So says Charles Murray, Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (and prominent GOP advisor).
Is he saying that sexual recombination is incapable of creating human "snowmobiles" from diverse parts? Or is he himself disproof of his own theory?
Are we doomed precisely because the idiot fringe of recombinant statistics concentrates in the Upper Looting Classes? Wasn't that principle enunciated by Dilbert, among others?
Instead of Situational Awareness, we're reverting to Twituational Duhwareness? We better hope that's caused by a recessive Cultural Meme. It's systemically self defeating to select for policy components that are dominantly dumb.
Also, 'Murray admitted that his work in Thailand laid the foundation for his harsh authoritarian politics and policies he later espoused in the United States under the political label “libertarianism.” '
Let's see. The Upper Class definition of a 'cultural snowmobile' is one guaranteed to self-destruct within 3 generations?
Understandably, Murray's opinion seems to be that Corporate Social Security and Corporate Welfare are only for the Upper Class, not the lower classes which didn't "breed" the right way. "... officials cite the Murray book as a philosophical base” for slashing social programs."
10 comments:
Control Fraud control of academia too?
what's next, Control Fraud control of other Control Frauds?
is that what banking competition is all about?
This is the basis of traditional conservatism vs. traditional liberalism, i.w. some are better than others. See George Orwell's Animal Farm.
Thatcherism is thus often compared to classical liberalism. Milton Friedman claimed that "the thing that people do not recognise is that Margaret Thatcher is not in terms of belief a Tory. She is a nineteenth-century Liberal."[3] Thatcher herself stated in 1983: "I would not mind betting that if Mr Gladstone were alive today he would apply to join the Conservative Party".[4] In the 1996 Keith Joseph memorial lecture Mrs. Thatcher argued that "The kind of Conservatism which he and I...favoured would be best described as ‘liberal’, in the old-fashioned sense. And I mean the liberalism of Mr. Gladstone, not of the latter day collectivists".[5] Thatcher once told Friedrich Hayek: "I know you want me to become a Whig; no, I am a Tory". Hayek believed "she has felt this very clearly".[6]
But the relationship between Thatcherism and liberalism is complicated. Thatcher's former Defence Secretary John Nott claimed that "it is a complete misreading of her beliefs to depict her as a nineteenth-century Liberal".[7] As Ellen Meiksins Wood has argued, Thatcherite capitalism was compatible with traditional British political institutions. As Prime Minister, Thatcher did not challenge ancient institutions such as the monarchy or the House of Lords, but some of the most recent additions: such as the trade unions.[8]Indeed, many leading Thatcherites, including Thatcher herself, went on to join the House of Lords: an honour which Gladstone, for instance, had declined.[9]
Wikipedia-Thatcherism
"Murray admitted that his work in Thailand laid the foundation for his harsh authoritarian politics and policies he later espoused in the United States under the political label “libertarianism.”
I KNEW IT! ..... I KNEW IT!!! OH THIS IS RICH....
I think the author means that "libertarianism" is harsh. Libertarianism is out of control...
Tip for the Left: take out the word "neo-liberal" and substitute "libertarian"... THAT is the correct terminology!
"Authoritarian" does not mean "harsh", it means there exists a recognition of "authority"... which is the first requirement in order for there to be a civilized society... and rule of LAW... how else can it work?
Want to jail banksters? You better have legitimate people in positions of authority who have respect for law or we see what we get...
Libertarianism is a completely fraudulent concept... completely false...
rsp,
He's predictably buddies with the Koch bros. Must be the John Birch Society breeding.
Soon, at least, he hopes to not have a secure society to kick around anymore.
have any libertarians of other stripes sued him for libel yet?
a "class action" suit would be hilariously appropriate
Libertarian Murray Rothbard: Rothbard, co-founder of the Cato Institute and supporter of David Duke, praised Murray’s Bell Curve for “expressing in massively stupefying scholarly detail what everyone has always known but couldn’t dare to express about race, intelligence, and heritability.”
guy is jaw dropping
Charles Murray on Social Security:
“Social Security is a ponzi scheme. That chicken has to come home to roost sooner or later.”
Knavian Influenza?
"Follow the money." Guys like this are always getting paid by someone or getting some kind of perks for services rendered.
Roger,
Thanks for this.. this is one of the most revealing articles Ive read in a while...
"As FAIR reported, Richard Lynn wrote, “What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the ‘phasing out’ of such peoples…. Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent."
In reality, THEY are the incompetent: "we're out of money!"
THEY need to be "phased out" LOL!
rsp,
"have any libertarians of other stripes sued him for libel yet?"
Roger there are NOT any other stripes... this IS libertarianism.
The word never existed before 1857 from France... it has always meant this type of garbage...
"Etymology
The word stems from the French word libertaire. The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[11] Hence libertarian has been used by some as a synonym for left anarchism since the 1890s."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
This IS libertarianism Roger...
With the OWS situation, you have one bunch of libertarians, the kids in the OWS group, antagonizing another bunch of libertarians, ie Wall Street "banksters"... both groups can be described as "lawless" ... that is why the confrontation took place away from Wash DC, the current seat of lawmaking here ... neither of these two cohorts can recognize the LAW... and repel from it...
Chaos results there is no alternative...
That whole OWS deranged spectacle was a big incestuous lawless libertarian cluster-F... "purple hair" on the one side and paid "jack booted thugs" of the out of control banksters on the other... scary!
rsp,
Roger,
Look at the writings on "money" history by the left-libertarians...
NO mention of the word NOMISMA from them AT ALL...
Why? Because as Aristotle wrote, the word comes from the Greek word for "law" ie nomos. It's right there in Aristotle sticking out like a sore thumb, but can they see it? Noooooo..
Completely blind to LAW...
Then look at the right-libertarians on "money", Ron Paul, etc ... these morons still think we are/should be on a gold standard! We're out of money! Audit Fort Knox!
Again, completely blind to LAW...
Libertarianism is completely running rampant and causing all sorts of chaos... and it's coming from both sides! .. scary!
rsp,
Post a Comment