My First Banning!

I got banned from a political website for the first time thanks to my political views as posted here on this blog. The blog in question, Alas, a Blog, belongs to the cartoonist Barry Deutsch aka Ampersand, the fine gentleman pictured below. It's the typical liberal blog, albeit much more radically feminist, ironic since Barry is apparently a man.

It started on a thread regarding libertarianism and gay marriage, which I responded:

The problem with Rand Paul is that he is not very good at explaining his views, which is lethal to any libertarian politician. Also, he tries to pander to everyone.

If you want to read a coherent libertarian view of same-sex marriage, I would suggest reading this article by Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian Party presidential candidate.

Another poster on the blog responded with:

TAS, I’ve found your posts interesting. Would you say that you’re a pretty good representative of libertarianism?

—Myca

However, the "omg ur a racist" comments soon started coming at me. A pleasant fellow named joe wrote:

I’d say his posts are NOT a good representation of libertarianism.

Decent representation of misogyny though.

Try http://www.theagitator.com as a ‘good’ representation of libertarianism.

At least he plugged Radley Balko. Then a gentleman named Chris responded:

I would agree with Joe. Most libertarians, rightly or wrongly, don’t believe in civil rights laws because they legitimately think property rights are more important. TAS doesn’t believe in civil rights laws because he hates women and minorities. The first kind of libertarian can be debated against, the second kind is only worthy or scorn and mockery.

To which I replied:

TAS, I’ve found your posts interesting. Would you say that you’re a pretty good representative of libertarianism?

Perhaps. I’m far more politically incorrect than most libertarians. Also, I’m not a corporation-worshiper like the Beltway libertarians, since I recognize that most corporate power comes from government-granted privileges, pro-corporate laws (i.e. DMCA), and corporate welfare.

I’d say his posts are NOT a good representation of libertarianism.

Decent representation of misogyny though.

I’m hold views that most would consider to be “sexist,” yes, but that’s not the same as misogyny.

Most libertarians, rightly or wrongly, don’t believe in civil rights laws because they legitimately think property rights are more important. TAS doesn’t believe in civil rights laws because he hates women and minorities.

I freely admit I hold racist and sexist views (most people - even many liberals - do, they just pretend like they don’t), but I don’t “hate” any certain groups, I’m just strongly critical of them.

Also, I’ve been a libertarian for several years and I did adopt my opposition to civil rights laws because they infringed on property rights. My views on race didn’t evolve until much a few years later.

Chris responded, complete with a request for my banning. Liberals realize they can't win against HBDers - the statistical evidence is just too strongly against them - so they seek to silence us"

I freely admit I hold racist and sexist views (most people - even many liberals - do, they just pretend like they don’t), but I don’t “hate” any certain groups, I’m just strongly critical of them.

TAS, some of the post titles on your blog are “Screw Single Mothers,” “Obama Nominates Jewish Dyke to Supreme Court,” and “Blacks Ruin Everything.”

That is called hate.

This bigot should not even be allowed to post here.

I cordially invited him to comment on my blog if he felt offended:

If you have a problem with something I wrote on my blog, then feel free to comment on the relevant posts there. I have a very open moderation policy - the only comments I generally delete are spam.

He declined and decided to stop talking to me. Liberals are basically overgrown children. Also, he claims to have commented on my blog. I think he's Souza, the bastard son of a single mom, who enjoys calling me a racistsexistclassisthomophobe on various posts of mine. Both Chris and Souza seem to have very similar political positions, are quick to anger, and are highly childish.

I have commented on your blog, TAS. I find engaging with you a fruitless exercise, so this will be the last time I respond to you directly.

Then mythago joined in:

Rand Paul’s website says that he has been married for 19 years. If he believes government should be out of marriage, why didn’t he and his “loving wife” go for private contracts rather than state-sponsored marriage? Or, if that were not possible 19 years ago, why don’t they now legally divorce and use private contracts to arrange their affairs?

Those are rhetorical questions, of course.

TAS, “politically incorrect” is the PC, euphemistic term for what, in pre-PC days, used to be called “loudmouthed bigot”. I don’t understand the current fashion for tiptoeing around calling something what it really is.

Finally, the big man (in multiple ways) himself, Ampersand joined in, issuing his banning edict

TAS, after checking out your website, I’ve decided that you’re not someone I wish to have a discussion with.

Please don’t post any further comments on “Alas.”

Notice how he doesn't even bother to respond to anything I posted on my blog or commented on his. He saw my HBD/racialist views and decided not to talk to me. Liberals fear people who recognize racial and gender differences. They realize that no amount of social engineering and brainwashing can change the fact that blacks and whites are not equal and that men and women are different. Thus they to avoid conversations about such topics entirely and silence those who believe that racial and gender differences exist.

The irony is that I wasn't even disagreeing with anything in the original post. I didn't attack gay marriage, I in fact criticized Rand Paul's flip-floppy, pandering view on the subject.

I posted a response to Ampersand, though I doubt it will make it through moderation which was deleted from the moderation queue:

TAS, after checking out your website, I’ve decided that you’re not someone I wish to have a discussion with.

I figured this would happen. Liberals generally do not like debating people who understand human biodiversity.

Please don’t post any further comments on “Alas.”

No problem, although it’s worth noting that I allow pretty much anyone to comment on my blog, including feminists, socialists, and other leftists.

If any liberals from Alas are reading this, I'd like to reiterate once again that unlike Barry, I do not fear people who hold different political opinions. I do not ban people or delete comments unless they are spam. It doesn't matter if you are a libertarian, neocon, Christian conservative, moderate, liberal, socialist, anarchist, or Black nationalist; I welcome people who wish to debate or argue with my about my posts.

The Futility of Arguing Race and Intelligence With Liberals

Since liberals started making a national controversy of involving the e-mail Harvard law student Stephanie Grace wrote (which was forwarded to a black group by Yelena Shagall six months later) in which she stated their was a possibility of blacks having a lower average intelligence than whites, I've attempted to argue on various liberal websites about this topic, with no success at all. Instead, I discovered that liberals do not even want to touch this topic. On pretty much every issue from healthcare to abortion, liberals relish a debate with right-wingers. But when it comes to racial differences in intelligence, liberals' only goal is to shut their opponents up.

A lot of the comments I made arguing point that racial differences in intelligence were simply deleted from various blogs and websites. Those that were not were usually met with comments simply calling me (and others who attempted to debate the issue) a "racist." Indeed, one liberal commenter at Above the Law responded to a multi-paragrah comment I made by writing that most of what I wrote was worthy of argument due to fact it was "racist." Unlike when they discuss black crime, they don't even bother with their standard explanations for black deficiency - slavery, Jim Crow, poverty, institutionalized racism, etc. They just say that the idea of racial differences in intelligence is just so racist that it's not even worth debating.

Another common response from liberals to people who discuss race and intelligence is that if you're not a scientist, you can't say anything on race and intelligence (another liberal at Above the Law responded to my comment this way). The requirement to be a scientist to discuss science, naturally does not apply to liberals. Otherwise, we couldn't have the joy of reading journalism majors inform us of how global warming will destroy the planet if we don't give the government more power. Likewise, this does not stop sociology students who do not know the difference between circuit-switching and packet-switching from calling for "net neutrality," nor does it prevent liberal arts majors who don't know what the "broadband" in "broadband Internet" means from criticizing the recent court case limiting the FCC's regulation of broadband Internet companies.

The reason for the liberals' absolute refusal to even debate this topic is obvious: they've seen the statistics and understand that it's pretty much impossible to refute the results of pretty much every test that measures intelligence or a function of it. If they had to acknowledge that there were racial differences in intelligence, then that means egalitarianism is founded on a lie, which means their entire worldview is essentially incorrect. Thus, it's easier for them just to call their opponents racists and move on. Ignorance is bliss.