Race in America: Charles Murray’s “Facing Reality”

[MisterVeritis]

One possible reason for the poor performance (on average) of blacks is the disappearance of a father figure from so many black households.

And this, in turn, is probably one of the fruits of LBJ's Great Society--which was surely well intentioned; but we all know the old adage about the road to hell, and how it is paved.

I do not believe it was well intentioned.

[Mister D]

It's likely that LBJ's policies would have met with greater success at least in terms of reducing poverty if the US not had made a nearly simultaneous decision to import poverty by transforming our immigration system.

[Chuck]

Yes, that's what reviewers tend to do. But he did defend Murray against the usual changes of racism from the left. I think that is found in this paragraph: "erhaps the greatest weakness of intellectuals of every stripe is the temptation to give a grand unified explanation for multidimensional phenomena. So it should be noted to his credit that—unlike “woke” activists who pretend to know for certain that the culpability for every last racial problem can be tidily and solely pinned upon white people—Murray makes no rash claims about the reason (or reasons) for the disparities he observes. Instead he rightly emphasizes that averages are not ironclad rules, and urges his readers to remember that any given person may defy statistical predictions, graphs, and charts."

It's Slayer's thing to be anti-individualism.

Most of what passes as 'individualism' is merely rubbish, and not true individualism. just sniveling narcissists trying to hide behind sophistry and babbling neurotic Randian nonsense.

[Chris]

Most of what passes as 'individualism' is merely rubbish, and not true individualism. just sniveling narcissists trying to hide behind sophistry and babbling neurotic Randian nonsense.

Granted, there's a world of difference between individualism seen as selfish and that seen as self-interested, but I more and more these days side with Slayer In being anti-individualism. Man exists in society, man is a social, a political animal. See Edmund Burke on Social Contract Theory.

[Chuck]

Granted, there's a world of difference between individualism seen as selfish and that seen as self-interested, but I more and more these days side with Slayer In being anti-individualism. Man exists in society, man is a social, a political animal. See Edmund Burke on Social Contract Theory.

I'm not a fan of the Von Mises people generally, but I like F.A. Hayek's many excellent points in his book The Fatal Conceit on the valuable role traditions play in society. And, Adam Smith also has a lot to say about economics that the Right somehow never quotes when making their talking points as well. There would be no such thing as private property without laws and a govt. willing and able to enforce those laws.

[Peter1469]

It's likely that LBJ's policies would have met with greater success at least in terms of reducing poverty if the US not had made a nearly simultaneous decision to import poverty by transforming our immigration system.

As an aside Great Society spending along with spending on 'Nam is what caused inflation and then stagflation in the 70s. That monetary inflation again....

[pjohns]

It's obvious that there are mild to moderate differences between races. The question is, how much is that is inherently genetic, how much is that is via genetics of more recent family and such, and how much is it environment?

It is an article of faith, among liberals, that any differences must be due to invidious discrimination; none can possibly be inherent.

As you noted (correctly), however, "We'll never know for sure [since] it will never be acknowledged or discussed publicly."

[Chris]

It is an article of faith, among liberals, that any differences must be due to invidious discrimination; none can possibly be inherent.

As you noted (correctly), however, "We'll never know for sure [since] it will never be acknowledged or discussed publicly."

And that is part of the reason liberals pit government against society and try to tear down traditional social institutions.

[Chuck]

And that is part of the reason liberals pit government against society and try to tear down traditional social institutions.

You seem well read so I assume you know about Antonio Gramsci and his culture war tactics, adopted by Saul Alinsky and his version of 'Gramsci For Dummies', AKA 'Rules For Radicals'; these tactics manifest themselves in every radical agenda, including false flag 'libertarian' memes. For instance,The Founder of the 'Gay Rights' hoax, Harry Hay, was a card carrying Communist Party member, and also a big NAMBLA supporter, so it is no coincidence the media agenda for the homosexual fetishist campaign reads like it came directly from Gramsci.

http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/...g_Straight.htm

Here is progressive.org gushing over Communist pedophile Harry Hay:

https://progressive.org/magazine/mee...hts-harry-hay/

Harry Hay is the founder of gay liberation. This lovely interview with Hay by Anne-Marie Cusac was published in the September 1998 issue of The Progressive magazine. Then-editor Matt Rothschild called Hay "a hero of ours," writing that he should be a household name. He wrote: "This courageous and visionary man launched the modern gay-rights movement even in the teeth of McCarthyism." In 1950 Hay started the first modern gay-rights organization, the underground Mattachine Society, which took its name from a dance performed by masked, unmarried peasant men in Renaissance France, often to protest oppressive landlords. According to Hay's 1996 book, Radically Gay, the performances of these fraternities satirized religious and political power.

Wonder why they leave out his NAMBLA activism? It is a very important part of of the homosexual fetishist 'movement' to infiltrate schools and groom children, but they seem shy about admitting it.