Extropy

hehe so basically you absolutely ignored my question

I'm not a scholar on race, and most of the published work is garbage. Anecdotally, based on personal experience with black Americans in prison, sharing their private homes as a house guest, working together legally and otherwise, using my eyes and ears on the street, I'd say that there is a deep-seated, incurable resentment among U.S. blacks of my generation that prosperity cannot fix. Resentment is tolerated and amplified by political, institutional and corporate policies that give the unearned and steadfastly denies their mental handicaps. I am very frustrated at the fact that most published work on (the practical implications of) human genetics is garbage. If most people can agree there is a very real biological difference between a Mbutu Pigmy (or Khoi San) and an Ethiopian*, Turk or Korean, then how can we deny that there must be some subtle difference among the latter three very related races? I have not grown up either around people of West African ancestry, or in a society that even has them in a representative number, so I ask you with extreme candice: what have you perceived as mental handicaps? This is not a loaded question, I am genuinely intrigued as I've heard people from all walks of life (from bleeding hearts to scientists, i'll leave out the outright racists) making or suggesting timidly the same point. Is it legal/moral to ask this question out of actual curiosity? *I compare Mbutu Pygmies or Khoi Sans with Ethiopians deliberately as I already know that Africans are more diverse genetically than any other group on Earth, and those groups are extremely distant genetically.

there is something deeply wrong as well as disturbing in the fact that the last video is so funny

http://youtu.be/5f3MWSvWrdg

A person of any religion or even philosophy can be either a scholar or a zealot (or many things in between and even outside of the range: including a pretender). I think that religion (and for those liberated enough, philosophy) serves a pragmatic need for humans. Along with free will and volition, it replaces, or rather occupies the area that instinct used to occupy in animals. And, yes, I do believe that while we are volitional humans, there is a continuum towards our animal past. Even the distinction between human and animal is just a figure of speech: biologically we are animals, and to an observant eye, religion (and war) proves it. I believe most Muslims consider Islam just their "spiritual part" in heavy competition with leading a modern life. Much like most Communist Chinese are Communist in name, and pay taxes, but otherwise lead a relatively free un-communistic lifestyle (those lucky enough to have internal or urban passports of course). A Muslim person is a Muslim first by accident of birth. A Pious Muslim is a Muslim who has consciously adopted Islam either as a convert or more likely as a rediscovery of his or her own faith and identity. A pious Muslim can adopt all Usool ad deen and Furoo ad deen and live successfully in a Free Society without becoming a: Radicalised or Fundamentalist Muslim who has made one particular interpretation of only one pillar of the religion (Striving, or Jihad). The same happens in every other value system. See how the Catholics in Spain at some point applied the inquisition and at another point in history they became atheist hedonists? I've seen muslims in America whose ideas and lifestyle are not more dangerous than a Southern Baptist. I do know the exceptions of father-daughter or father-wife cruelty in Canada and even the US too. I don't imagine this is the norm. I have family in France and I see muslims in France in a different way: when they have a chance they strive to become French. When they are at a loss, since France is not as open and egalitarian as America, they turn to Islam as a common identity, as a source of righteousness in face of what they see as moral bankruptcy. I have talked about this in earlier posts. But most importantly I see that Muslim countries in Africa and Asia are becoming more modern and westernised cosmopolitan by the minute (Bangladesh, Malaysia, the Pakistani urban centres). I see those people as individuals first, Indians and Malays second, and only then as technically Muslims. Islam might be the most universally applicable religion ever conceived but it has an Arab Racist/Nationalist/Tribalist component that should not be overlooked. (And a persian counter effect that intrigues me). As I said, Islam is a force that can unite many recently decolonized countries and give them a common voice (like the OIC) during this challenging time when those precise territories are about to experience the most growth but have no political union unlike the famous BRICs. These human groups might use Islamic Jihad as a tactic for a while to achieve some goals, but that doesn't mean most of the population will become fanatics or that the ultimate goal of these people (not of the current spearhead) is to create a Caliphate and implement Shari'a Worldwide. There is one interesting, troublesome point however: In a time of such rapid technological (and social) change, traditional Islam offers a Conservative alternative. As anxiety worldwide grows because of this perhaps exponential acceleration of technological innovation, more people might seek refuge in a belief system that is incredibly universal, simple and for many reasons, in this time of history, the only surviving old school religion available to all. My hope is that the benefits of more advanced technology will outweigh and eventually eliminate the supposed benefits (the 'comfort') of traditional religions. I still think that something else will replace traditional religions and I'm not sure it's going to be better, just inevitable. Simply see how social media has won the battle for real mind to mind collectivism ("openness") from the bulwark of Capitalism and the American dream. Or if that analogy is too daring, then just see how Marxism has taken ground in Western culture and academia after losing politically and militarily. Infidel: you're defining yourself by your enemies. Everybody's identity is I, in contrast to that. Every nation's original name, most if not all tribal names means "Us" or "the people, in contrast to our savage neighbours" in their original language. While it is necessary for identity it is not ideal to define one self in relation to our worst enemies. And if I were to take your name literally or etymologically, I would read: he who can not be trusted (who is not faithful as in FIDES, confianza) Michael: Thank you for the concise and timely answer, in fact I am an incurable xenophile.

A person of any religion or even philosophy can be either a scholar or a zealot (or many things in between and even outside of the range: including a pretender). I think that religion (and for those liberated enough, philosophy) serves a pragmatic need for humans. Along with free will and volition, it replaces, or rather occupies the area that instinct used to occupy in animals. And, yes, I do believe that while we are volitional humans, there is a continuum towards our animal past. Even the distinction between human and animal is just a figure of speech: biologically we are animals, and to an observant eye, religion (and war) proves it. I believe most Muslims consider Islam just their "spiritual part" in heavy competition with leading a modern life. Much like most Communist Chinese are Communist in name, and pay taxes, but otherwise lead a relatively free un-communistic lifestyle (those lucky enough to have internal or urban passports of course). A Muslim person is a Muslim first by accident of birth. A Pious Muslim is a Muslim who has consciously adopted Islam either as a convert or more likely as a rediscovery of his or her own faith and identity. A pious Muslim can adopt all Usool ad deen and Furoo ad deen and live successfully in a Free Society without becoming a: Radicalised or Fundamentalist Muslim who has made one particular interpretation of only one pillar of the religion (Striving, or Jihad). The same happens in every other value system. See how the Catholics in Spain at some point applied the inquisition and at another point in history they became atheist hedonists? the only constant is that they keep embarrassing themselves. I've seen muslims in America whose ideas and lifestyle are not more dangerous than a Southern Baptist. I do know the exceptions of father-daughter or father-wife cruelty in Canada and even the US too. I don't imagine this is the norm. I have family in France and I see muslims in France in a different way: when they have a chance they strive to become French. When they are at a loss, since France is not as open and egalitarian as America, they turn to Islam as a common identity, as a source of righteousness in face of what they see as moral bankruptcy. I have talked about this in earlier posts. But most importantly I see that Muslim countries in Africa and Asia are becoming more modern and westernised cosmopolitan by the minute (Bangladesh, Malaysia, the Pakistani urban centres). I see those people as individuals first, Indians and Malays second, and only then as technically Muslims. Islam might be the most universally applicable religion ever conceived but it has an Arab Racist/Nationalist/Tribalist component that should not be overlooked. (And a persian counter effect that intrigues me). As I said, Islam is a force that can unite many recently decolonized countries and give them a common voice (like the OIC) during this challenging time when those precise territories are about to experience the most growth but have no political union unlike the famous BRICs. These human groups might use Islamic Jihad as a tactic for a while to achieve some goals, but that doesn't mean most of the population will become fanatics or that the ultimate goal of these people (not of the current spearhead) is to create a Caliphate and implement Shari'a Worldwide. There is one interesting, troublesome point however: In a time of such rapid technological (and social) change, traditional Islam offers a Conservative alternative. As anxiety worldwide grows because of this perhaps exponential acceleration of technological innovation, more people might seek refuge in a belief system that is incredibly universal, simple and for many reasons, in this time of history, the only surviving old school religion available to all. My hope is that the benefits of more advanced technology will outweigh and eventually eliminate the supposed benefits (the 'comfort') of traditional religions. I still think that something else will replace traditional religions and I'm not sure it's going to be better, just inevitable. Simply see how social media has won the battle for real mind to mind collectivism ("openness") from the bulwark of Capitalism and the American dream. Or if that analogy is too daring, then just see how Marxism has taken ground in Western culture and academia after losing politically and militarily. Infidel: you're defining yourself by your enemies. Everybody's identity is I, in contrast to that. Every nation's original name, most if not all tribal names means "Us" or "the people, in contrast to our savage neighbours" in their original language. While it is necessary for identity it is not ideal to define one self in relation to our worst enemies. And if I were to take your name literally or etymologically, I would read: he who can not be trusted (who is not faithful) Michael: Thank you for the concise and timely answer, in fact I am an incurable xenophile.

The territory now in the hands of ISIS used to be two rather peaceful countries controlled by the same secular nationalist party. Not ideal, but this situation began when, for some unexplained reason, Iraq was invaded by the USA. I've always supported America to a fault, but now I am a bit "pissed" that journalists of any nation are being beheaded so close to Europe.

Some people would consider a fully clothed obese person shopping for chocolate covered potato chips on a scooter a lot more offensive, or obscene, than a venus or an adonis sun tanning in the nude.

You have a very valid point about the need for a sanctuary for free speech. Stil islam is not the only force (despite of what I said) that can persuade the masses. Capitalism is another and people and women particularly in the case of islam, are tempted to enjoy the benefits of a free urban society when and if they can make it in the cities. Even in the (urban) slums of Africa Capitalist forces are more present than Islam. I'm thinking of Kenya. Rural Nigeria or the Sudanese jihad are the opposite examples. We agree that minorities sway the masses.

Most likely. But what percentage of the African American population lives in that sort of suburban communities? 90% really? This becomes less and less of an issue with more miscegenation, stil I take it you live in the North or around one of the new cities of the Sun Belt, not the traditional South?

I truly don't believe the majority of muslims are religious fundamentalists, but I am even more certain that it is minorities not majorities who act as agents of change! The minority that is composed of ex-muslims or moderate muslims from Africa or Asia that align with the benefits of Western Civilization simply merge into the USA, in some cases Europe, and in many cases the urban elites of some African and Asian capital cities. They don't (and don't have to) conform a united front of Ex or Moderate Muslims, they simply live their lives individually either in the West or bringing Western standards and maybe values to their homelands. The minority that is more worried about identity and power than individual well being is composed by fundamentalists that can join most of the peoples of the third world in a revenge crusade against the West under the temporary guise of Islam.

The USA strikes me (at least New York City does) as a very controlled society. Yes, I know I can't compare that island(s) to "real" America, but still: Do you think this situation has gotten truly out of control or that it (maybe at the same time) serves some sort of "collective psychological purpose"? It looks from afar as if American blacks are patiently waiting for an opportunity to demand something more from society than righteous justice for a state crime (if that were the case which I obviously can't tell). In Argentina we have looting too but triggered by random things. When a poor boy is killed by the police in what's called "easy trigger" (gatillo facil) (trigger happy I suppose) the victim's family and friends protest with righteous indignation, sometimes loudly but never violently.

I don't believe this to be the case, but celebrities in general are in a way public property. Taking one's life (I use that idiom intentionally) might be a way of taking "back" your identity even at the expense of losing your life. In Robin Williams case it was probably brought by depression, but how did that depression began in the first place? What gave space for that depression not only to arise but to consume him? Are suicides more noticeable in famous people or do they actually occur more often in accomplished, smarter, or wealthier individuals under pressure or crisis of identity? I am reminded of these examples: Venice (Veneto actually) wants to secede from Italy because of the high taxes imposed on the Province, and a rise in suicides has been cited as one of the evidences for the silent oppression. Hungarians and Czechs are the (as measured in IQ) smartest and most atheist peoples in Europe respectively, and they have some of the highest levels of suicides in the World. In the case of Hungarians they exceed the Japanese (whose culture is purportedly so tolerant of suicide) Many people in Vienna killed themselves the night before Anschluss in a spontaneous massive act of resignation. Hannah Arendt talks about how assimilated Jews cling to life as the highest value to protect and preserve until some, suddenly, commit suicide. I have noticed this phenomenon n too many family histories of fully assimilated Western Jews. The South Park episode about Britney Spears being sacrificed for the corn harvest much like a Vestal Virgin.

warning: the links included on this post are ideologically dangerous, politically incorrect, and not even approved by me, I just included them because of intellectual curiosity. The second part (about any other european power taking what the US wouldn't, and you forgot about Russia in the Pacific) is absolutely undeniably true and it is confirmed in every other human "race", and every other biological species we know of. The first part however is only partly true: Some First Nation Persons resisted the change and absorption fiercely, and with good reason: the gap was too big for them to salvage their identity, dignity, or even to not become alcoholics or to not die of Old World diseases for which they had no immunity. David Yeagley or Bad Eagle in Comanche, who passed away only recently, made a magnificent point about the Comanche's original values including the immense respect they had for the winner and the tragic way in which (half of) his ancestors' World was replaced. His views on immigration are perfectly representative of the tribal mindset and show how recent and alive the colonization has been and is. It is no coincidence that UFOs and Alien invasions are a particularly American theme. There are many fierce tribes like this, perhaps the most dangerous the Arawaks or Caribs. Other First Nation Persons, such as the Guaranis of Paraguay and Brasil, have been very cooperative with the also very cooperative Jesuitic Missionaries. The Spaniards were not so kind as the Jesuits in all cases, but even in the worse cases they didn't implement genocide but slavery (forced labor rather) and mass conversions. The result of this long submission oppression and interbreeding with Americas most advanced civilizations are the countries of Peru and Mexico. Both of which are experiencing a rather deserved renaissance after they allied economically with the USA and the Pacific ring. After independence, in frontier countries of the Spanish Empire like Argentina, the same policy as in the American West was applied (indeed using American-made Remington rifles). But not all First Nation Persons clinged to Barbarism as in the great Plains or Patagonia. Some in the Andean highlands developed very elaborate civilizations. Huntington speculates about an Aztec Mexico unmolested by Spain that would have in time become something akin to Japan; but I just think it was just an Americans' desire to have Japan for neighbour instead of castigated Mexico. The lesson to learn from this speculation is that maybe a culture and society fare better if it doesn't exist in a permanent state of identity crisis. I do not see how it could have been practically executed (except if the English had armed the Aztecs with steel, gunpowder and horses preemptively against the Spaniards, but the English of the time could not even secure an Anti Spanish pact with the Moors, only one with the Portuguese). To this day there are still some uncontacted tribes, some can be found/discovered in the Amazon, and we have no idea how to handle the situation. The Brasilian and Peruvian Governments are trying a policy of maintaining isolation (experiments of giving them cooking pots and machetes have proven disastrous. Keyword Beyond the River of the Dead. In (an archipelago administered by) India they tried to integrate the Andaman Negritos to very lamentable results: the Andamanese are losing their exceptionally rare ways, and Anthropologists from India and elsewhere are losing one of the last isolated populations who can shed so much light on the development of the human species and our history. So my hypothetical scenario becomes a very real one: what would be your policy towards uncontacted tribes? Introducing them to machetes, cooking pots and the internet, knowing that 99,9% of them will end up as beggars, prostitutes and thieves (some exceptional ones might become drug dealers) in the towns? Or preserve their environment "for their own good" in what can only be described as human zoos? Another idea?

That trading post would have expanded smallpox and other Old World diseases to the smaller New World. Of course your people would have gotten syphilis in turn, but the trade off would have resulted in the same situation as in the real timeline. The area around the trade post would have slowly depopulated of First Nations Persons as a consequence of disease and the purpose of the trading post would be defeated. Instead all that big arable land around the old trade post would have been obviously taken by your people to form a permanent settlement, because that's what all known biological species do: we expand or are forced to contract, but never remain stagnant or voluntarily deprive ourselves from expansion*. Sorry to use the plural we, I mean us humans, or any other species for that matter. *The Imperial Chinese ban on building oceangoing ships comes to mind as the exception that proves the rule. The very likely Phoenician discovery of the Atlantic, including maybe the Americas, is part of that rule. The fact that they could not monopolise the "Ocean" proves my point: Nec Plus Ultra? Plus Ultra indeed!

If any of you had been the Pope, Mr Columbus, any European trader, an adventurer, or a curious poor devil who had just heard news of a land across the Ocean: What would/could you have done that would have resulted in different results? What would you have done that it was in your best interest?

Darrel, Thank you, indeed feeling drained is the tipping point, and I have indeed established some limits. I did write to him a few days ago and explained some points. The ones about the language barrier produced by Objectivism he did not understand or read or in his words "liked". He said however that he did understand the point I made about privacy standards in the Western Hemisphere and that it came as a bit of a cultural shock for him. That is a progress. Tony: Thank you so much for your kind words. I do trade value for value with him, but that's besides the point: Indeed I confused trade with kindness. I also meant to describe what I feel like a continuum towards altruism (as I said, I can not easily establish a limit). Yes I want to help him (specially since he just arrived and I am soon leaving the country for a couple of months), but I now realise that a clear limit that corresponds with true selfish kindness must be imposed, by me, instead of expecting him to understand socials cues. Michael: Yes Football is the opium of the masses. Tennis instead is more individualistic and an Argentine is among the World Champions. Unlike Football which repeatedly serves the political cause of populism for either the "right" or "left" administration of the time, Juan Martin del Potro the Tennis champion, politely refused to visit or be commended by the tyrannical president that currently rules this naturally rich, underpopulated, mismanaged land. So while it's not my responsibility, what could be the best way to, in time, not convince him, but show him that the World can be wider if he can salvage the good of Ayn Rand without being limited by her heavy intellectual inheritance?

How my previous post relates to the topic: It is my opinion that being a unifying factor in giving the most fragmented group of people some sort of common identity (Organization Islamic Conference, biggest voting block UN) Islam is being used a vehicle for the Afro-Asian peoples to The Jihadists or Fundamentalists are the spearhead. The Arab Nationalists in combination with Islam (which proclaims the race of the prophet as highest in hierarchy) the biggest problem. But I don't believe that the majority of the muslim population in Subsaharian Africa or Indonesia are very motivated or very religious. It is being used as a vehicle against modernity (too rapid change, when they are still adjusting to earlier changes), and in favor traditional values. Christianity is the biggest religion Worldwide because of the Americas, parts of Southern Subsaharian Africa, parts of India and perhaps even Korea and China (in addition to the nominally Christians agnostics in Europe). But alas, if you see a world political map, you'll find that there are little things in common for the countries that obtained their independence after WWII. I simply say that Islam is one thing in common for most, not all, the small/medium sized balkanised countries in Asia and Africa that used to belong to the British, French or Ottomans (or Dutch!)

If you knew the kind of Nationalism that Football provokes in Argentines, you would think about that again. I am a little pissed about the massacre that was inflicted on Brasil though!

Michael, Muslims in Brazil are mostly Levantine Arabs who in the context of that New World country identified or where labeled as the upper Brazilian caste of "Whites". I believe it's the same in all of Latin America. While of Christian origin Mr Carlos Slim is a good example of what I'm talking about. Muslims in the Old World, bear a different responsibility. After the thankful demise Nationalism and Socialism, Islam now remains, even if a relic, the only common ideology/philosophy of the recently decolonized Third World countries of Asia and Africa. When they migrate to the developed world, they realise that their righteous indignation in the face of current European decadence is the only certain thing they count on to keep their spirits up and their self esteem from plummeting. Some cases however discover Western values in Europe and integrate. Others strive for a better life in their home countries. But are they the majority? Islam is the only (or most powerful) thing that gives identity to many African and South Asian societies, from Dakar to Jakarta, and from Almaty to Zanzibar.

A few years back (aftermath or momentum of 9/11 I suppose) I became interested in conspiracy theories, always keeping them at an arms length from my psyche. There is as almost as much material as fiction literature since it is a somewhat a genre of it, at best, and the seed of a new(ish) kind of mysticism at worse. During my "investigations" I found a group of intrusive cameramen bent on "discovering the truth" that interrupted or otherwise invaded the grounds of a hotel where a Bilderberger meeting was being held. At some point, a representative of the Bilderberger Conference very serenely explained to the intruders that there is a difference between secrecy and privacy. I wholeheartedly agree, and let's not forget Ayn Rand's definition of Civilization: (Progress toward) a society of Privacy.

If you listen to the lyrics of the song, you'll find that the Liberian artists who created "Ebola in Town" don't think the VHFever is any fun either. It's an educational song that spreads protective barrier methods such as "If you like the bat-o, don't eat it" "I went to Guinea, Ebola there, I'm not going anywhere" " II'm right here, I'm not going anywhere" (which is the best advice you can give to stop the outbreak from spreading); Ebola is a sensational disease but not a truly dangerous one when compared to influenza, their new variations, or simple pneumonia. In any case I linked Vivaldi's lute pieces. I was told that was very irrational music when compared to modern techno. What's your opinion?

Get real mang! http://youtu.be/1_WOR22-SnY

Is Vivaldi anti life?

That's all very nice, and let's not forget that the Incans had an even more organized and cruel system and gave the Conquistadores the good fight before submitting to the inevitable forces not of history but of simple biology: What Ayn Rand, perhaps along with Isabel Paterson, instinctively understood (or maybe even considered obvious) is that every single nation and almost every tribe on Earth has been subjected to the crisis of being integrated to the Global Network (with its technology and weapons, its inmunity and diseases, its domesticated animals and vegetables). The discovery of the Americas by the western peoples of the integrated eurasiafrican system unleashed a very rapid integration of the lesser but huge continent by the old world pangea. You may think of it as a harsh market correction in the case of the Spanish and a slower market correction in the case of the English USA/Canada and Portuguese.Brazil. Australia is a more extreme example. Tasmania specifically. It was inevitable. If man's will didn't do it, smallpox would not have had any problem finding its way to very similar results. And it would have been suicidal and impossible for the European peoples to donate horses and steel to the Aztecs, etc, and keep the Americas in a sort of quarantine.