Richard Spencer led a group of White Nationalists bearing torches to defend Confederate Statues from being removed in Virginia.

DateYutaka said:
but right Libertarianis will not join with the Left Libertarian on this im of the old left not the new race based left

why as the left been like this

Gholy said:
Because thinks always end up well for (right) liibertarians when they pander to the left amirite?

Onyx-Sentinel said:


Which is completely pointless, Nationalism based on arbitrary lines (borders) is shallow. Whereas Racial Nationalism is based on bringing people together because of our similarities.

traed said:



Borders are arbitrary but racial divisions arent? hahahha No no no. Racial divisions are arbitrarily made. Also physical appearance as a basis is extremely shallow .

traed said:


Borders are arbitrary but racial divisions arent? hahahha No no no. Racial divisions are arbitrarily made. Also physical appearance as a basis is extremely shallow .

DateYutaka said:
id be will to reach aarciis the aisle with you understand the right liibertarian deferntion of the STATE is at odd with what The STATE is to the right liibertarian is
to left liibertarians like me the STATE is eaxocly what it says on the tin there is not reall anti statist on he right liibertarian side

there all small state liibertarians not anti satist liibertarians [ i say the only thing that the state is needed for is to repsnet its people o the international stage simple as that

right wing and letf winf stateist ie neo ocn and neo libs are unnited agest us why sould liibertarians fight each other too

the an is i an cap corm form Anarcho Anarcho come from Anarchy witch means anti hierarchy

correct and an caps are Anarcho Capatlists and Caplitism is as far removed from anti hierarchy as you can be

We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines . . . we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists . . . We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical.

Gholy said:
You seem to be really concerned with semantics and how you perceive the meaning of the word "libertarian". I take it ancaps would be considered libertarian but the rest would still be statists in your view?

They're both fringe groups hated by almost everyone but them but that doesn't automatically make the two allies. Both sides might hate the state but they do so for different reasons and they don't have much in common other than that.

You're not wrong here. Anarcho-Capitalism is a bit of a misnomer because capitalism is a form of hierarchy. I guess "Anarcho-Capitalism" just sounded better than "anti-statist capitalism" or "nonarchist" :P
Rothbard himself was aware of this:

Altairius said:


The boundary between your skin and the outside air is arbitrary.

traed said:


In a way but no it's pretty objective the air is a gas and skin is a solid.

Are Hispanics white?
Are Ashkenazi Jews white?
Are Arabs white?
Is the Kalash tribe white?
How much percentage of white does it take to be white?

These questions don't have objective answers based on how you're defining race and you know it.

Clebardman said:
@Zeally You've been more than patient, too bad @Altairius will just ignore your post as he does with anything he can't twist to play smartass.

Altairius said:


I don't see him responding to me. Maybe I missed it way back.

Clebardman said:

*looks back at the thread*

Hum, he was quoting drunk_samurai, and no, the names aren't even similar. I'll pretend nothing happened while you guys stone me.
Hey but at least, I manage to ping you and not Altairus this time (^:

traed said:


Borders are arbitrary but racial divisions arent? hahahha No no no. Racial divisions are arbitrarily made. Also physical appearance as a basis is extremely shallow .

Onyx-Sentinel said:

Racial divisions are not arbitrarily made, physical appearance is only one aspect.
To believe people only care about skin colour is ridiculous.

Even my Biology Teacher (who was Black) in High School said there are differences between races other skin colour. Differences in ability and talents.

Onyx-Sentinel said:

Racial divisions are not arbitrarily made, physical appearance is only one aspect.
To believe people only care about skin colour is ridiculous.

Even my Biology Teacher (who was Black) in High School said there are differences between races other skin colour. Differences in ability and talents.

traed said:

The concept of race pre-dates genetics and modern medicine and psychology. It's pseudo-science.

Your biology teacher is misinformed. Many studies point out that race is not genetic but just social divisions. Even if it was genetic the lines between races is still arbitrarily defined nnot only in humans but other animals as well as sort of blurry lines not clear cut objective divisions. What actually exists is blurry lines of geographic divisions. These divisionns can include multiple so called races with similarities more than people of same race of another region.

Altairius said:


Again, blurry lines do not refute the essence of something. You can call any categorization arbitrary.

traed said:


Sound's like a cult religion. No you can't. A plane is not the same as a potato but a human is a human.

Altairius said:


And a European is not the same as an African.

Anyone who would deny that statement is part of a cult religion.

traed said:


Europeans originally came from Africa. At least that is the popular scientific opinion.

Point is you should judge people as individuals not collectively.

omfgplzstop said:

Your biology teacher lied. Studies I've seen all point towards the idea that there are no substantial differences. There are differences in culture and minor physical differences, and they're the reason people from some races fare differently from others. The vast majority of genetic differences occur between individuals and not people of different races, not to mention that these genetic differences between individuals are not substantial either.

Olympic 100 m medallists in the early editions of the Modern Olympic Games were principally white, Western sprinters of European descent, largely reflecting the make up of the nations that took part. As the Olympic competition began to attract wider international participation, athletes with African heritage began to reach the 100 m Olympic podium, particularly African-Americans and Afro-Caribbeans.

Eddie Tolan became the first non-white winner of the event in 1932 and this signified the start of a prolonged period of success by black male sprinters; since 1932 only five men's Olympic champions in the event have not had significant African heritage. The women's event was dominated by runners of European descent until Wilma Rudolph won the title in 1960. Soviet and German women returned to the podium in the period from 1972 to 1980, but since then African-American and Jamaican women have won the great majority of 100 m medals. **Dominance in the men's event has been particularly pronounced from 1984 to 2016, during which time all the men's Olympic 100 m finalists have been of African heritage.**

***Most commentators attribute this statistical discrepancy to genetic rather than to cultural factors. ***

Onyx-Sentinel said:


It seems I said Race instead of Ethnicity. And there are differences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Allopatric
During allopatric speciation, a population splits into two geographically isolated populations (for example, by habitat fragmentation due to geographical change such as mountain formation). The isolated populations then undergo genotypic or phenotypic divergence as: (a) they become subjected to dissimilar selective pressures; (b) they independently undergo genetic drift; (c) different mutations arise in the two populations.
Yet you try to say all the differences are minor.

Humanity is that extensive, different groups have faced different environments and adapted to them. Some have prospered due to their adaptability, whereas others have failed to adapt.

If ya want a great example of differences of ability between Ethnic groups, the Olympics is one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres_at_the_Olympics#Race

Of the 0.1% of DNA that varies among individuals, what proportion varies among main populations? Consider an apportionment of Old World populations into three continents (Africa, Asia and Europe), a grouping that corresponds to a common view of three of the 'major races'16, 17. Approximately 85−90% of genetic variation is found within these continental groups, and only an additional 10−15% of variation is found between them18, 19, 20 (Table 1). In other words, approx90% of total genetic variation would be found in a collection of individuals from a single continent, and only approx10% more variation would be found if the collection consisted of Europeans, Asians and Africans. The proportion of total genetic variation ascribed to differences between continental populations, called FST, is consistent, regardless of the type of autosomal loci examined (Table 1).

omfgplzstop said:

Those are the types of differences I was referring to, and I mentioned that they alongside culture are the source of disparities. Maybe I shouldn't have called them minor (as relatively slight differences in genes can manifest as significant differences in physiology) to be clearer, but the vast majority of genetic differences between individuals do not stem from race/geographical isolation.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html?iframe=true&width=100%25&%20rel=

Onyx-Sentinel said:


The point I'm trying to get across is, that there are clear differences in ability between ethnic groups, and I believe you see that as well.

omfgplzstop said:
I will take back the claim that your teacher lied. I get aggressive whenever I hear about a teacher making a claim I perceive as even slightly inaccurate because of the amount of bullshit I see in the education system worldwide.

omfgplzstop said:


Yep. I believe that the differences are not significant enough to warrant or excuse a demand for any form of government support (or differing treatment) for certain races though, which is why these kinds of things alongside the word "teacher" which has become associated with leftist propaganda to me prompted be to be aggressive. Lol.

Onyx-Sentinel said:


Oh, so you're against Affirmative Action like myself?

Altairius said:
That's stupid. For example, I judge that Muslims as a group are problematic and should be kept out of the country. Oh look, less terrorism. Now we'll start deporting the recent migrants. Oh look, even less. Eventually we'll get to the ones who have been here for generations through some kind of incentive structure. Wow, it's almost like a high trust society or something. I had vaguely heard about this sort of thing but I didn't think it was possible. I thought terrorism was just part of living in a big city.

Onyx-Sentinel said:

Oh, so you're against Affirmative Action like myself?

Onyx-Sentinel said:
It seems I said Race instead of Ethnicity. And there are differences.

traed said:


To help you get it I will turn it around. So you would reject an Arab or black that is either not religious or is Muslim in name only and doesn't care about Sharia shit and has western viewpoints but that is the equivalent to letting in any white person regardless of their history of violent crime and holding opposition to every aspect of the gov they move to and you overlook it just because they are white. Don't you see how stupid that is?

Altairius said:


You can't determine whether or not Muslims are "Muslim in name only". It's totally impossible. If you can read people's minds, then we'll talk. In the meantime, you know with absolute certainty that the fewer Muslims you have, the less terrorism you have. As for the racial component, until you can actually prove that it's all just poverty, you shouldn't be making drastic changes to your society.

Obviously I don't want to let in a bunch of felons from Russia or something like that. Even then though, you're making a group judgement. Sure, I agree that past behavior is a stronger predictor than race, but race is also a strong predictor of certain outcomes. And it's really not accounted for by poverty. Take the murder rate in China vs. the US.

omfgplzstop said:
@traed
You can't predict if a Muslim will be radicalized. What moves them is an interpretation of a text they consider holy, and it's not difficult to reach them.

He misses the fact that Muslims are people who share an ideology (a basis of some, rather), not a race.

traed said:
To be radicalised they have to come into contact with radicals or at least radical propaganda. The first is something tackable the second can be banned.

What you gonna do about all the Christians that become radicals? In the US we have Christians bombing abortion clinics and shooting up mosques.

omfgplzstop said:


How do you police the entire internet to govern radical propaganda? Are you going to ban the Qur'an?

The difference between the bible and the Qur'an is that the central theme of the Qur'an is spreading the faith by the sword, whereas the bible's is closer to being a hippie (if we follow the protagonists at least, i'm basically trying to sum it up). Christianity does not encourage, and most Christians condemn, acts like bombing abortion clinics and shooting up mosques afaik. Muslims often refuse to condemn terrorism in the name of Islam, many believe suicide bombing can be justified, and plenty of imams actually endorse it.

Either way, I'm not arguing that all muslims should be deported. My stance on this subject is that Islam needs a reform.

Setting aside the fact that muslims are much more likely to become radicalized to the point of murder than christians, radicalized christians who commit such acts are not significantly different from radicalized environmentalists burning down chain stores. In both cases it is a result of pushing a certain belief that stems from ideology (life of innocents should be preserved, the environment should be preserved) to the extreme, and not necessarily something that a change to the core belief system would solve.

traed said:


Actually you can predict how risky a person is based on their criminal history or lack of and their connections to other criminals or lack of.

Terrorism pales in comparison to other violent crimes in occurrence frequency and body count when talking about western countries. It's just terrorism is more publicised so youre fixated on it while not caring about all the white people killing white people. There have been terrorists of every race too.

What I am pointing out is your generalizations makes it so all the groups you did not exclude still commit crime and so do people naively born. Your race crap doesnt solve that it makes it worse by making people think crime is a race issue so they ignore real causes and crime just continues even if you had an ethnostate with a state religion or something.

traed said:


Not the whole internet just within ones own country.

But Christianity spread by the sword anyway. Not entirely though just it was a factor to its growth. It doesn't matter, Christianity is not a purely scriptural religion but also a cultural religion with oral traditions added to it.

It would be unlikely for Islam to reform if Muslims are kept in third world conditions with a religious government. However the American born religion Nation of Islam is actually just as bad or worse than Islam because it adds racism to the ideology although in all other regards it is more moderate. Sufism is pretty chill, its very religious but in a peaceful tolerant way.

Christianity was around for a few hundred years more. Islam is still playing catch up. Anyway actually white supremacist groups do more terrorism in the US but it's smaller scale stuff but they mostly somehow try to tie Christianity into their ideology idk how but they do. I wouldnt compare it to eco-terrorism since eco terrorism usually doesnt target killing anyone just stopping corporations from doing something.

traed said:
@omfgplzstop
You don't have to prevent all of it, just putting out a message it's not acceptable is helpful and taking it off sites like youtube and twitter is enough to take it away from the eyes of most of the would be supporters. It's not just the religion itself but material conditions as well. A person wont get as deep into a religion if they are satisfied with their life as it is.

The quran has the same message as the bible although it's not conveyed as much because it spends too much time telling the story of Muhammad's exploits. I mean no one would "spread Islam by the sword" as you say, just because it says so. It has to have a message that motivates them to drive such behaviour.

All they have to do to reform is same as Christians do, cherry pick the holy words like crazy. Actually there has been a modern westernised middle east before for a wile but America helped fuck that up. Infrastructure doesn't necisarily imply what living conditions are for an average person. It differs by country of course though.

Nation of Islam was founded in Detroit, Michigan, USA. It was basically just black people trying to connect to their African roots via Islam. They are racist and homophobic though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_islam

Havent heard that one before with tree traps.

Onyx-Sentinel said:


It seems like you can't get over history, considering you want statues (representation of History) to be torn down.

OBruxo said:


Why should we have a statue of those that betrayed the United States?

If they want to learn about the confederacy, they could go to a museum.

Or better yet:

They can open up a history book.