob would most likely do better
than James. And I would say the probability of Bob doing better than James is somewhere around
50.00001%. Which is still virtually a coin toss.

An analogy would be that if Bob could bench press 1 pound more than James, I would predict that
Bob could squat more than James if I was forced to predict, but I wouldn't put much more stock in
this prediction than a coin toss. And like the vocabulary test, the bench press is affected by the
specific conditions of the time of measurement.

Now let us presume we had a slightly better measure. Lets say Bob could bench press 270 pounds
and James could bench press 240 pounds. Just making numbers up, I would then predict Bob
could also squat more than James with a 55% probability.
NOW we have something to work with. Lets say you have group A: 1000 people who can bench
press 270 pounds, and group B: 1000 people who can bench press 240 pounds. Given this
information we can be virtually certain that group A, on average, can squat more than group B.

Similarly, if group A: 1000 people who scored on average 6/10 on a vocabulary test, and group B:
1000 people who scored on average 5/10 on the same vocabulary test, we can be virtually certain
that group A would do better on a math test on average than group B - assuming a .10 correlation
between math and vocabulary scores.

People like Arthur Jensen, Charles Murray, Richard J. Herrnstein go into detail as to why IQ tests
per se are valuable, but I am not interested in that.

In fact, the specific mental test is not very important to me, because I am not interested in
individuals with this stuff. I am interested in group A and group B.

Race and IQ

IQ generally correlates with income. According to Arthur Jensen, it's 0.4, and according to Daniel
Seligman it's 0.5.

So if group A has 1000 people with a median IQ of 100, and group B has 1000 people with a
median IQ of 85, we can be virtually certain that group A will earn more income than group B.

The median IQ of the group "black people" is 85, while the median IQ of the group "white people"
is 100, and there are many more than 1000 people in each example. And, not surprisingly, white
people make significantly more in the US than black people in the US.

Black people tend to have other outcomes distinct from white people, but those involve value
judgments, so I will just stick with income.

Now what causes the IQ-score difference between the groups? Well "black people" and "white
people", while not apodictically different, are relatively discrete genetic clusters.

---

Now before one even crops up arguments along the lines of, "there's more variation within
populations than between, and there are no specific genes for race, and we're 99.9% the same et
cetera", know that that doesn't matter.

The reason being that the total amount of genetic information is not what anyone is concerned
with, it's the expressed differences we are concerned with. If they are talking about alleles, they
are probably propagandizing.

At the base pair level, men and women are 99.7% the same. And yet, there are clearly significant
genetically-caused differences between men and women, and we're not seeing presentations like,
"Gender: The Power of an Illusion" or babble that "gender is a social construct" except from old-
school feminists.

---

We also know that this genetic cluster ("black people") in the US in the past were enslaved and
then legally suppressed, which clearly impacted the standard of living of blacks in the past and
may have lingering effects today.

As you can see I am clearly focusing on US blacks, and the reason is that as of the time of this
writing they are the relevant race. White people aren't demanding the product of the labor of NE
Asians and vice-versa.

And I am not focusing on Hispanic immigrants for three reasons:

1. Hispanics trend more libertarian than blacks

2. Hispanics tend to be racial nationalists more than blacks - they demand land, not the product of
the labor of whites
3. There is less data on Hispanics, and while Hispanics from Mexico have genetic tendencies, they
are not a "race" - as loose as that term already is.

More Things

Adoption Studies - The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study was run by Sandra Scharr, who
before the study was an equalitarian. She wanted to take black, mulatto and white children and
have them adopted by white parents, and compare them to a control of non-adopted white
children to see the effects of environment. The test was run by an equalitarian with the intent of
disproving the notion that there was a significant genetic component to the black-white IQ gap.

She was not able to secure the necessary funding from academia, but the Pioneer Fund, a pro-
eugenics organization that supported the Nazis in the 1930's and 1940's, gave Scharr the funding
she wanted. Lots of organizations supported the Nazis when they were popular, and from what I
know about the Pioneer Fund I support their efforts to fund politically incorrect studies.

And today the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study is in my estimation the single best piece of
evidence against equalitarianism. I want to keep this book short, with the internet the specifics of
the study are not hard to find, but here are the results:

Age 7 IQ Age 17 IQ
Adopting Parents 120 115
Non-adopted white 117 109
Adopted White 112 106
Adopted Mulatto 109 99
Adopted Black 97 89

Scharr and her colleague Richard Weinberg interpreted the results as supporting an environment-
only hypothesis, and made methodological critiques to their study claiming that pre adoption
factors confounded racial ancestry. It is noteworthy that these methodological critiques of their
own study weren't stated until 1994 in response to Richard Lynn, 18 years after it was first
published.

There have been other adoption studies involving black and white subjects, but they were not
designed to determine a genetic component of the overarching black-white IQ gap, but to solve
smaller issues, such as the effect of having a white mother - black father vs. black mother - white
father. And so their samples were not selected to be representative or random.

What you will notice about these studies, such as the Baltimore or Eyferth study, is that you can
get B-W IQ gaps that are small and even with blacks scoring a little bit higher than whites, but
you don't see black populations being a standard deviation higher than white populations.

Brain Size - I am not going to make any case for brain size and intelligence, but I know there are
people that do. A common response to the correlation of brain size and IQ is, "gee, I guess
elephants, whales and dolphins must be the smartest animals on the planet."

While even if we assume humans are "smarter" than whales, elephants and dolphins, those
animals are still some of the smartest animals on the planet are they not? And there is a general
correlation across all species that physically larger brains tend to be "smarter". And when we
recognize that the brain's smartness comes from it's neurons, is it not obvious that, all else being
equal, a larger brain will probably have more neurons and thus be able to do more?

Similar to how larger muscles tend to be stronger than smaller ones, or larger engines more
powerful. The correlation may be weak to the point of practical uselessness, but it is founded.

Income - An argument is often forwarded that when controlled for income, the racial IQ gap
shrinks. This is true, but unilluminating, because smart people tend to earn higher incomes. But
this is the very issue being examined: does the income cause the IQ or IQ cause the income?
Income can impact IQ when it is extremely low, and US blacks are some of the wealthiest people
on the planet - wealthier than the typical Frenchman.

Gene Amplification / Expression - Another argument put forward is how the black-white IQ
gap widens with age, and this must be a result of accumulating environmental impacts, but it's
really evidence for the opposite. Genes get more important with age. Human babies are very
similar, and chicken and human embryos are also very similar.

A good example of this would be when Winthrop Niles Kellogg adopted a chimpanzee named Gua
and raised it alongside his son Donald. Gua used glasses and silverware better, responded to
verbal commands better, and could walk sooner.

Toward the end of the experiment, which lasted 9 months, Donald was starting to pull away from
Gua and Donald was clearly becoming smarter than Gua.

Gene amplification can also be noticed in how people tend to have lighter features when they are
younger. Since darker features tend to be dominant, as genes become more expressed the person
will have darker features.

Another example would be how boys become men and girls become women later on, and how
tom-girls are mostly a pre-puberty phenomenon.

And the black-white IQ gap widens with age.

Stereotype Threat - When people are told they are stupid, they tend to perform stupidly. In
Claude Steele's study "Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African
Americans", Claude found that black and white college students, controlled for SAT scores, scored
about the same on an IQ test when told nothing, and blacks did worse when the test administers
brought up race and IQ.

http://www.debatingracialpreference.org/StereotypeThreatResearch.htm

However, the blacks and whites in the sample had similar SAT scores, which in 1995 was still a
glorified IQ test. It is apparent to me that there was no stereotype threat during the
administration of the SAT tests for those college students, but is stereotype threat more
omnipresent? Perhaps those blacks in college managed to escape the stereotype threat that
plagues other blacks.

I think not based on a survey done by David Williamson and the University of North Carolina
titled, “Despite common beliefs, study shows young blacks have higher self-esteem”

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jan00/graylit012400.htm

"Differences in self-esteem were small, but statistically significant considering the large number of
studies included, she said. The youngest black children -- those under age 10 -- tended to have
slightly lower scores than the youngest white children, but this difference disappeared as the
children passed age 10."

"'"Provided that self-esteem scores for both black and white young people are equally variable
with normal, or bell-shaped, distributions, our results suggest that the average black young
person’s self-esteem is higher than that of about 56 percent of white young people," she said.
"Put another way, the average black young person’s self-esteem falls at about the 56th percentile
of self-esteem for white children and adolescents.'"

"Equalitarians" as I call them like to point out the expectancy of the researchers - that is research
data in one way or another being skewed in favor of the bias of the researcher. Perhaps Steele's
study which showed a massive test-score drop for college students was subject to this expectancy.

The reason I say this is because those college students were smart, and they knew how averages
worked. They knew that black people scored lower on average, they knew it all their life, yet they
managed to get into that college. And they just happened to score lower when a lower black score
would be used as evidence for this "stereotype threat"?

The Tuddenheim Effect -

Often called “The Flynn Effect”, the number of questions answered correctly on IQ tests rise over
time. But an IQ score is a relative score, with 100 being the median score of whites in the UK. 100
is NOT the global average.

James Flynn had nothing to do with coming up with the idea, he does not present it in a novel
way, actual psychometricians such as Arthur Jensen and Richard Herrnstein were dealing with it in
their work (i.e. Flynn did not bring it up), and Flynn is trained a sociologist who publicly admits
uses his arguments as a case for massive state control of your life and economy. Flynn adds
nothing, but is adored by the court intellectuals. If someone talks about “The Flynn Effect” and
doesn't know that it's actually the Tuddenheim Effect, that person is not only a fool, but started
propagandizing on the matter without actually doing research.

The reason the Tuddenheim Effect doesn't matter is because IQ scores are ordinal. You have
genes and environment. If environment improves for everyone, then the number of questions
they answer correctly on an IQ test will rise. This does NOT mean IQ scores will rise over time,
just that the number of questions answered correctly will rise over time.

Think of it like a line: assuming everyone has an identical environment (which is a false
assumption but just go with the thought experiment for now), everyone's position on the line is
caused by genetics. And then when the environment improves, everyone in the line will take a
step forward. That's all the Tuddenheim effect shows.

This is why, despite a rise in number of questions answered correctly across the board, the black-
white gap didn't narrow: everyone just took a step forward.

Now if one believes that the black people in the line, on aggregate, do not have the same
intellectual environments as whites, then that is an argument to be made and dealt with at it's
own length. But the Tuddenheim Effect is irrelevant.

The Tuddenheim Effect is NOT evidence that the extant gaps in the US are caused by
environmental differences. It really just shows that people's IQ scores are effected by
environment.

Cultural Bias - Cultural bias in standardized tests for people born and raised in the US is
practically nonexistent. If you speak english as a second language then standardized testing
becomes ad-hoc, but generally "cultural" bias is a bugaboo, whatever the hell "culture" is.

Now even if "culturally biased", IQ tests are a decent predictor of outcome, and one may say that
outcome occurs in the culture in which the IQ test is administered. In that sense all tests are
"culturally biased".

That said, IQ tests deal with pattern recognition, math, understanding verbal structure, et cetera.
If you have suspicions that IQ tests are culturally biased against black americans (certainly they
are biased against hunter-gatherers), then you simply need to look up the tests for yourself. Use
search engines. And remember everyone has an agenda, including me, but ESPECIALLY
academics. On this issue they are the most dogmatic, and it makes sense because their jobs are
on the line.

This is simple. Evolution didn't stop at the neck, and there are politically motivated fools who spin
complicated tales about everything being caused by psychological phantoms. Race-based
discrimination in jobs and services is all but eradicated, but the political demand for the welfare
state still exists, and so there is still a demand for rationalizing the gap. Thus more and more
bizarre and complicated theories are coming forth in a desperate attempt to avoid the simple
truth: we're different.

If it makes you feel bad, then it should make you feel bad because you are making your happiness
contingent on the traits of some aggregate of people you will never know. And this denial of race
reeks of statism, of a top-down order that "society" (90% of the time this means the state) can
control the way man acts.

It's supposedly not genetics, it's “culture”, “psychology” and “society”. Who pushes this idea in the
main? Academia and the state-cartelized media outlets. What's at stake? Seizing the product of
the labor of others.

“Culture” is vague and unfalsifiable, and there is no debate. It is sane people trying to educate
insane creationists who have bought into an overarching equalitarian anti-genetic mythology.

You are who you are, you can improve yourself and love yourself and explore the world with the
faculties you have.

Equalitarian Arguments are Ad-Hoc

When dealing with equalitarians, the debates usually involve hunting down data and showing why
the studies they cite are crap. It is time-consuming and it is ad-hoc.

Not Good Intentions

Equalitarianism is not a noble ideal. It is at odds with reality, it leads to agitation for more state
control and theft using race-based justifications. It is ignoble and totalitarian and it demeans the
real, measurable and tangible achievements of individuals based on how they look via appeals to
vague and unfalsifiable “culture” and “society” or “effects of historical injustice”. It's vague, and
because it is vague it can be invoked FOREVER. And it will be invoked forever until we say:

“NO. You were not enslaved. Your employment was not legally restricted. The school you went to
sucked, but as voucher studies have shown, the quality of the school doesn't matter much. Your
parents, even if they were on welfare and lived in a trailer, lived a lifestlye unthinkable for whites
in 1900. You are not owed the product of the labor of others. Nor does the “white race” owe “the
black race” monetary reparations.”
Racism

Here are two definitions from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial
differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

These are two VERY different definitions. For definition 1, they practically don't exist, and those
that do are are just as obviously wrong as objectivists. First off, "race" doesn't really exist, it's just
a description of a genetic cluster, a basket of traits. Second off, it doesn't even make sense to say
race determines traits. Race is a basket of traits, so to say race determines traits is to say traits
determine traits.

And "superiority" is meaningless without a standard. If you think big is superior to small then
whales are superior to humans. It's subjective. If one wants to say, "South Koreans are superior
to North Koreans in terms of food access", superior has to be defined in this context as "more
access to food". If we define superior as having less access to food, then we could say North
Koreans are superior. A belief in the "superiority" of certain traits is objectivist nonsense.

Virtually everyone is a definition 2 racist from my definition of race. If we say a race is just a
basket of traits, then of course one will discriminate based on a basket of traits. If black people
tend to be louder than white people, and you prefer quiet conversation to partying, your friends
will tend to be whiter than then general population. So you are discriminating based on traits, and
race is just traits. And hark! Freedomainradio.com is very white!

The reason I grinded this down so much is to say this: when someone is called a racist, what is
usually meant is that they discriminate based on a specific set of superficial traits.

If one gives pretty girls better jobs than fat ugly guys, would we call that racism? No, so it's not
just any superficial trait. It's typically:

- skin color in regards to the predominant type of geographic origin

- facial structure in regards to the predominant type of geographic origin
- hair type in regards to the predominant type of geographic origin

That's it. Racism, as culled from common usage can be defined as discrimination based on those
traits specifically in regards to the predominant type of geographic origin. The reason people are
so butthurt about this (but not about giving pretty girls nice jobs) is because they were trained
from a very early age that racism is a crime relative to itself. It does not matter if it harms
nobody, racism is a SIN.

Racism is off the scale of conventional badness, and what I have been trying to do is put racism
back on the scale - where it belongs. And when put back on the scale, we can see racism for what
it really is: A VICE. Like a cocaine habit, a racism habit can hurt oneself and others. It can also be
relatively benign, and usually is.

Racism is not a cognitive error, it implies no epistemology, racism is not a full-blown ideology, and
implies no economic system. Anyone who says, “racism is stupid” is presupposing that the racist is
giving his preferences objective value. Objectivists do this a lot, they view everything through the
prism of objective values and morality (neither of which exist). But because objectivists lack a
theory of mind, they presuppose that racists ascribe objective value to their preferences: like they
do. Sorry objectivists, racists are smarter than you.
Racism is not stupid, it is zero. Objectivism is in the negative. Objectivists are more hateful and
stupid than racists. They are anti-intellectual cavemen.

And I want to drive this point further, because I'll often get, “okay, racism is not necessarily
harmful and can be tolerated if they keep to themselves”. And this is bullshit. Racism is as
legitimate a preference as the desire to do crack cocaine, and a typical democrat or republican has
agitated for more killing of brown people and have done more harm to the economic prospects of
black people. Black people would be safer and more financially secure with David Duke as
president than with Barack Obama.

White nationalism and white supremacism are two very different, almost completely different,
positions, and it is not cosmetic. White nationalists are like paleocons, white supremacists are like
neocons. White nationalism precedes white supremacism, and has always been bigger than white
supremacism. White nationalism is not something contrived to be racistish-but-not-totally racist.
It is more real than white supremacism. Anyone who conflates the two, casually and linguistically,
does not understand what he is talking about, yet still chooses to publicly opine on the matter.

But all that said, let us go through a line of thought.

“Racism” is vague and lacks an agreed upon definition. It is not a useful word, it does not clarify
reality.

“Racism” is used primarily to describe political opponents.

Therefore, “racism” is generally not a word that explains anything but is a slur. It is a word that is
used not to clarify or to address actual positions, but to jam down and silence debate.

So whenever someone calls someone else a “racist”, ask them if they mean separatist,
supremacist, or if they harbor actual malice toward a certain race vs. just being uncomfortable
around a certain race.

What the term “racism” does is it collapses all of these things into one position. And I believe this
is done intentionally.

Now you can still not like any form of racial separatism or thinking in terms of race at all. And that
is sort-of my goal, or I should say mostly my goal, but I'll get to that later. The key is that the
term “racism” is a slur and an emotional trigger without a clear definition that is primarily used to
attack political opponents.

Blacks as Victims

If we are to treat black people as an aggregate people, and decide their collective fate by their
collective traits, then I will say that black people are difficult to defend. I do not like to think in
these aggregates as they collapse the beauty and precision of individualistic human action, but I
am now:

Black people are disproportionately homophobic, misogynistic, religious mystics, nationalists,

racists, supporters of war, supporters of seizing the product of the labor of others domestically and
violent criminals. These are the behavioral traits that distinguish blacks from whites, they are
ultra-statists and in my minds eye they are ultra-conservatives - rednecks on steroids who
support "socialism" out of greed, racism and a puerile sense of entitlement.

And most of the slaves sent to the Americas were already slaves in Africa. It's not like the movie
"Avatar". Not that that matters because black people alive in the US never were slaves.
And to be a descendant of American slaves is to be privileged beyond the wildest dreams of most
people on the planet.

The Lynching Myth

From Richard M. Perloff, Professor of Communication Cleveland State University:

"Approximately 4,742 individuals were lynched between 1882 and 1968; of the victims, 3,445 or
73 percent were Black."

- http://academic.csuohio.edu/perloffr/lynching/

Now if we recognize that lynching was a way violent crime was dealt with in rural southern areas,
we can compare this to violent crime by race in the US today:

There were 16,277 perpetrators of murder and non-negligible homicide reported by law
enforcement agencies to the FBI in 2008. Out of the 11,557 cases in which the race of the
perpetrator is known (71%), 5,941 were black, making up 51.4% of the known perpetrators.

There were 2,487 arrests for rape in the US 2008. 801, or 32.2% of the perpetrators were black
(65.2% were "white", though this statistic is useless since mexicans are lumped in with whites).

There were 42,779 arrests for assault in the US in 2008. 14,630, or 34.2% of the perpetrators
were black (63.3% were "white", again worthless since mexicans are lumped in the stats).

Blacks made up 21,372 of the 56,823 violent crimes (excluding robbery) in 2008, or 37.6% in the
US in total. In 2006, blacks made up 13.5% of the US population.

So presuming that in the states in which lynchings occurred, the racial demographics were
identical to what they are now in the US as a whole, we should expect about 35% to 39% of the
lynchings to have involved black people.

But:

1. There were more blacks as a percentage of the populations in the states which had lynchings. If
there were twice as many blacks as a percentage of the population, then something close to 70%
would make sense.

2. There were also few hispanics between 1882 and 1968 in "the south", which means that the
"whites" really were what we would consider whites today, and so the "white" violent crime rate
wasn't inflated by hispanics.

For this reason, I do not believe blacks were systematically targeted by lynch mobs any more than
the current legal system systematically targets blacks. That is, the lynch mobs discriminated
based on race no more than the current legal system does.

This could mean that:

1. The lynch mobs targeting of blacks for being black is hysteria fueled by a few anecdotes of
lynching a black man for whistling at a white woman, or

2. That the current legal system is systematically racist, or

3. A mix of both. That is, the lynch mobs and the current legal system are systematically racist,
but blacks also happen to be more prone to violence. Blacks may be more prone to violence,
which is WHY police specifically target blacks.

One can simply do a search for "police brutality" to see that the police are inhuman to people of
all races, and often get sadistic pleasure from it. If a black person is conditioned to believe in the
omnipresence of racial discrimination, he is likely to ascribe police brutality and racial slurs to
racism on the part of the police officer. This notion is reinforced by white people who, for reasons
that one can speculate, perpetuate this "conventional wisdom" in casual conversation and media
(the cartoon "Family Guy" immediately springs to mind).

If you have further desires to crush your beliefs, I recommend doing a search for "black invention
myths" and "hate crime hoaxes".

Of course the sites that catalog these things are going to be white separatist sites (who else would
have the energy and fearlessness to do it?), but understand that they are just cataloging them. If
you know how to use the internet, you can easily verify or falsify just about all of the things they
say. Most of the stuff is the reposting of news stories, so sorry starbucks, you're not going to have
much luck “debunking racists”.

Totalitarianism in Conceptions of Beauty

Imagine a person who says, “I will not date Arabs.” - Is this person racist? If you say yes, then I
have two questions to ask you:

1. Is beauty subjective? If your answer is no, then put down this book and go kill yourself. Yes,
beauty is subjective.

2. If someone does not find Arabs attractive, what are we to say? That their perception of beauty
is wrong?

But they are racist in that they discriminate based on the traits that make up race. And of course
everyone would let it be, wouldn't force this person or punish them for not dating interracially. But
the problem is just that: that punishment should even come up as a thought. That it is something
to even be “allowed”. It is preference, and the notion that it is wrong to not be attracted to people
who look a certain way leads to innocent people being attacked for being “racist”.

Libertarianism and White Nationalism

Some may have noticed a peculiar correlation between libertarianism and white nationalism. Most
try to sweep it under the rug, but that cannot be done. The correlation is there, and it needs to be
addressed.
Why would this be? And is it a sign of something malevolent on the part of libertarians? No, and a
way to explain this is with prison gangs.

In prisons, whites get raped more than any other race because they lack solidarity. The only white
gangs in prisons are neo-nazi and skinhead gangs, and whites are trained from a very early age to
not join those gangs. Whites don’t gang-up in prison, and as a result they get ganged-up on.

In a prison, as a white guy, I would advocate white solidarity, which is to say white nationalism.
Today it’s impossible, but say in the 1800s it would be possible to escape the prison. So in the
prison environment, we see two completely logical actions a white inmate would take:

1. Joining a white gang in response to the black and hispanic gangs (white nationalism)
2. Escaping the prison (libertarianism)
We can even imagine the whites and blacks coming together to escape the prison.
And what is a state but a loose prison?

And when the entire planet is controlled by the state to such a degree, that is we have a prison
planet, you can expect whites trying to oppose the prison and clump together to defend against
their prisonmates - a parallel rise of libertarianism and white nationalism.

————————

I would prefer that all mankind mix and understand each other.

Statism, especially democratic statism, leads to blocs and bloc-identification. Bloc A votes
themselves bloc B’s money.

On a free market, bloc-identification breaks down as all men are mixed into the structure of
production, there’s just no money to made in blocs. You can’t vote yourself someone else’s
money, and so the only way to make money is to cooperate with your fellow men. The free market
FORCES (metaphorically speaking) them to cooperate.
At first they do it reluctantly, but then understanding emerges.
Now I am focusing on white nationalism because I called myself a white nationalist on the internet
for less than 3 months, and I am very much aware of the demonization that occurs.

Of course I am not one now, but the thing is that white nationalism was an intellectual
ADVANCEMENT from where I was before. I was for more peace, more individual liberty for all
races and my white nationalist ideal would have been more prosperous for all races and economic
classes than anything other than straight-up Market Anarchy. I believed division would solve the
problems of race.

I am not a racist now, I was a “soft racist” in the past, but it is unfair to use such a toxic term as
racist to describe my position in the past, because racism conjures up notions of HATE. And I have
and never had any race-based hate. Don't misunderstand, I am an extremely hateful person, but I
cannot hate someone for something they cannot control such as race. I hate people for their
choices, not the way they were born.

Finally, the average republican or democrat has more to atone for than me: I was always
moderately libertarian, I opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan war, and even as a white nationalist I
supported open borders and amnesty.

Often a listener asks “Why are you talking about this? This isn't directly relevant to your position.”.
And my answer is that the cat is already out of the bag. If I ever get big, this will not be
suppressed.

Two Against the Middle

There are an infinite amount of facts and a finite amount of time and energy, you have to have a
methodology when approaching politics. While there is some overlap, there are roughly speaking,
3 blocs:
1. The elites
2. The productive class
3. The rabble-mob
The elites are the state and the people who have bought off the state, and so with say $1 million
in bribes, they have access to say $1 billion in firepower. They can use this firepower (the army,
the police) to enforce their cartel arrangement with barriers to entry.
The main enemy of the elites is the productive class, the innovators and inventors. These are the
people who, despite the web of difficulty, have proven to be so superior at satisfying the demands
of society that they can break into the elite class. In order to prevent this, the elites try to raise
taxes on “the rich”, but “the rich” only means the productive class.
This is why the super-rich can shelter investments and report zero income, while raising taxes on
the productive class, who report their income as income and thus pay taxes.
The way they raise taxes on “the rich” is by conning the rabble-mob. The rabble-mob is
disproportionately poor and non-white, and so the elites play on the covetousness and racism of
the rabble-mob to win elections, which then saddle the productive class with “regulations” and
taxes.
This results in a transfer of wealth from the productive class to the rabble-mob (but never from
the elites), but by diminishing the capacity of the productive class, it makes it harder for the
rabble-mob to break into the productive class. IOW, is creates a class-structure. Without a state
the classes would be more fluid.
Obviously the elites are awful, but lets not forget that the elites are nothing without the rabble-
mob. At the end of the day, it is the rabble-mob that actually votes. Most people involved in
political debates are the rabble-mob.
So whenever you hear some racist or sexist argument for state intervention to fix an “injustice”,
recognize this basic dynamic. Does it involve a tax? Taxes on the productive class can include:
1. Awarding gov't contracts based on race and sex. This limits the capacity of the productive
class to compete with the elites. This is why elites love to fund racist “anti-racist” groups and
feminist groups.
2. Increased “regulation” against a trumped-up hazard. Elites love to fund research into
environmental scares, and use environmental scares as an excuse to expand state power (which
they control through bribery).
3. Increase the income or social security taxes. This taxes the productive class, not the
elites.
Whenever someone demands a state “solution” to a “problem” or “injustice”, important questions
to ask are:
1. Which side supports state intervention? Whoever is calling for state intervention has a
vested interest in demonizing the market. The groups defending the market also have a vested
interest too, but they did not start the conflict. They are reacting to state action. State action is
always aggressive, pro-market arguments are always defensive. Are people who lobby for state
intervention doing so to profit themselves, or for some nobler purpose? Ignore the mob, they
won't give you any insight.
2. Where is the pro-state intervention side getting it's money? You should do a little bit of
research to find out who specifically these “elites” are, but it should only take a couple hours to
get a pretty complete map.
3. What are the political costs of saying the supporters of state-intervention are wrong?
For example, saying the “anti-racists” are tools of the elites will get you labeled a “racist”, or for
the feminists a misogynist.
The major pro-state, elite-funded, and popular position is almost always wrong. The major anti-
state, sparsely funded and unpopular position is almost always correct. I'm not talking about
kooky movements, I'm talking about things like “climate change”.
“Climate change” is vague, the science is complex and it is inappropriate to make it public. The
public does not have the capacity to come to any meaningful conclusion on the issue, and so it is
impossible to inform the public on climate change. Any media outlet that claims to be “informing
the public” on climate change is either misguided, or more likely pushing a pro-state agenda.
For these reasons I do not believe in damaging man-made global warming, and because I am not
qualified to analyze the evidence I am impervious to any scientific argument. The only thing I am
capable of analyzing is the political interests, the money and the demonization. To change my
mind would require a shift in the political dynamic.
Mismeasure of Man
Steven Jay Gould was paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science. He was not a
psychologist or psychometrician, sociologist or economist. In his debates with with Steven Pinker
over evolutionary psychology, Gould reframed the debate as one of "biological potentiality vs.
biological determinism." And this is a lie.
Now if you want to get reductionistic, anyone who is sane is a determinist (i.e. there is no free
will), but that's not the kind of determinism Gould is talking about. Evolutionary psychologists
argue for biological potentiality, and these differences in potentiality impact the outcomes,
including the aggregate outcomes of various genetic clusters.
The evolutionary psychologists were arguing that nature and nurture play a role in the inequality
of individuals, but also in the inequality of genetic clusters (men and women, blacks and whites,
et cetera).
Gould held an envionment-only position as an explanation for the differences in behavior in
genetic clusters. He didn't deny the role of genetics in the differences between individuals, similar
to how no creationist denies microevolution, but Gould denies any genetic impact on macro
differences.
This hypocrisy is easily explained by Gould himself:
“I grew up in a family with a tradition of participation in campaigns for social justice, and I was
active, as a student, in the civil rights movement at a time of great excitement and success in the
early 1960s. Scholars are often wary of citing such commitments. … [but] it is dangerous for a
scholar even to imagine that he might attain complete neutrality, for then one stops being vigilant
about personal preferences and their influences—and then one truly falls victim to the dictates of
prejudice. Objectivity must be operationally defined as fair treatment of data, not absence of
preference.”
“Social justice” is a vague term. Social typically means to have to do with interacting with other
members of the same species. For example, dogs and chimps are social animals, alligators are
not. Justice is vague, emotional language that clarifies nothing. So to be for “social justice” means
you are for what you want in regards to interaction with other members of the same species.
Aren't we all...
Gould could deny genetic causation for macro differences because macro differences are more
abstract, and their genetic causation can still be credibly denied like macro evolution.
A similar error occurs with economics: nobody thinks printing money and consuming more on a
camping trip will make you produce more as a result, but Keynesians believe that increasing
consumption will lead to a concomitant increase in production.
Gould also lied extensively in his book “The Mismeasure of Man”. Gould was not a psychologist or
a psychometrician. He argued that some old skull-measurers measured incorrectly or tabulated
their measurements incorrectly, which is not something I am qualified to comment on directly as
I'm not an anthropologist.
Gould showed that Cyril Burt, who did a few twin studies to show that IQ was largely inherited,
falsified data and claimed to be the inventor of factor analysis when really it was Charles
Spearman. Gould is probably correct on this, but I don't care because there have been many more
twin studies that showed the same thing Burt showed:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/200810/straight-talk-about-twin-studies-
genes-and-parenting-what-makes-us-who-w
That's genetic causation for variation in IQ scores on the individual level, which is what Gould was
denying.
Gould on IQ
Gould brought up the trite objection to “putting a single number on intelligence”. This is a sign
that Gould doesn't know how ecological correlations work as I explained in the section on IQ. It
wouldn't matter if it was a one-word vocabulary “test”, if the sample size is large enough and the
confounders are controlled for, it can explain aggregate differences in anything else regarding the
brain.
Gould also argued against “the g-factor”, which may be interesting if you care about
psychometrics for it's own sake, but it doesn't have economic ramifications so I don't care, and I
won't care until it does. Though my guess is Gould was wrong on that too, like he is on most
topics outside of his field of study that have political ramifications.
I could just link to the wikipedia article on this, but I know the reader won't read it. So I'll just
copy it verbatim here:
---------

Praise
Gould stated that one of the most positive reviews of the original edition had come from the
British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, which Cyril Burt had once been an editor
of. It stated that, "Gould has performed a valuable service in exposing the logical basis of one of
the most important debates in the social sciences, and this book should be required reading for
students and practitioners alike."
Leon J. Kamin, an American psychologist at Princeton University, writes that Gould's work
"effectively anticipated and thoroughly undermined" the arguments later presented in The Bell
Curve. He praises the additions to the book's 1996 edition, writing that they "strengthen the claim
of this book to be 'a major contribution toward deflating pseudobiological "explanations" of our
present social woes.'"
Christopher Lehmann-Haupt stresses Gould's critique of factor analysis, saying the book
"demonstrates persuasively how factor analysis led to the cardinal error in reasoning of confusing
correlation with cause, or, to put it another way, of attributing false concreteness to the abstract."
The Saturday Review, a British journal, praises the book as a "fascinating historical study of
scientific racism" that "illustrate[s] both the logical inconsistencies of the theories and the
prejudicially motivated, albeit unintentional, misuse of data in each case."
A review in the Sunday Times, another British publication, speaks favorably of the book,
suggesting Gould "shifts the argument from a sterile contest between environmentalists and
hereditarians and turns it into an argument between those who are impressed with what our
biology stops us doing and those who are impressed with what it allows us to do." (My note: this
is a false framing of the debate, implying that Gould's opponents believed genes were everything)
Richard York and Brett Clark of the US Monthly Review praise Gould's narrow focus: "Rather than
attempt a grand critique of all 'scientific' efforts aimed at justifying social inequalities, Gould
performs a well-reasoned assessment of the errors underlying a specific set of theories and
empirical claims."
In December 2006 Discover magazine ranked the The Mismeasure of Man as the 17th greatest
science book of all time. In 1998, the Modern Library ranked it as the 24th best non-fiction book
of all time.
Criticisms
The Mismeasure of Man has been considered highly controversial among psychologists who
support the concepts Gould examined.
Bernard Davis (1916–1994), professor of microbiology at the Harvard Medical School, accused
Gould of setting up straw man arguments, as well as incorrectly defining key terms (notably
"reification"), choosing data in a "highly selective" manner, and in general being motivated more
by political concerns rather than scientific ones. Davis claimed that a laudatory review by Philip
Morrison, which appeared in Scientific American, was written because the journal's editorial staff
had "long seen the study of the genetics of intelligence as a threat to social justice."
Statistician David J. Bartholomew, of the London School of Economics, wrote that Gould erred in
his use of factor analysis and irrelevantly focused on issue of reification and ignored scientific
consensus on the existence of the g factor of intelligence.
In an article written for the April 1982 edition of Nature, Steve Blinkhorn, a senior lecturer in
psychology at Hatfield Polytechnic, accused Gould of selectively juxtaposing data in order to
further a political agenda.
Psychologist Franz Samelson wrote a review in Science, which tended to be critical on a number of
counts. Samelson, for example, was critical of Gould's argument that U.S. Army intelligence tests
contributed to the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924.
---------
If you notice, praise of Gould's work is vague and political, using the term "social justice" a lot,
and talking about "social inequalities", another vague term. Does it refer to different outcomes? Is
the writer there against different people having different possessions and reputations? Or is he
just against different genetic aggregates having on aggregate different possessions and
reputations? This is the problem with vague language. And when you advocate extortion justified
by humanistic-creationism, you have no choice but to be vague.
Restriction of Range
When talking about environmental impacts, we need to be clear: what is the range of
environmental differences we are measuring? If two people grow up in the same household, the
environmental differences will probably be very small in regards to IQ, and so the differences in
IQ scores can be attributed to the genetics of the test-takers and test-taking conditions. If you
take multiple IQ tests in order to dilute the effects of test-taking conditions, then any IQ gap is
most likely caused by a genetic difference.
However, if there is a significant disparity in environment, then it becomes more plausible to
attribute the difference in IQ score to a difference of environment. For example, someone growing
up in SS Africa might face malnutrition and illiteracy.
Simply put, if there is a significant environmental difference, it is likely the outcome differences
are caused by environment. If the environment is similar, then the outcome is probably caused by
genetics.
Gould claimed this is misleading because conditions in the womb could cause deformities and such
which are not caused by genetics. Hopefully the reader can see how that is irrelevant. If you want
to get picky, then fine,we'll just call it “pre-birth” vs. “post-birth” environmental impacts.
Macro-Micro Errors
Three major examples of micro-macro errors are:
Keynesian Economics
Creationism
Equalitarianism
Keynesians believe that by increasing how much you consume, this will lead to an increase in how
much is produced. This is obviously false at the micro level: raising your own food consumption
will not lead to other people producing more food for you – or they might, but at the expense of
other things they could have done with their time.
But on the macro level, we are to believe that if millions of people increase their consumption,
then they will all also increase their production that does not come at the expense of something
else.
Another example is the multiplier: if you had 5 people, and they all used paper money as a
medium of exchange, if you poofed Bob more paper money than the other people, would all 5
people be better off? Of course not.
But Keynesians believe that if you poof millions of Bobs more money than the millions of other
people they are around, then all the Bobs and the millions of people they are around would be
better off.
Creationists believe that life didn't evolve, but was poofed by god. God is a definitionally
impossible being created by people who didn't know what dreams were. Now creationists
recognize that animals evolve, from a bird with a large beak to a bird with a small beak, et cetera.
But on the macro level, evolution cannot happen. Micro evolution cannot be denied because it
occurs over a short enough period of time that we can see it happening and directly record it. But
evolution that leads to a beak getting smaller, then smaller, and finally no beak, and then the
feathers get harder and harder until they turn into scales, or however it happens – cannot
happen.
And creationists used to be able to credibly deny macro-evolution because it was abstract.
Lastly, and this one is still fresh because it's so recent, is that genetic differences between
individuals exist and explain differences in outcomes, but genetic differences between large
genetic clusters don't really exist and don't explain a significant amount of the outcome gap.
One standard is applied at the micro level, and another at the macro level.

"Race is a Social Reality, not a Genetic One"

This is an extremely dangerous notion. Whenever you hear someone talking about "culture" and
"social", it's a good bet that they are going to give you some vague apologetics for extortion.

What this sentiment does is cause people to presume all outcome inequalities are "social",
because genetically "we" are just so similar! And if they are "social", they can be changed, and if
they can be changed well then that's an argument for extortion and control.

This isn't always the case, but one way to tell that someone is not worth talking to is if they use
certain cue-phrases:

- They talk about "capitalism" a lot.

- They speak of “the market” as a discrete entity. This shows they don't understand that a market
is just what we call a matrix of individual human actions (including their collective actions). Calling
something “the market” is just a label.

- They talk about the evils of "racism" a lot. And by racism, they mean entirely and exclusively
white against non-white racism. They do not recognize the extortion that is justified by the
presupposition that genetic clusters are genetically identical as racist, i.e. they ignore the biggest
race-based aggression currently and/or actively support it to “undo the damages of (white)
racism”.

- They use the words "social" and "culture" a lot. These are vague terms that prevent them from
having to explicate anything and makes their position difficult to attack, and allows them to use
arguments from psychology. All they end up doing is bolstering their "progressive" bigotries.
And that's all this is. People recognize their own traits, they decide which of their traits are the
most important, and then wage physical and ideological war to advance those traits. It's very
simple, and when you see the world through the prism of trait-struggle, all "progressivism" is
revealed as bigotry no different from white supremacism. It's no different. White supremacists
have a basket of traits that they like, and they fight, rather impotently, to advance those traits.

"Socialists" and self-proclaimed "progressives" have their traits, and they fight to advance their
traits. And no traits are objectively any better than any others. It is a trait war, and everyone is a
nationalist. To believe you are not a nationalist (in this sense) is to be so steeped in your own
bigotry that you don't even recognize it as bigotry, but as "the correct thing".

Want to End the Trait War?

If you wish to end the trait war, the first step is recognizing that you are fighting one.

The second step is to strive for a society where preferences are not violently enforced on others.
That's how you will end the war. And this means ending the state. All acts of state are acts of war.

The only way to have peace is to end the state. And if you still think that your traits are better and
need to be advanced against others, then that will be an impediment to to you opposing the state.
Or to put it another way, your nationalism will be an impediment to peace.

How Deeply is Equalitarianism Ingrained in You?

I remember making arguments for a free market, and I would get responses about how not
everyone could become wealthy, and my response was always, "sure they could" and I would
point out some stories or the incentives to train anyone with talent. But do you see what I was
doing?

That presupposition that everyone having the (realistic) ability to become wealthy is some sort of
measuring stick of a society. When did this happen? No, I don't think everyone can achieve
eudaimonea, some people are going to be miserable. And no, it's not a noble goal to attempt to
make this otherwise.

"Noble Goals"

If the policy you advocate leads to poverty, then you are PRO-POVERTY. What we have today is
many people who quite frankly don't care about the outcomes of the policies they advocate, they
just want to appear noble. The result is advocacy of shitty policies and people invincibly ignorant
to simple logic.

This is made all the more problematic by professional snowblowers and obfuscators who make
impressive-sounding arguments, backed by magic scrolls from "prestigious universities", who
provide a systematic rationalization for what millions of petulant children already want to do. John
Maynard Keynes is an excellent example of post-hoc rationalizations for extant prejudices.