I beg your pardon, I never promised you a thorn free Rose garden.

My respect for Larken is great - as is it is for many other pioneers also, in this new internet age.
Moving forward and educating people to a different way of thinking is something to be truly applauded.

I hope this critique helps...

I have an aversion to idols.

Here is my response to Larken Rose's piece [ https://steemit.com/anarchy/@larkenrose/race-iq-genetics-and-then-what ].

The 'disciples of Rose' will no doubt attack me, for their idol has been questioned....
...as Yoda would say "Sheep mentality of the individual, strong, it is..",

Which is a very strange posture to adopt, considering the whole ' no leaders' philosophy.. don't ya think?

A challenge to those criticizing ...try to do it in humorous way - so as to dispel my growing concerns that anarchists and voluntarists are more like communists in their process of thought (not ideology), than any other two groups.

No sense of humor is a mental illness.

Don't be ill.
Don't be a communist.

Challenging the status quo is what it is all about, and disrupting present day thinking is the way forward..

Larken excerpt's are in the faded sections. (I can't call him Mr. Rose - we are all friends here..)

This is in no way a passive aggressive slur to suggest he is fading . Please don't be triggered. It's way to differentiate himself and myself in the post.
( link to Larken's full post at the top of the page.)

Here and there I still see people who are very eager to publicly (and incessantly) talk about scientific studies regarding IQ in different demographic groups, such as different races.

Isn't any kind of science a good route to take, when trying to find truths. Objectivity?

Such people insist that they’re only after the truth, and are just being scientific and objective. But so far, every single time I have called them on it, a very different agenda and mindset quickly surfaces.

You haven't called me out on it.

I am an individual, not a group. I hate it when people put you into a group. Label you. It's just so goddamn.. collectivist.

(so as to avoid any passive aggressive insinuations regarding any kind of discrimination, and in the name of full disclosure, I have lived the majority of my adult life as an ethnic minority in foreign countries. I'm causation Caucasian.
My current girlfriend is Asian, my ex girlfriends include - but not limited to - black ex muslim, (African), white Caucasian, black christian, mixed Pakistani Caucasian. I also have gay mates. My actions, not my words, illustrate my position on any perspective regarding 'different agenda's', quite clearly I hope.)

Just to be clear, I absolutely expect there to be different overall statistical patterns related to race (as well as culture, nationality, religion, and so on)..

Ok, but rather than 'expecting' anything, gaining empirical data through science confirms or discounts hypothesis.
Science is good.

'Expectations' enters the realms of 'wishy washy', cultural marxism, and post modernist thinking..

The question is—and what I always ask the people who seem to obsess over this is—so what? Without even getting into their statistics and “facts,” and whether they are accurate, why does it matter to them?

A rather banal question to be asking considering the plethora of really interesting ones you could be asking, concerning IQ's etc.
So what? If by data collection we could work out the why's of things?
So what? If we knew the why's of things, we could alter the environment, to discount the negative why's of things...
.... but each to their own.

Information and facts matter a great deal to people wanting to understand things.
Understanding things is the first step in finding solutions to problems.
NOT wanting to understand new things is more of an indication wanting to maintain a status quo. Nothing changes without new facts coming to light.

If someone was really just curious, being actually scientific just to know more about the world and reality, great.

I am really curious and wish to know more about the world and reality.
So why the derision of people trying to find facts, and assuming all these people having an ulterior motive?

There’s no truth that I’m opposed to people knowing.

If the truth emerged that voluntarism could not be implemented as a social system - empirically - would you be opposed to people knowing that truth?

Are you not guilty of exactly what you argue against?
Suppression of information through the derision of a group?
Not looking at the individual, but putting 'the IQ scientists (for want of a better term) , into a group..?
Is writing negative sweeping statements of this groups character, a form on bullying?

Criticizer of the character, not criticizer of the information ... ?
Does this fall into the arena of aggression?( or non aggression, obviously). I don't know, I'm asking..

However, so far I have never talked to someone who obsessed over the alleged difference in average IQs between races, who didn’t also have an immoral authoritarian agenda they were trying to justify.

I have no immoral authoritarian agenda to justify.

Alleged differences? Are you questioning the data's legitimacy, or further slurring the fact gatherers?
Are arguing that there are not IQ averages, difference? (using IQ as the metric)

You haven't talked to me abut it - Or many others, I would wager.

And so far, every one began by denying having such an agenda, only to later demonstrate that they did.

I am denying such an agenda.
You are just grouping people together all the time – how does that work in an 'the individual is everything ' philosophy?

Because, you see, the concepts of self-ownership and non-aggression don’t have an IQ threshold.

Totally agree..

Oddly, a lot of people who oppose race-based injustice and victimization still get duped into arguing about statistics and studies, as if that is what matters.

I oppose all injustice, I don't see color.
Statistics and studies are needed in building a picture to the truth.
How do you find the truth otherwise.? (a suggestion spot)

Instead, whether they want to argue about the data or not, anyone who actually values freedom and justice should begin and end such a discussion by pointing out that, when it comes using state coercion, it doesn't matter what the IQ of any group, or any individual, is.

This like saying 'it's proved science' by the global warming lobby.
Nothing to learn here, move on...

Trying to end an open debate by this strategy shows an unwillingness - a fear of opening a specific can of worms.
What fear, is the pertinent question.

When it comes to state coercion, IQ of any groups matters greatly, in respects to:
economic coercion.
social coercion.
political coercion.

This kind of 'IQ information' is already well known by 'the establishment' (state), I'm sure.
To not avail yourself of collating and understanding this data, is to be offered a weapon in helping to stop injustice, and refusing it.

Aggression is wrong, against smart people, against stupid people, against all people. (And how stupid does someone have to be to not understand that?)

Totally agree..
I hope that means I'm not too stupid...

And the agenda might not be something as openly horrendous as genocide or enslavement; it might be something along the lines of, “Well then our immigration policies should favor this group over that group.” But that still means initiating violence based on statistical patterns and probabilities, rather than using force only to defend against actual individual aggressors.

When ideology meets the tarmac....

We are living in a government, nation state system. The reality. The nation state adopts jurisdiction over it's territory and borders.

“Well then our immigration policies should favor this group over that group.”

That is showing good stewardship over an area which they have been given authority to preside over..

But that still means initiating violence..

It is not initiating any violence, of any kind.

The jump from real world discussion to some utopian one world vision (where there are no borders?) is psychologically divisive.... it also has worrying overtones.
If there are no borders - and there is no time in history when authoritarianism hasn't been the default setting - then ALL we would be left with is a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT......
(I'm a gambling man - but the risk of that end result is a bet I would not have the balls to take...just sayin')

I knew I was on track with some kind of correlation between voluntarism and communism!
😂😂

back in the real world ...

So no, when people harp on IQ as it relates to race, rarely are they “just being scientific.”

I am always " just being scientific."
Who are these 'they' groups that you keep mentioning? I hate being put into groups.
Sweeping generalizations on a very large groups of people, with disparate motivations.

Very authoritarian qualities...

Ironically, these same people are usually the loudest to condemn communism,

That would be me then, correct.

and the most eager to apply the “communist” label to anyone who doesn’t agree with them—despite the fact that they are just one more flavor of authoritarian, collectivist statist, and share a lot in common with communists. (Even the Nazis were, after all, national socialists.)

Scientific data has no political affiliation.
To try and attach some to it, is to be uninformed about logic at best - and downright disingenuous, at worst..

how people use data, is a completely different subject.
Conflating the two is an authoritarian strategy in itself. (even the nazi's were, after all, authoritarian). See how I did that?
...oops.

Anarchists follow a very similar pattern of behavior in discussions with communist, I have found. – mainly to ignore anything that doesn't fit with ideology. Silence, not dialogue.
Positions so cemented in principle, that they can't actually move. - on anything.
I've seen crystal glass, with more robust ego's.

The principles of self-ownership and non-aggression do not change based upon race, or place of birth, or sex, or wealth, or education level, or IQ.

Totally agree.

When it comes to the “political” realm, voluntaryism is (by definition) the only truly tolerant position one can take, and no amount of attempted rationalizations, or appeals to “necessity” or “practicality,” or “scientific studies,” will ever change that.

..... Back in the real world...
....It only works as a political system if everyone else feels the same way. At the same time. .

3000 years of history to draw comparisons from, would suggest that it does not work as a system and people do not feel the same way.

'Or is this another case of reality not conforming to ideology, so we'll just ignore these facts, thank's'?

I own me, and you own you. That is, and will always be, the primary and fundamental starting point for a moral, rational society.

Based on the supposition that everyone else is moral, and rational.
This is pure naivety. ( a place often frequented by the ideologue, I have found)

This is not a true reflection of the broad spectrum personalities of people's within any given social group.

People with less morals, or less rationality will want to inflict their will upon others, and will want to decide other people's future, through coercion.
And interestingly , information on on IQ's( in conjunction with understanding personality traits), could actually minimize this effect...just sayin'..

If the fundamental starting point is fundamentally flawed... then entire structure that you then build on it, will be also..

(yet more communist comparisons.... They just keep on poppin' up!... 😂)

Using history as the only tool in which to measure social systems, and societal precedents we know of - , authoritarianism - as an advancement of the human race - has been the most successful social system, in one form or another.

Voluntarism is to be applauded.
Anarchism is to be applauded.
Communism is to be booed. (boooo communists, bad commie's.).

Ideology is to be applied , and not used as a blueprint, as it never works..

And here in lies the disconnect of the ideologue who can pontificate all they want - for they have that luxury.

...And the pragmatist that uses great ideals and looks HOW to apply them in the real world .
....and no amount of attempted ideology implementation , or appeals to “purism” or “principle” or “absolutes”, will ever change that.

New systems can be built, but to discount several thousand years of human behavior, generation after generation, as a 'faulty model' is insulting.
...to all the past generations, and their apparent lack of IQ for starters!
I see far more intelligence in past generations than I do in today's .

Voluntarism and anarchy as social systems
Unattainable - even if it is actually desired by the masses. (which is very debatable).

Which makes it naive whining at best.
Offering no solutions, and allows for lazy, self indulgent intellectual rhetoric, to be the 'plats du jour' .
It's disingenuous, narcissistic platforming, at worst.

Moving forward is the answer, not staying stuck in simple ideologies and staying there.

oh, and this to...this is great. ...Happy Saturday everyone !
.
.