On Ayn Rand on Racism

This is a test. 12:40 AM CST
-------
edit: 2 hours difference. timestamp 10:38 PM

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 12/21, 10:39pm)

Posted: Tuesday December 20 at 11:42 PM

Steve Wolfer carved in stone: "Progressives have no shame regarding abuse of science to achieve political goals. "

I must ask: wherein lies your shame, Steve?

You have endorsed racialism. You do not define race because you cannot. You did not accept the challenge - or acknowledge the challenge of my post. I ask you, Steve, are diabetics a "race"? Are "alcoholics" a "race"?? Many traits are inherited. They are not "races" for arbitrary non-objective reasons.

-------------
The only thing familiar in that to me is that point that diabetes inherited and alcoholism is heritable. I have been working 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM, getting home at midnight. So, apparently, I was posting close to 2:00 AM last night... way, too late...

So, I apologize for the tone. But the substance stands. Steve Wolfer is a racialist, and not a racist. He digs down through the definition of racialism to find a third level meaning synonymous with racism, but like egoism versus egotism, dictionary definitions only report what most people seem to mean. Is there any other word to identify the theory that races exist?

No one has offered a definition of race. As TSI points out right above, many traits are heritable.

Jules: I was only using the common intentions of those words. I usually do not get into ancestry. Mine is more mixed that even what I indicated. Most people's ancestry is, in fact; and only ignorance - lack of documentation - allows them to dream that they are this or that or even half this and half that. People move around. Merchants go places. Tribes wander and settle down and are absorbed or displaced again and some individuals stay behind or leave while the getting out is good.

Well, it's 1:00 AM here and I have a long day ahead of me...
good night, all.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 12/21, 10:57pm)

Post 121

Thursday, December 22, 2011 - 12:18am

Marotta,

This is what I said to you in post 46, "You call me a racialist (which I am not). A racialist believes in the existence of inheritable patterns of phenotypical characteristics (which I do) AND they emphasize race as important and might subscribe to some beliefs in racial superiority - which I don't. So, if you are an honorable man, you can apologize for your defamation."

Again, you lie. I have not endorsed "racialism."
---------------

How many definitions of race do you need? Try reading post 118. I provided more than a few from people whose name are recognized in the world of science, not dictionary definitions... as opposed to the made up definitions of a security guard.
---------------

I have no more desire to communicate with you since you choose to call me a name that doesn't fit and that I find objectionable.

Post 122

Thursday, December 22, 2011 - 11:58pm

Ah! the dreaded triple dog dare... The first person who declares that they no longer wish to discuss this (or discuss this with you) is the winner. Shucks...

"SW:I have no more desire to communicate with you since you choose to call me a name that doesn't fit and that I find objectionable. "

Even though it is 2:00 AM Central time, allow me to point out that you called me a progressive and an anarchist. About ten days ago, Ed Thompson called me a pseudo-intellectual. If we did not stick out our tongues and give each other "moose antlers" what would we do for intellectual engagement?

I must apologize to all of humanity and posterity for inducing Steve Wolfer's replies. The other night, I was half-asleep, i.e., semi-conscious, and another of his conservative posts triggered a reply. If I had been fully in focus, I would have noted only that many inherited characteristics are known, but only a few define "race." Specifically, "alcoholic" and "diabetic" do not define races. But, no: alas, I insulted Steve Wolfer.

(Edited by Zorgan, Wizard and Warrior on 12/23, 12:00am)

SW:... as opposed to the made up definitions of a security guard.
... like when James Taggart called Eddie Willers a serf... Well, I'm rubber and you're glue!

(Edited by Maxicor the Avenger on 12/23, 12:04am)

(Edited by Blue Pencil the Editior on 12/23, 12:06am)

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 12/23, 12:09am)

Post 123

Thursday, January 26, 2012 - 1:41pm

Race Denier Prescribes Early Death for Black Heart Patients

Race can be used to help identify susceptibility to or improve treatment for life-threatening diseases only if race exists biologically.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDsRBtMFbvA

Post 124

Saturday, February 4, 2012 - 2:19pm

Affirmative Action cardiologists aren't good for heart patients of any race:

A Black Cardiologist: What Are the Odds?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9JpiRE_OyQ

Post 125

Thursday, February 9, 2012 - 12:16am

Deleted

Thursday, February 9, 2012 - 9:44pm

Any real Objectivist would condemn Jules. His unhealthy, unfounded personal hatred for me (though he does not even know me) reflects an emotionalist mentality that seeks to escape the objective consideration of ideas. The ugliness and maliciousness of his words are irreconcilable not only with Objectivism, but with civil discourse broadly speaking.

Post 127

Thursday, February 9, 2012 - 10:19pm

Deleted

Thursday, February 9, 2012 - 11:15pm

Jules wrote:"The fact that you are only allowed to post in dissent has already condemned you."

Actually, better thinkers and writers have been relegated to Dissent on thinner pretexts. Being charged is not the same thing as being guilty. Jules does have a pretty good feeling for who in the order can be pecked.

Jules: "Trun you are amongst the lowest ... ...hold your breath for 10 minutes."
Brad: "Any real Objectivist would ... irreconcilable not only with Objectivism, but with civil discourse broadly speaking."

I do not know what a "real" Objectivist is. Anyone can claim to be an Objectivist and anyone else can decide if the claimant meets their standards. Ayn Rand standing on one foot is probably the easiest test to pass. After that, you have a lot of argument over not so much whether a woman should be President but whether this is an essential from which deviation can be allowed. Is homosexuality disgusting? Should people be allowed to have handguns? Is Mike Hammer really a better writer than Ernest Hemingway? Leonard Peikoff recently said that once a woman has entered a man's hotel room, she cannot change her mind about having sex. I think that somewhere between the Law of Identity and that assertion, some syllogisms are missing. ... but Dr. Peikoff is a professional philosopher and Ayn Rand's chosen intellectual heir -- and Brutus was an honorable man...

But I agree that calling someone dirty names is outside the norms of intellectual discourse.

Jules: "... hate ... the ideas that you attempt to rationalize on an objectivist forum. It is ideas like yours that spawn hatred and there is plenty of that in the world already."

That was self-referential.

Personally, I disagree with everything Brad writes. It is obvious that you can aggregate individuals by many criteria, some of which are genetically transmitted, such as diabetes. Calling people who smoke Winstons a or enjoy danger "races" reveals that the term "race" is useless. The Negro-Mongolian-Caucasian triad was a crude 19th century conceit on par with "animal magnetism" and "phrenology." That it continues today is significant in the same sense that the daily horoscope in the newspaper shows the abilities of those of the lowest intellects: they can read, but not think.

That said, I believe that it is instructive that Brad uses Objectivist jargon so well. He really has the argot down. He writes almost like Ayn Rand. When I was in the 9th grade, our civics class had a debate on capital punishment. Two of our class were in the same Pentecostal church and the girls chose opposite sides. What counts is not how well you can prove anything you want, but what it is that you seek to prove.

Post 129

Thursday, February 9, 2012 - 11:52pm

Deleted

Friday, February 10, 2012 - 12:23am

A recent study found that the factors that predict one's likelihood of being a career criminal are 70% genetic:

Criminologist�s Research Shows Genes Influence Criminal Behavior
http://www.utdallas.edu/news/2012/1/24-15201_Criminologists-Research-Shows-Genes-Influence-Crim_article-wide.html

UT Dallas criminologist Dr. J.C. Barnes has researched connections between genes and an individual�s propensity for crime. Shown is the percentage that genetic factors were found to have influenced whether people became �life course persistent� offenders, �adolescent-limited� offenders, or those who never engaged in deviant behaviors, called �abstainers.�

Post 131

Friday, February 10, 2012 - 10:51am

Brad Trun, there is nothing new in your citation.

MAJOR PERSONALITY STUDY FINDS THAT TRAITS ARE MOSTLY INHERITED
By DANIEL GOLEMAN
Published: December 2, 1986
THE genetic makeup of a child is a stronger influence on personality than child rearing, according to the first study to examine identical twins reared in different families. The findings shatter a widespread belief among experts and laymen alike in the primacy of family influence and are sure to engender fierce debate.
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/12/02/science/major-personality-study-finds-that-traits-are-mostly-inherited.html?pagewanted=all

It was this series of studies that led to my allusion of Winston Smokers being a "race." Studying twins, they found two men separated at birth who smoked the same brand of cigarette, married women of the same name, held similar jobs (police and fire) and gave their similar dogs similar names.

But (1) it means that your dislike of other people is also genetically determined; and yet (2), even if we were 99% predestined, the other 1% is called free will -- and it makes all the difference in the world.

Moreover, you have failed to integrate new learning. Your William Stewart Chamberlain 19th century pre-Mendelian racism completely ignores epigenetics. Epigenetics has been discussed here. Perhaps you missed it or maybe you do not understand it; or it could be that you blanked-out on uncomfortable ideas, or something else entirely.

Jules Troy: I certainly am not in charge of anything around here. If criticism from me really and truly causes you to leave, then many here will be puzzled over your psycho-epistemology.

Post 132

Friday, February 10, 2012 - 5:32pm

Deleted

Friday, February 10, 2012 - 7:30pm

I'm reeeeeally tired of Trun using everyone here. I don't want him getting any more gratification of out of arguments between members in good standing over his stupid rhetoric. Trun has no credibility here on his own, so don't lend him any of yours (Mike!)

Post 134

Sunday, February 12, 2012 - 11:33pm

Jules,

Ask yourself if Thomas Sowell would have replied to Brad the way you have. And if you decide that he would not, then perhaps you could take a page out of his book. Your response is exactly how the average politically correct liberal would have replied, i.e., non-intellectually.

You do yourself no favor by shouting obscenities at Mr. Trun, for it gives the impression that you have nothing better to say. The kind of response that you have made here breaches what I thought was a forum free of personal attacks and, in that respect, superior to Objectivist Living. You say that you have an IQ of 165. Use it.

Mr. Trun is entitled to his opinion. At least he presents arguments and evidence, even if the arguments are flawed and you don't agree with them. If you don't like what he says, argue against it. Otherwise, ignore him.

Post 135

Monday, February 13, 2012 - 12:35am

Deleted

Monday, February 13, 2012 - 2:56am

Deleted

Monday, February 13, 2012 - 8:32am

The distinction between libertarians and Objectivists is clear to us. It is not clear to outsiders; and, broadly, Objectivism does offer a "libertarian" political theory. We might call ourselves "liberals" as Ayn Rand had great respect for that intellectual tradition and "classical liberalism" is also a good approximation of what Objectivism posits for politics.

One key difference - among many more essential - is that libertarians are perceived as racists. That is a gradation from tolerance for racialism to overt racism. Nothing from any libertarian of Ayn Rand's status comes close to her essay "Racism" from The Objectivist Newsletter and reprinted in The Virtue of Selfishness.

Here is a comment posted in reply to this blog from Fabio Rojas, a professor of sociology.
ron paul may not be racist, but racists sure like ron paul
Written by fabiorojas
January 12, 2012 at 12:11 am
with 6 comments

Adam
January 12, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Libertarianism and racism make perfect compliments. Many libertarians are �race realists� who think that unfettered market forces will result in a racial hierarchy with black people at the bottom. Whites are thought to have superior intelligence and market acumen. There are certainly exceptions to this rule, but racial domination can be quickly recast as a market outcome.
See for example: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/07/murray-rothbard-lew-rockwell-and.html. Rothbard was a �race realist�.
Hans Herman Hoppe held very similar ideas; http://www.dialoginternational.com/dialog_international/2011/04/the-sick-mind-of-hans-hermann-hoppe.html and so does this guy: http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/a_tough_sell_in_the_marketplac.html
Rothbard, Hoppe and Block are basically saying �racism is bad but if we let the market work the racial stratification of the US will not change�. These are not ancillary figures in libertarian thought either.

As I pointed out in my reply above that one, Objectivists do not simply allow that everyone has a right to join a collective commune. You do, indeed, have that political right in a free society. However, Objectivists argue long and well against collectivism, altruism, and mysticism. Unfortunately, when it comes to racism, too many Objectivists just turn a blind eye and say that you have a right to do what you want with your property. Indeed, you do. Would we also then excuse and justify the potlatch ceremonies of Pacific coast Native Americans? No. Many here would condemn them as ignorant savages for believing that social status comes from the destruction of property.

We have no problem pointing out the errors in all expressions of mysticism, altruism, and collectivism. ... except racism. I think that it is evidence of lingering conservatism within Objectivism. Although Ayn Rand was explicit in differentiating her political philosophy from conservatism, so many were drawn to her from that wing and their influence lingers. Rather than integrating upward from the Law of Identity and building an intellectual structure of political theory, they kept the upper stories of their beliefs and just shoved some metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics under the intellectual equivalents of the Parthenon and the Chartres Cathedral.

When the city police bust up a crack house, do you write an angry Letter to the Editor, defending the property rights of crack dealers? Those rights do exist, but to an Objectivist there is a deeper issue involved in drug abuse. So, too, with racism.

Post 138

Monday, February 13, 2012 - 11:08am

Jules writes,

Racism in all its forms are a PRIMORDIAL evil. To embrace or to even entertain a set of values that is nothing more than a collectivist call for blood. (if it is allowed to go down the path to its only logical conclusion will result as has been proven by hitler killing 40 million jews).

Even to entertain a belief in racism is nothing more than a collectivist call for blood? This is unjustified hyperbole as well as a non-sequitur. It does not follow that if one believes there are racial differences, one will be led to genocide as a logical consequence. The fact that some racists were murderous brutes does not imply that all racists are.

Racism is a stockyard attempt to negate an individuals mind and assign to him instead a certain breed as his only redeeming or damning quality.

We already know that IQ is to some extent inherited. Does recognition of this fact negate a person's mind as beyond his volitional control? No; one would still have control over how much effort one expends in the development of one's talents and abilities. Suppose that the differences in average IQ among various racial groups were to some extent genetic. Would recognition of that fact "negate an individual's mind and instead assign to him a certain breed as his only redeeming or damning quality"? No, of course not. Even if such average differences were inherited, it would not mean that any particular individual can be judged as superior or inferior based on his or her racial membership. In fact, I think it would be rather surprising if different racial groups did not have average differences in abilities that were to some extent inherited. Given the large variations among individuals within each group, it would be a remarkable coincidence if their inherited abilities were on average uniformly and consistently the same.

So yes I can objectively say based upon the evidence set before all of us that trun is a supremacist.

Yes, he is -- an Asian supremacist who happens to be white!

If you do a google search for libertarianrealist you will find links to many such racist drivel. I did not go back far enough to see if any of his links directly link to RoR but the fact that he published an article or two before being relegated to dissent does show him as a contributing member.

Perhaps Mr. Rowlands should do something about that. Now we all know that trun is full of shit even if he is a well spoken one. Has it ever occured to anyone that by even allowing him to have links to this nihilist hatred that is vaguely cloaked as darwinism what the outside viewer looking in might think? Most casual surfers I would hazard to guess might think that we somehow condone his point of view at worse and at best do not care one way or another..all in the name of having golly good discussions of course...just sayin.

I understand your concerns, Jules, but if anyone were to visit RoR and read his posts, they would also see that a lot of other posters disagree with him. You can't judge a particular blog or open forum by what any random poster happens to say on it, any more than you can judge an individual by the racial group to which he belongs. We've already got Rand's views on this issue, and RoR is clearly an Objectivist forum, so I don't think that any reasonable person would think that Trun's views coincide with Objectivism's.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 2/13, 3:00pm)

Post 139

Monday, February 13, 2012 - 11:47am