Liberal Forum

HarveyMushman » 16 Feb 2024, 8:18 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 8:18 am

The book that the following website mentions is pricey and, therefore, not something the casual reader would care to order. Still, it's an astoundingly well-documented writing that shows that the Nazis did indeed slash the pay and benefits of Germany's workers to finance their scheme. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24455387 A more accessible yet less credible source, at least concerning this neo-Nazi-infested forum, is the following article: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... -elections

The lies told about the nazis would fill many volumes. One example that makes me laugh is the claim that the nazis used the skin of jews for lampshades. Even pig skin - thicker than human skin - is useless for leather. If human skin were capable of making lampshades, the aztecs would certainly have gone there - as would vlad the impaler have done, as would the khans have done, as would the pre-columbian, infamously genocidal North American natives have done.

It is rather silly to believe that hitler COULD have lowered german wages. They were utterly **** when he came to power. They loved him because he made their lives better - not because he made serfs of them. It is quite as silly to insist that national socialism's success was rooted in slavery as it is to insist it was rooted in plunder. 

HarveyMushman » 16 Feb 2024, 8:18 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 8:18 am

Concerning Cannonpointer's comments denying supporting National "Socialism," I apologize for painting him otherwise. I misunderstood his position. And, as mentioned in my previous post, I'm interested in knowing what economic system that wouldn't entail the private ownership of the means of wealth production he does advocate. Per his not being a National "Socialist," I wonder what he is politically speaking.

As I told you, I do not have an ism of my own. I don't have that kind of faith.

I understand that we live in a corrupt world . And I accept that - even embrace it. I eat corrupted cheese. I put corruption in my bread, in my compost, in my mouth. I feed it to my chickens. Wine is corrupt - otherwise it's just grape juice. Beer is but slurry without corruption.

The great puzzle is to manage corruption - not eradicate it. To pretend it can be eradicated is to pretend you live on some other planet that DOESN'T require corruption for survival. No ****, no grass - no grass, no cow - no cow, no dinner.

I trust free enterprise to do a better job than any ism - and I trust racial unity to be a civilizing force within governments. That is why I favor the nation state, and it is why I believe your view that pygmies and watusis and norwegians and irishmen and chinese and peruvians all thoroughly comingled will produce shangrila is as unlikely as it is untried.
 
 
 

nefarious101 » 16 Feb 2024, 8:24 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 8:24 am

How many people have died for the leaders of socialism to install their socialist agenda?...communism?....nazism?...and where does capitalism stand in comparison?....in the real world....not in just theory. 

Capitalism doesn't build walls to keep people in...only those living in socialist aka communist countries out...the people know it sucks and want out!

  nefarious101: "How many people have died for the leaders of socialism to install their socialist agenda?...communism?...and where does capitalism stand in comparison?....in the real world....not in just theory?" I have no idea how many people have died while fighting the various people's liberation struggles that you mistakenly assume have been fought on behalf of "the leaders of socialism to install 'their' socialist agenda." Are you under the impression that the bourgeois historical process that defeated feudalism and established capitalism unfolded peacefully? nafarious101: "Capitalism doesn't build walls to keep people in...only those living in socialist, aka communist, countries out...the people know it sucks and want out!" Would you like to respond to what you quoted me as writing? It reads, partly: "Reactionaries and liberals often assert that socialist societies were failures. However, throughout their respective socialist experiments, workers' lives in the U.S.S.R., the G.D.R., and other former socialist societies improved immensely. Average life expectancy in the Soviet Union, for example, went from 32 years in 1917 to 68 years by 1975. Poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, homelessness, and other social ills were virtually and easily eliminated in socialist societies. I say "easily" because those pathologies are all but effortlessly eliminated when doing so becomes a governmental priority, unlike in the U.S." Do you, nafarious101, think it's possible that life for most people in the U.S.S.R. didn't suck? Could it be a matter of your having been repeatedly told throughout your life that "Life in the U.S.S.R. sucks," and now you merely want to believe it because you have nothing else to base an opinion on?  Be wellGood evening"Harvey Mushman"

nefarious101 » 16 Feb 2024, 8:24 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 8:24 am

How many people have died for the leaders of socialism to install their socialist agenda?...communism?....nazism?...and where does capitalism stand in comparison?....in the real world....not in just theory. 

Capitalism doesn't build walls to keep people in...only those living in socialist aka communist countries out...the people know it sucks and want out!

nefarious101: "How many people have died for the leaders of socialism to install their socialist agenda?...communism?...and where does capitalism stand in comparison?....in the real world....not in just theory?" 

I have no idea how many people have died while fighting the various people's liberation struggles that you mistakenly assume have been fought on behalf of "the leaders of socialism to install 'their' socialist agenda." Are you under the impression that the bourgeois historical process that defeated feudalism and established capitalism unfolded peacefully? 

nafarious101: "Capitalism doesn't build walls to keep people in...only those living in socialist, aka communist, countries out...the people know it sucks and want out!" 

Would you like to respond to what you quoted me as writing? It reads, partly: "Reactionaries and liberals often assert that socialist societies were failures. However, throughout their respective socialist experiments, workers' lives in the U.S.S.R., the G.D.R., and other former socialist societies improved immensely. Average life expectancy in the Soviet Union, for example, went from 32 years in 1917 to 68 years by 1975. Poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, homelessness, and other social ills were virtually and easily eliminated in socialist societies. I say "easily" because those pathologies are all but effortlessly eliminated when doing so becomes a governmental priority, unlike in the U.S." 

Do you, nafarious101, think it's possible that life for most people in the U.S.S.R. didn't suck? Could it be a matter of your having been repeatedly told throughout your life that "Life in the U.S.S.R. sucks," and now you merely want to believe it because you have nothing else to base an opinion on? Is that possible? 

Be well
Good evening
"Harvey Mushman"
 

Harvey Mushman » 16 Feb 2024, 7:51 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 7:51 pm

  nefarious101: "How many people have died for the leaders of socialism to install their socialist agenda?...communism?...and where does capitalism stand in comparison?....in the real world....not in just theory?" I have no idea how many people have died while fighting the various people's liberation struggles that you mistakenly assume have been fought on behalf of "the leaders of socialism to install 'their' socialist agenda." Are you under the impression that the bourgeois historical process that defeated feudalism and established capitalism unfolded peacefully? nafarious101: "Capitalism doesn't build walls to keep people in...only those living in socialist, aka communist, countries out...the people know it sucks and want out!" Would you like to respond to what you quoted me as writing? It reads, partly: "Reactionaries and liberals often assert that socialist societies were failures. However, throughout their respective socialist experiments, workers' lives in the U.S.S.R., the G.D.R., and other former socialist societies improved immensely. Average life expectancy in the Soviet Union, for example, went from 32 years in 1917 to 68 years by 1975. Poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, homelessness, and other social ills were virtually and easily eliminated in socialist societies. I say "easily" because those pathologies are all but effortlessly eliminated when doing so becomes a governmental priority, unlike in the U.S." Do you, nafarious101, think it's possible that life for most people in the U.S.S.R. didn't suck? Could it be a matter of your having been repeatedly told throughout your life that "Life in the U.S.S.R. sucks," and now you merely want to believe it because you have nothing else to base an opinion on?  Be well Good evening"Harvey Mushman"

What is different between real world and actual atmosphere housing one species intellectually destroying itself every generation gap trying to prove evolving isn't self evident genetics eternally separates every reproduction native to this universal position now?

Oh! thanks for all the details about intellectually divided ancestries.

HarveyMushman » 16 Feb 2024, 7:55 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 7:55 pm

nefarious101: "How many people have died for the leaders of socialism to install their socialist agenda?...communism?...and where does capitalism stand in comparison?....in the real world....not in just theory?" 

I have no idea how many people have died while fighting the various people's liberation struggles that you mistakenly assume have been fought on behalf of "the leaders of socialism to install 'their' socialist agenda." Are you under the impression that the bourgeois historical process that defeated feudalism and established capitalism unfolded peacefully? 

nafarious101: "Capitalism doesn't build walls to keep people in...only those living in socialist, aka communist, countries out...the people know it sucks and want out!" 

Would you like to respond to what you quoted me as writing? It reads, partly: "Reactionaries and liberals often assert that socialist societies were failures. However, throughout their respective socialist experiments, workers' lives in the U.S.S.R., the G.D.R., and other former socialist societies improved immensely. Average life expectancy in the Soviet Union, for example, went from 32 years in 1917 to 68 years by 1975. Poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, homelessness, and other social ills were virtually and easily eliminated in socialist societies. I say "easily" because those pathologies are all but effortlessly eliminated when doing so becomes a governmental priority, unlike in the U.S." 

Do you, nafarious101, think it's possible that life for most people in the U.S.S.R. didn't suck? Could it be a matter of your having been repeatedly told throughout your life that "Life in the U.S.S.R. sucks," and now you merely want to believe it because you have nothing else to base an opinion on? Is that possible? 

Be well
Good evening
"Harvey Mushman"

AssumptionsRUs....yep....you are as advertised...and so smug about it too....a perfect stereotype

nefarious101 » 17 Feb 2024, 6:03 am » wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2024, 6:03 am

AssumptionsRUs....yep....you are as advertised...and so smug about it too....a perfect stereotype

Great assessment. accurate as hell created governing ancestry with artificial facts sustained historically used against each great great grandchild by their own ancestral lineages trained in self deception since dawn of civilization.

HarveyMushman » 16 Feb 2024, 8:16 am » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 8:16 am

Again, beyond the requirement for a socially owned and democratically administered means of production, there are no set and thus dogmatic rules for ordering and governing socialist societies. So, since a child mowing lawns, an adult cutting hair, or reupholstering a couch wouldn't be related to the commanding heights of an economy, the futuristic "American Socialist Commonwealth" may not have a problem with any of that or more. I know from firsthand experience that Cuba's revolutionary government has never had difficulty with small-scale - "free enterprise"? - hair salons. So, who knows? The only reservation I would have would be one related to whether, say, this "American Socialist Commonwealth" would choose to eliminate cash in favor of digitized labor-time vouchers. If so, it might be challenging to establish a medium of exchange concerning the interactions between young gardeners and their customers. Too, given that, under socialism, workers would enjoy the total economic value of their labor power, it's likely that few, if any, workers would find the need to engage in cottage "industries."

And why IS that, pray tell? Won't they equally enjoy the total economic value of their labor power in a "cottage industry"?

This highlights precisely the problem that I perceive with Marxists. You have this view of people like they are a swarm of ants. They aren't. Self expression for SOME people will absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, direct them into cottage industries. No matter how well remunerated they might be working for the state, some people are not built for some jobs.

You see, the God you do not believe in made everyone different - and this is something that Marxists seem to have enormous trouble understanding. Even in our capitalist system, which virtually worships money, the overwhelming majority of women would rather make 30k as receptionists than 100k working in the sewer or 250k working on a north sea fishing boat.

Artists do not want factory jobs, Harvey - and the state is not a proper vehicle for the production of art. And art IS wealth - so EITHER a socialist state is going to have a free enterprise component, OR a socialist state is going to have to determine what constitutes art. And if the state is deciding what constitutes art, then it is practicing censorship. Like Nazi Germany. This is one of a hundred sticky wickets past which I have seen you blithely sail, sir. People are not units - they are their own universes with their own EXTREMELY diverse agendas.
 
 

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2024, 11:58 am » wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2024, 11:58 am

And why IS that, pray tell? Won't they equally enjoy the total economic value of their labor power in a "cottage industry"?

This highlights precisely the problem that I perceive with Marxists. You have this view of people like they are a swarm of ants. They aren't. Self expression for SOME people will absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, direct them into cottage industries. No matter how well remunerated they might be working for the state, some people are not built for some jobs.

You see, the God you do not believe in made everyone different - and this is something that Marxists seem to have enormous trouble understanding. Even in our capitalist system, which virtually worships money, the overwhelming majority of women would rather make 30k as receptionists than 100k working in the sewer or 250k working on a north sea fishing boat.

Artists do not want factory jobs, Harvey - and the state is not a proper vehicle for the production of art. And art IS wealth - so EITHER a socialist state is going to have a free enterprise component, OR a socialist state is going to have to determine what constitutes art. And if the state is deciding what constitutes art, then it is practicing censorship. Like Nazi Germany, This is one of a hundred sticky wickets past which I have seen you blithely sail, sir. People are not units - they are their own universes timewith their own EXTREMELY diverse agendas.

I edited your quote with a stroke through to which word I disagree with. the rest is why I gave it 3 greenies.
 

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2024, 11:58 am » wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2024, 11:58 am

And why IS that, pray tell? Won't they equally enjoy the total economic value of their labor power in a "cottage industry"?

This highlights precisely the problem that I perceive with Marxists. You have this view of people like they are a swarm of ants. They aren't. Self expression for SOME people will absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, direct them into cottage industries. No matter how well remunerated they might be working for the state, some people are not built for some jobs.

You see, the God you do not believe in made everyone different - and this is something that Marxists seem to have enormous trouble understanding. Even in our capitalist system, which virtually worships money, the overwhelming majority of women would rather make 30k as receptionists than 100k working in the sewer or 250k working on a north sea fishing boat.

Artists do not want factory jobs, Harvey - and the state is not a proper vehicle for the production of art. And art IS wealth - so EITHER a socialist state is going to have a free enterprise component, OR a socialist state is going to have to determine what constitutes art. And if the state is deciding what constitutes art, then it is practicing censorship. Like Nazi Germany. This is one of a hundred sticky wickets past which I have seen you blithely sail, sir. People are not units - they are their own universes with their own EXTREMELY diverse agendas.

Sir, this is one of your best posts in this thread.  
 
 

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2024, 11:58 am » wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2024, 11:58 am

Cannonpointer

(PART I OF III) 

I wrote: "Whether a black person who steals from a white person is given to interpersonal racism or not, most black people who steal things do so because of the socioeconomic conditions dealt to them by institutionalized or structural racism."  Cannonpointer: "What if that was horse ****? What if the diaspora killed off 95% of those leaving Africa, and only a few capable of planning for the harsh European winters survived? What if evolution - efficient and never wasteful - didn't require subsaharans those extra 20 IQ points that European survival required? What if it left subsaharans more athletic, more impulsive, and less intelligent than their European counterparts? ..IF EVOLUTION HAD DONE THAT, would you want to know? It's a yes/no question, and it isn't rhetorical. If evolution had done that, would you want to know?"  Cannonpointer then "quoted" me in the following manner: "The assertion that so-called black criminality is primarily socioeconomically driven isn't folly. To assert the converse is merely to legitimize" He then wrote: "Yeah, that ducks the question. Maybe you'll speak pertinently to the question in your next post." However, my complete response reads as follows: "The assertion that so-called black criminality is primarily socioeconomically driven isn't folly. To assert the converse is merely to legitimize one's racist notions of racialized people. The fact that black people commit crimes disproportionally to their proportion of the overall population is a function of primarily white-people-driven institutionalized and interpersonal racism. A 2021 article published by Marketplace  states, "Researchers sent more than 80,000 fake job applications for entry-level openings to Fortune 500 firms and found that, on average, applications with distinctively Black names were about 10% less likely to get a call back than comparable applications with distinctively white names." https://www.marketplace.org/2021/08/03/ ... t-stages/A CSG Justice Center article reports, among other such things, that "White men with a criminal record had more positive responses [to their job applications] than black men with no criminal record.https://csgjusticecenter.org/2014/09/23 ... mployment/ " 

What Cannonpointer accused me of ducking is the following set of questions: "What if that was horse ****? What if the diaspora killed off 95% of those leaving Africa, and only a few capable of planning for the harsh European winters survived? What if evolution - efficient and never wasteful - didn't require subsaharans those extra 20 IQ points that European survival required? What if it left subsaharans more athletic, more impulsive, and less intelligent than their European counterparts? ..IF EVOLUTION HAD DONE THAT, would you want to know?" 

His follow-up question: "It's a yes/no question, and it isn't rhetorical. If evolution had done that, would you want to know?" 

Either way, a yes or no response would legitimize Cannonpointer's racism-centered question, which I suspect is what Cannonpointer wanted me to do. The ignorance-induced "What if it left subsaharans more athletic, more impulsive, and less intelligent than their European counterparts" is pseudoscientific garbage with no place in intelligent discourse, certainly not in anything approximating a dialectic. 

 http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf  

(END OF PART I)
 

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2024, 11:58 am » wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2024, 11:58 am

Cannonpointer

(PART II OF III) 

I wrote: In his book How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, Walter Rodney writes, "Pervasive and vicious racism was present in imperialism as a variant independent of the economic rationality that initially gave birth to racism." https://www.versobooks.com/products/788 ... ricaRodney and many others have documented how, although the African continent possesses a proverbial embarrassment of riches relative to natural resources, colonialism and imperialism have kept Africa impoverished through the underpayment for and the outright theft of those resources by Americans and Europeans." 

After deleting the final fifteen words in my last sentence, Cannonpointer dismissed my point by writing, "Yeah, yeah, yeah - there be racism." Impressive. 

Cannonpointer: "Didn't keep the Jews down. They didn't have a state and were often disenfranchised and universally regarded with suspicion and hostility - and STILL they prospered. They are to this day the recipients of - what was that term you ran from defending? - so-called "anti-semitism." Yes, they PROSPER." 

"Yes, they [Jews] prosper." Notice that Cannonpointer didn't write, "Many Jews prosper," or say, "A lot of Jews prosper." He wrote, "...they prosper." The assertion that all Jews are prosperous is a myth perpetuated by those given to anti-Jewry and right-wing Jewish chauvinists/Zionists. The reality that approximately 15% of American Jews live below the official poverty line is enough to understand that claim's mythical nature. 

Cannonpointer: "That leads to the question you keep ducking. Sub-Saharan Africans - with an 'embarrassment of riches' in their own held lands, were easily made the victims of Ray Milhouse Cissum. Jews, NOT SO **** MUCH. So what's the singular, sine qua nondifference between a Jew and a Kalahari bushman or a thicket-dwelling pygmy that you keep ducking, dancer?" 

"...with an 'embarrassment of riches' in their own held lands, were easily made the victims of Ray Milhouse Cissum.' 

I have no idea what that means. Per "... what's the singular, sine qua nondifference between a Jew and a Kalahari bushman or a thicket-dwelling pygmy...?," 

All social factors being equal, which they aren't, there's no difference. Additionally, since Cannonpointer alludes to IQ, few things in life are more culturally biased than IQ tests. They have a strong bias toward white, middle-income groups. As such, "IQ" tests measure knowledge more familiar to white, middle-income groups. Even within the realm of their supposed legitimacy, it's not a coincidence that the two groups who score highest on IQ, Ashkenazi Jews and the Japanese, both combine cultures that value education with diets high in oily fish, which is supposed to be suitable for neurological development. Historically, the Scots have also scored amazingly above their weight in science and technology on good education and a diet that, until recently, was heavy on herring, oatmeal, kale, and red wine. 

But what if Kalahari bushmen, thicket-dwelling pygmies, and other racialized people were less intelligent than Europeans? Would it cause typically insecure racists to feel better about themselves? Would it prove some "superiority" of white Europeans? Or would it, more importantly, "justify" the theft of their resources by Europeans and Americans? (Continued in PART III). 

 http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf  

(END OF PART II)  

 
 

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2024, 11:58 am » wrote: ↑

18 Feb 2024, 11:58 am

 

(PART III OF III) 

One of the reasons for my mentioning Walter Rodney's book How Europe Underdeveloped Africa was to point out that, although Western cultures claim that "the African continent is poor because Africans are less intelligent and more prone to violence," Africa's impoverishment is the result of 500 years of European colonialism. ( https://www.versobooks.com/products/788 ... ricaRodney ). The "less intelligent" idiocy is blatantly racist, while the "prone to violence" nonsense hides a system of exploitation underscored by a long history of European and American-sponsored military coups. This way, when an average American watches a sixty-second segment depicting a coup d'État in, say, Burkina Faso, they'll usually sigh while saying, "Oh, those 'stupid' and 'violent' Africans can't get along with one another." However, those individuals don't understand that European and American governments install Western-friendly military regimes in natural resource-rich African nations, which help to ensure the mostly duty-free flow of resources out of Africa. Most Americans don't understand that when a coup unfolds, it's because someone with the interests of workers in mind rather than the interests of capitalists has come to power and, therefore, must be removed. It's so Americans can look at the formation of AFRICOM while telling themselves, "Oh, that's good. That should keep those 'stupid and violent' Africans in line." There's little understanding that, for example, the Green New Deal would be built upon the backs of already heavily exploited Africans. So, the widespread and erroneous belief that Africans are unintelligent and violent effectively assures that bread and circus-obsessed Americans never have to face reality.  While discussing Socialist Industrial Unionism (  http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf , I wrote, "...workers elected to positions of authority by their fellow workers would serve for set durations and return to their previous jobs upon completing their terms. They would be subject to immediate recall whenever a majority of those who elected them deemed it necessary." 

Cannonppointer: "Yes, yes - immediate recall. Governments that live only in the mind dispense perfect justice. They function beautifully, efficiently, and seamlessly." 

Many socialist states have had and continue to have governing systems in which elected members are subject to recall by those who elected them. Cuba, for example, employs such a system: its National Assembly, its municipal assemblies, and its local governing bodies or "street councils." There's nothing imaginative about it. 

I wrote: "It's not that any worker would have more or less say than any other worker. It would be a matter of workers voicing their say in their workplaces. Engineers wouldn't vote for bricklayers, and bricklayers/construction workers wouldn't vote for engineers because they'd be employed in separate industries." 

Cannonpointer: "The people who design the bridges and oversee their construction are in a different industry than the fellows they order about? Is that so? I had no idea. But in the world of the mind, all things are possible." 

No, that's not so. That's not what I wrote. Workers temporarily elected to positions of authority would, as have such workers in existing socialist societies, direct workers within their workplaces or their respective industries. Again, "Engineers wouldn't vote for bricklayers, and bricklayers/construction workers wouldn't vote for engineers because they'd be employed in separate industries." 

(END OF PART III)
 

harvey.

Nostradamus' omh » 19 Feb 2024, 9:29 am » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 9:29 am

Beekeeper » 19 Feb 2024, 7:06 am » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 7:06 am

What else these hags don't seem to get is that MEN are more be cucked today rather than becoming MEN. Actual men that is.

What wants to date any *** POS that todays "youth" have become??

Your contextual hive mentality is showing off again. Look at you dividing the evolving process spontaneously going forward simultaneously each occupying space now.

Damn that pisses me off. origin of self regardless which self you want to classify in the whole species occupying time one at a time now.
0. fertilized cell
1. cell dividing into zygote state parallel to every other lifetime reproduced native to this atmosphere.
2. zygote
3. embryo regardless male, female, asexual form of life ancestrally changing population left alive now.
4. fetus regardless origin of ancestral lineages or last to arrive when extinction happens.
5. birth to replace what it was that conceived it
6. adapts in space for the time it lived/lives currently alive
7. became a parent or not
8. became a grandparent or not even if the original outlives its added replacements
9. repeat previous stages of population never same ancestor twice.

You wish to debate me about .0-9 possibilities life exceeds 1-5 generation gaps here aren't governed by 110 possibilities life isn't self evidently here living as eternally separated ancestrally displaced, now?

You have the history of humanity leading people into better tomorrows, I have understanding how nd why I am uniquely alive as stated for 17 years getting accused of speaking gibberish, nonsense, subhuman intellect, antisocial, contrarian, malcontent, liar, deniar, insubordinate, traitor, blasphemy, shunned by family, exiled by friends, just not executed for understanding self evident life yet.

Guess why I joke around sarcastically being the rider of the 4 horses of the Apocalypse and Nostradamus' one male.

HarveyMushman » 19 Feb 2024, 8:13 am » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 8:13 am

The fact that black people commit crimes disproportionally to their proportion of the overall population is a function of primarily white-people-driven institutionalized and interpersonal racism. A 2021 article published by Marketplace  states, "Researchers sent more than 80,000 fake job applications for entry-level openings to Fortune 500 firms and found that, on average, applications with distinctively Black names were about 10% less likely to get a call back than comparable applications with distinctively white names."

Easy solutiom - do not name your daughter watermeloniqua or your son delanamore rojerious.

Restating your thesis provides no additional evidence - and it ducks the question.

HarveyMushman » 19 Feb 2024, 8:13 am » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 8:13 am

His follow-up question: "It's a yes/no question, and it isn't rhetorical. If evolution had done that, would you want to know?" 

Either way, a yes or no response would legitimize Cannonpointer's racism-centered question, which I suspect is what Cannonpointer wanted me to do. The ignorance-induced "What if it left subsaharans more athletic, more impulsive, and less intelligent than their European counterparts" is pseudoscientific garbage with no place in intelligent discourse, certainly not in anything approximating a dialectic. 
(END OF PART I)

So that's an affirmative - you would not want to know. If your belief is wrong, you actually PREFER ignorance over enlightenment in that matter.

Even CONSIDERING an idea outside of your tautology is out of the question.

That is cult-like adherence to a faith-based belief.
 

HarveyMushman » 19 Feb 2024, 8:16 am » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 8:16 am

After deleting the final fifteen words in my last sentence, Cannonpointer dismissed my point by writing, "Yeah, yeah, yeah - there be racism."

1. There are character limits - and you do go on.
2. Your words are not golden. They CAN be truncated.
3. The snapback is intact for those who wish to see what was left out.
4. The pertinent part was responded to - NO ONE had any doubt what you were driving at. We've all considered that evidence.
5. Stop playing victim. Truncating posts to respond pertinently is perfectly normal on chat boards.

HarveyMushman » 19 Feb 2024, 8:16 am » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 8:16 am

Cannonpointer: "Didn't keep the Jews down. They didn't have a state and were often disenfranchised and universally regarded with suspicion and hostility - and STILL they prospered. They are to this day the recipients of - what was that term you ran from defending? - so-called "anti-semitism." Yes, they PROSPER." 

"Yes, they [Jews] prosper." Notice that Cannonpointer didn't write, "Many Jews prosper," or say, "A lot of Jews prosper." He wrote, "...they prosper."

I notice you don't address the many wealthy blacks, either.

If EVERY LAST JEW isn't prospering, my point is moot? Okay - then yours is equally moot on the same premise. Issue resolved.

HarveyMushman » 19 Feb 2024, 8:16 am » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 8:16 am

The assertion that all Jews are prosperous is a myth perpetuated by those given to anti-Jewry and right-wing Jewish chauvinists/Zionists. The reality that approximately 15% of American Jews live below the official poverty line is enough to understand that claim's mythical nature.

THERE we go - work in your anti-semite trope. That's a win, in your mind?

HarveyMushman » 19 Feb 2024, 8:16 am » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 8:16 am

Cannonpointer: "That leads to the question you keep ducking. Sub-Saharan Africans - with an 'embarrassment of riches' in their own held lands, were easily made the victims of Ray Milhouse Cissum. Jews, NOT SO **** MUCH. So what's the singular, sine qua nondifference between a Jew and a Kalahari bushman or a thicket-dwelling pygmy that you keep ducking, dancer?" 

"...with an 'embarrassment of riches' in their own held lands, were easily made the victims of Ray Milhouse Cissum.' 

I have no idea what that means. Per "... what's the singular, sine qua nondifference between a Jew and a Kalahari bushman or a thicket-dwelling pygmy...?," 

All social factors being equal, which they aren't, there's no difference.

And there's the cult-speak, right on time.

You have already admitted that it is quite beyond your capacities to even CONSIDER that your utterance, "...there's no difference" is faith based and is a closely held tautological treasure with which you cannot even CONSIDER parting. So we're done on the issue. You are impervious to argument and impervious to evidence - a hive-mind. You don't need information; you need a deprogrammer. I believe that is common to Marxists - though I admit I have little experience of you people, What little I have, though, conforms to your paradigm.

HarveyMushman » 19 Feb 2024, 8:16 am » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 8:16 am

But what if Kalahari bushmen, thicket-dwelling pygmies, and other racialized people were less intelligent than Europeans? Would it cause typically insecure racists to feel better about themselves? Would it prove some "superiority" of white Europeans? Or would it, more importantly, "justify" the theft of their resources by Europeans and Americans? (Continued in PART III).

What use is it to discuss what the benefits of knowing such a thing might be, with a fellow who has insisted that it is beyond his capacity even to consider?

Waste of time, pal.
 
 
 

HarveyMushman » 19 Feb 2024, 8:18 am » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 8:18 am

One of the reasons for my mentioning Walter Rodney's book How Europe Underdeveloped Africa was to point out that, although Western cultures claim that "the African continent is poor because Africans are less intelligent and more prone to violence," Africa's impoverishment is the result of 500 years of European colonialism. ( https://www.versobooks.com/products/788 ... ricaRodney ). The "less intelligent" idiocy is blatantly racist, while the "prone to violence" nonsense hides a system of exploitation underscored by a long history of European and American-sponsored military coups. This way, when an average American watches a sixty-second segment depicting a coup d'État in, say, Burkina Faso, they'll usually sigh while saying, "Oh, those 'stupid' and 'violent' Africans can't get along with one another." However, those individuals don't understand that European and American governments install Western-friendly military regimes in natural resource-rich African nations, which help to ensure the mostly duty-free flow of resources out of Africa. Most Americans don't understand that when a coup unfolds, it's because someone with the interests of workers in mind rather than the interests of capitalists has come to power and, therefore, must be removed. It's so Americans can look at the formation of AFRICOM while telling themselves, "Oh, that's good. That should keep those 'stupid and violent' Africans in line." There's little understanding that, for example, the Green New Deal would be built upon the backs of already heavily exploited Africans. So, the widespread and erroneous belief that Africans are unintelligent and violent effectively assures that bread and circus-obsessed Americans never have to face reality.

Funny phraseology for a fellow who has assured this board that if reality does not conform to his tautology, he will absolutely refuse to accept it - to even CONSIDER it, as merely thinking about it would be "racist."

I care about evidence - you care about your tautology.

There isn't any question in the mind of any honest person, IMO, that Africa was colonized and degraded and abused - less so in some parts than in others, but still abused. That said, There is a level of functionality and virtuosity in the Arab portions, which happen to be situated on much less riches. The manner in which Europeans were able to deal with sub-Saharan Africans was very different than the accommodations they were compelled to make for Saharan Africans.

Long before the age of petrochem, Saharan Africans were a potent force to be reckoned with. 

But all of this is a waste of time, as you have already promised me that it is quite beyond your present capacities to entertain the notion that Evolution works in ways of which you do not approve.
 

HarveyMushman » 19 Feb 2024, 8:18 am » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 8:18 am

So, the widespread and erroneous belief that Africans are unintelligent and violent effectively assures that bread and circus-obsessed Americans never have to face reality.  

Reality, ya say. 

Reality occurs in time and space, such that a fly on the wall could give evidence of it.

So there MUST be evidence that subSaharans are every bit as smart as Germans and Englishmen. Is it the beautiful cities they've built? The Nobel Prizes they've garnered? Their sundry space programs? The inherent power of their idioms?  

And if not by genetic athletic superiority, how do you explain West Africans' absolute dominance in track and field? You can't run that **** liberal weak sauce that "It's their only way to escape the ghetto, so they just work harder than whites," because they are all living the same over there. It's so OBVIOUSLY genetics that it's almost painful to watch grown men lie through their teeth to protect a tautology. 
 

Cannonpointer » 19 Feb 2024, 6:30 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 6:30 pm

Reality, ya say. 

Reality occurs in time and space, such that a fly on the wall could give evidence of it.

So there MUST be evidence that subSaharans are every bit as smart as Germans and Englishmen. Is it the beautiful cities they've built? The Nobel Prizes they've garnered? Their sundry space programs? The inherent power of their idioms?  

And if not by genetic athletic superiority, how do you explain West Africans' absolute dominance in track and field? You can't run that **** liberal weak sauce that "It's their only way to escape the ghetto, so they just work harder than whites," because they are all living the same over there. It's so OBVIOUSLY genetics that it's almost painful to watch grown men lie through their teeth to protect a tautology.

Amusingly, @R. Suave  never attempted to argue "IQ tests are culturally biased." He said they were too parochial. 

(Which is actually true but I don't believe it refutes their usefulness as proxies)

@R. Suave always takes great care to not make a claim that backs him into a corner. I cannot say the same for others   
 

Cannonpointer » 19 Feb 2024, 6:30 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Feb 2024, 6:30 pm

Cannonpointer

(PART I OF

I wrote: "As I've stated before, one way or another, by definition, Marxism is no religion. Religions or faiths are connected to so-called transcendental Beings or Universe." 

Cannonpointer: "And your faith-based assumptions that Marxism will transcend the corruption that lives in the mud from which we are fashioned fits the bill to a T, padre. In your imaginings, all of the petty agendas that flavor every society will magically be dispensed with under Marxism. We never understand quite HOW. 'On the fly, as progress toward Utopia is made,' would be my (now) educated guess." 

I've not stated nor suggested that corruption and petty agendas are transcended under socialism. Of course, such things exist in existing socialist projects, and they will in futuristic ones, too. It's merely that those pathologies are better managed within a system directed by workers/citizens rather than bourgeois politicians and the corporations they serve. It's also the case that, with capitalism and thus the material motivations for corruption removed, elected officials would be much less inclined to engage in corruption. Cuba, for example, experiences little corruption because there are no capitalists to entice them. 

I wrote: "NOT A BLUEPRINT.'  It's a rough idea of how a futuristic socialist society could operate industrially. http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf  " 

Cannonpointer: "Well, I roughly support the idea of a more just society. Can you roughly instruct me on the role I should play while eschewing any hierarchical thinking?" 

Once again, SIU doesn't renounce hierarchies (  http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf 

I wrote: "Does that imply that Cannonpointer believes that nation-states have been around as long as humans have been?" 

Cannonpointer: "It rests on the fact that nation states - contrary to your claims - have been around for millennia. If we are only allowed to embrace that which is known to have been extant at the dawn of history, we are back to tribalism, and your borderless world becomes a silly topic."  

"...nation states...have been around for millennia." Oh my. Goodbye. 
 

Harvey Mushman » 20 Feb 2024, 8:07 am » wrote: ↑

20 Feb 2024, 8:07 am

(PART I OF

I wrote: "As I've stated before, one way or another, by definition, Marxism is no religion. Religions or faiths are connected to so-called transcendental Beings or Universe." 

Cannonpointer: "And your faith-based assumptions that Marxism will transcend the corruption that lives in the mud from which we are fashioned fits the bill to a T, padre. In your imaginings, all of the petty agendas that flavor every society will magically be dispensed with under Marxism. We never understand quite HOW. 'On the fly, as progress toward Utopia is made,' would be my (now) educated guess." 

I've not stated nor suggested that corruption and petty agendas are transcended under socialism. Of course, such things exist in existing socialist projects, and they will in futuristic ones, too. It's merely that those pathologies are better managed within a system directed by workers/citizens rather than bourgeois politicians and the corporations they serve. It's also the case that, with capitalism and thus the material motivations for corruption removed, elected officials would be much less inclined to engage in corruption. Cuba, for example, experiences little corruption because there are no capitalists to entice them. 

I wrote: "NOT A BLUEPRINT.'  It's a rough idea of how a futuristic socialist society could operate industrially. http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf  " 

Cannonpointer: "Well, I roughly support the idea of a more just society. Can you roughly instruct me on the role I should play while eschewing any hierarchical thinking?" 

Once again, SIU doesn't renounce hierarchies (  http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf 

I wrote: "Does that imply that Cannonpointer believes that nation-states have been around as long as humans have been?" 

Cannonpointer: "It rests on the fact that nation states - contrary to your claims - have been around for millennia. If we are only allowed to embrace that which is known to have been extant at the dawn of history, we are back to tribalism, and your borderless world becomes a silly topic."  

"...nation states...have been around for millennia." Oh my. Goodbye. 
 

the fantasy of mind over matter has your brain obeying other people's power of suggesting you aren't real unless you support a reality or else.