I have been brainwashed by rightist propaganda into believing that human ethnicities or "races" have differing skills a capabilities because of biological factors
I'm tired of my mind being clouded by hateful intrusive thoughts
Please help deprogram me
Please show me the light and please tell me which books or articles I should read that shows there isn't a "superior race"
Please
Read the German Ideology
All ideology is the same whether racist, "anti-racist", etc. The most important thing is to understand their social roots rather than examine them abstractly. Without knowing what lies at the base of the superstructure one is blind to the social forces driving history, it's exactly why imperialism, racism, sexism, exist and will continue to exist under our social order despite all the "progressives" efforts to "fight" them.
Relish the soberness of knowing that you don't need to disprove silly skulls shapes and autism scores for racism to magically dissappear, no more than you need to rationally disprove religion for it to die over night. These are symptoms, the disease is capital, the antidote is world revolution.
>>2899246I would argue this is the wrong approach.
Human ethnicities are differently abled. How much of that depends on biology versus culture is not known, but it's not unreasonable to suppose that even slight genetic variations might translate to variations in ability. The alternative is to think these have no effect, contrary to evolutionary theory.
But that doesn't justify hierarchy. It's a common confusion of the Right that when leftists speak about "equality" they mean "sameness." The former is really just the concept of incomparableness. We understand not to place an apple above an orange: they're different but one is not "better" than the other as a fruit. So for human beings the same idea is that anyone who is a productive, pro-social member of society should be entitled to the same things from society. It is not innate ability that determines this, but one's desire to employ that ability to make their community a better place.
>>2899246I'm just full of clittycel rage.
>>2899278
What's the "average negro"? I interact with black people and white people commonly and don't see this. The average American can hardly string together a sentence.
>The world's inhabited by elves, dwarfs, orcs, dragonkin (aka furries) and yes even kobolds
Okay, and this changes anything why?
>>2899420>>2899267You're a race realist hilterite schizoid
>>2899423
That's only the mods and their clique. Lurkers are alright.
>>2899428
I ain't clicking dat
qrd?
>>2899432
Now I feel bad for reporting your post
Fuck jannies and their high wages
>>2899246FACT: human beings are all one species, we have 99.9% genetic homogeneity
FACT: the 0.1% disparity accounts for mostly superficial genetic traits, like hair, eye, and skin color
FACT: race as a concept was developed by slave drivers who wanted to justify their business by denigrating the slaves as less than human and meant to be chattel
FACT: racism, eugenics, and the classical romanticism that surrounded it all are NOT scientifically sound principles
FACT: it's okay to have a preference for some superficial genetic traits over others, but it's vain to judge people on aesthetics alone
FACT: racism is used as the basis for nationalism, which is the basis for fascism
OPINION: fascism is just totalitarian rule by one single dolt whose underlings think is some really swell guy, and it's a dumbass ideology because no one person has all the answers to anything (except me I'm a genius)
if you are asking this sincerely then you've already begun the work of deprogramming yourself of racial pseudoscience, but i suppose a good place to start would be to look at the greater overarching pseudoscience of biological determinism which these kinds of ideas fall under. scientific racism, eugenics, intelligence and autism score, etc. basically the whole idea that genes are some sort of source code or blueprint that defines an organism's properties and behaviors is reductive simplistic bullshit. an organism's properties and behaviors are determined by literally everything that happens or has ever happened in nature, so many factors that one could not even begin to unravel the knot, and the genes are just a residue, a fingerprint leftover after the fact. and you could go even further by realizing that these kinds of theories that try to reduce incomprehensible complexities of the natural world into simple deterministic mechanical explanations that fit neatly into the human mind do not come from a place of genuine scientific curiosity, but from ego and vanity. if science has taught us anything, it is that the way the natural world actually works is completely and utterly alien to ordinary human cognition, i.e. the so-called "common sense" that we rely on in our everyday lives to do our familiar human activities, and that the universe is under no obligation whatsoever to be intuitive to our reasoning or to be aligned with our beliefs and ambitions or to even exhibit any coherent pattern where it repeats what exists in one part in any other part.
>>2899267This is my take. It's copium that different ethnicities don't have different abilities and outcomes. You even see Genetic researchers have to rely on unscientific cope for the obvious reality of genes. I find it funny though they openly admit GALNT13 gene makes various African ethnicities vastly superior at sport, but the whole host of genes relating to various other indicators in ethnicities, have zero outcome difference whatsoever because ???.
Over 10% of the DNA in various PNG ethnicities isn't even Homo Sapien, does that no effect them in any way? Australian Aboriginals literally existed in isolation before cro magnon even existed. There is larger genetic diversity between humans, than there is between a chihuahua and wolves.
Different ethnicities obviously have different outcomes that are beyond just cultural, the point should be is that people are just good at different things, and you shouldn't structure it into a hierarchy.
>>2899246Contrarian take: Read Richard Hanania.
Like you, he believed in racial autism score differences until one day he sat down and noticed that many of the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet are white Republicans. The difference in skills and capabilities between individuals is far more noteworthy than that between races, and you can group people by any methodology you like. (e.g. the autism score gap between the poorly educated and highly educated is going to obliterate any racial gap you care to find.)
Even if you cannot shake the racial part of your worldview, incorporate this one insight from bourgeois economics: comparative advantage and opportunity cost.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that the right's vision of a race-stratified world is correct. The implications of this in a world of comparative advantage are nightmarish for an ethnically homogenous country like Japan: A nation of 120 autism score geniuses where most of them are condemned to menial work well within the capabilities of someone with sub-100 autism score, because such people are not allowed to live there.
If such people could live there, both those people and the native Japanese would enjoy a much higher standard of living. (The low autism score people would benefit from good governance and higher wages, the high autism score people would benefit from working more stimulating and rewarding jobs.)
Instead of thinking in terms of "higher" and "lower" races you should appreciate that everyone is still basically a normal person capable of making a useful contribution to society. You don't need a 120IQ convenience store worker, and being a convenience store worker when you wanted to - and are capable of - being a scientist, is miserable! The thing Japan gives up (e.g. the opportunity cost of) maintaining ethnic homogeneity is a Japan with
many more Japanese in high-skilled work. (This, incidentally, is why competition in Japanese school etc is so hellish: a functioning society needs a lot of "unskilled" labour and automating it isn't as viable as you'd think, so a lot of people
capable of doing high-skilled work have to compete aggressively for a small number of places.)
check out "the mismeasure of man" by stephen gould
>>2899458Heredity is strongly correlated in offspring and relatives.
Genes are a large determining factor in human beings.
>>2899471>he believed in racial autism scoreYou are falsely using past tense.
Hanania still believes in group differences for I.Q.
>difference in skills and capabilities between individuals is far more noteworthy than that between races"Race" is an assigned grouping. When you invoke "white Republicans", this is another group. Group differences in I.Q. have different averages based on samples.
>Instead of thinking in terms of "higher" and "lower" races you should appreciate that everyone is still basically a normal person capable of making a useful contribution to societyThis is just the division of labour. Nothing in nature is evil, just put in its wrong place. Put everything in its proper order and you see virtue. Also, on Japan in particular, they have autarky in their schools, and so lack the need for janitors and other positions. I think that the division of labour can be overextended and so become unhealthy. This is why a general education is necessary alongside the vocational. It's wrong to imagine that a "could" ought to unconditionally become a "should", as some liberals imagine. It's best where work is done independently.
>>2899471Isnt new-Hanania's whole deal that racial differences and genetic hierarchies is real but it's the left-lib, white libs in particular, that are at the top of the pyramid?
being hateful about these differences, if they even exist, is stupid. scientific racism has always been a libertarian project. rushton, murray, lynn, etc are all right libertarians who pushed this stuff as an alternative explanation for global inequality and as an argument for why we should not have affirmative action. before that, you had scientific racism rise as a means for justifying colonization and slavery
of course if you think about it logically and not like an anti-social freak, it would become obvious that if a certain group of people really were genetically less intelligent than the rest of the population, that would, at the very least be a positive argument
for welfare, affirmative action, and more funding towards schools in areas where these groups are the most represented. another policy that this would suggest would be to reindustrialize western nations as such work requires less "intelligence" (i could go into a whole different rant about how capitalism transcendentally restructures our very understanding of intelligence but i shall refrain from that)
examining it closely, the content of race realism barely affirms the conclusions many race realists and later white nationalists wont to make. it does not even make an argument against miscegenation as at the end of the day people tend to assortively mate based off of intelligence and most people tend to date people within their own group
aside from all of this there is an unforgivable pessimism within race realist and eugenicist thought as it reifies man's current technological inabilities into some sort of God. it attempts to positively affirm a fundamental alienation of the social aims of man from Nature. instead of waging divine struggle upon the biological foundations of our existence, these ideologies are used as a means to arrogantly rise some against others as well as justify the sickness of capitalism, itself a diremption within the resonating whole of productive relations
when north america gets conquered by sanguine socialism, all groups of people will have the opportunity to improve their healthiness and cognition through nootropics, live dna modification with rna sprays and viral payloads, as well as morphological manipulation with biotechnology. biological determinism, the final alienation of man from Nature, shall be abolished in the name of hidweh
btw last time i checked there is no evidence when actually looking at polygenic scores of a black-white achievement gap
https://r.jordan.im/download/racism/bird2021.pdf>>2899246even the dumbest, lowest animal is smarter than a human because only humans are dumb enough to enslave themselves to invented social systems and call themselves superior for doing it
>>2899267This reminds me: Lenin has some pamphlet he wrote against a liberal professor on equality:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm
>Liberal Professor Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky is on the war path against socialism. This time he has approached the question, not from the political and economic angle, but from that of an abstract discussion on equality (perhaps the professor thought such an abstract discussion more suitable for the religious and philosophical gatherings which he has addressed?).
< “If we take socialism, not as an economic theory, but as a living ideal,” Mr. Tugan declared, “then, undoubtedly, it is associated with the ideal of equality, but equality is a concept … that cannot be deduced from experience and reason.”
>This is the reasoning of a liberal scholar who repeats the incredibly trite and threadbare argument that experience and reason clearly prove that men are not equal, yet socialism bases its ideal on equality. Hence, socialism, if you please, is an absurdity which is contrary to experience and reason, and so forth!
>Mr. Tugan repeats the old trick of the reactionaries: first to misinterpret socialism by making it out to be an absurdity, and then to triumphantly refute the absurdity! When we say that experience and reason prove that men are not equal, we mean by equality, equality in abilities or similarity in physical strength and mental ability.
>It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. No sensible person and no socialist forgets this. But this kind of equality has nothing whatever to do with socialism. If Mr. Tugan is quite unable to think, he is at least able to read; were he to take the well-known work of one of the founders of scientific socialism, Frederick Engels, directed against Dühring, he would find there a special section explaining the absurdity of imagining that economic equality means anything else than the abolition of classes. But when professors set out to refute socialism, one never knows what to wonder at most—their stupidity, their ignorance, or their unscrupulousness. It's nice to see the kneejerk denial of the biological reality of genetic differences between groups of humans is no longer present in leftist spaces. IMO, the best way to fight rightoids on this issue is to just be scientific and admit that differences exist, and the "solution" is just to improve wherever we can using biotechnology to further break down barriers between people.
Ironically, the provincial rightoid fantasy of ethnonationalism would be actually be completely destroyed by a scientific study of human genetics. That's why Hitler called I.Q "Jewish science" and the Nazis pursued esoteric woowoo style of racism rather than actually scientific studies of genetics.
>>2900091>That's why Hitler called I.Q "Jewish science"Really?
Why is the race "realism" thread still up?
>>2901052are you talking about this one or another one?
This one has a decent reason to exist imo since it's criticising racist bullshit instead of indulging in it
>>2900062>>2899524How is determinism an alienation of man from nature?
What ethnicity is the best at sexo?
>>2899246>>2899246>leftoids have to convince themselves that races are equalGEGEGEGEGEG
>>2901515>the politics of "race realism" rests on biological metaphysics, a posture which must be thoroughly rejectedIt's not even "biological" in a scientific sense, but moreso theological.
The racial worldview is often entropic, seeing that man's essence is diminished and diluted as time goes on - which is why royal blood is kept "pure" from admixture. Purity then implies originality. We see that in the Abrahamic view, the races of men descend from the sons of Noah, the same way that animal species descend from "kinds", and it is these archetypes which are pure, or original of further development. It is a curious theory of evolution, where for example, a wolf is a pure kind, which develops into impure breeds. The races are the same, who are all originally unified (e.g. the tower of Babel) and later "scattered". In all of this, we are withdrawing from the "mother of all living"; Eve, of whom bears humanity, who as it is written, lived for centuries before the deluge, where afterwards, men's lives were reduced. This is also related to Hesiod's description of the Golden Age; that the lifespan of mankind has fell as the ages have degenerated by aeonic corruption.
In the Aryanism of Miguel Serrano, the blood is harvested as a source of knowledge, which is most original in Aryans, of Hyperborea. Aryans are then most original of mankind, being the fallen angels who mate with women (e.g. the fallen "Sons of God" who initiate the deluge). This is a theosophical view (e.g. Blavatsky and Steiner) of "Root Races"; that all of humanity was born from the Aryans (hence why all religions are perennial in nature, since they philologically derive from the same source - extantly expressed in Brahminic Hinduism). Robert Sepher (a disbeliever in "Out of Africa" theory) also peddles this, by seeing that humanity was created from proto-human interbreeding of different species, rather than a single human origin. It has currency, since the "Ghost DNA" of Africans points to an uncommon ancestor. The point of all this is that the racial worldview often concerns the idea of purity and entropy. There is no room for natural novelty.
As opposed to this view of unconditional decline is Nietzsche, who saw that races can be pure, but only by the condition of purification. A race is not born great, but becomes great. This permits development in nature of novel ethnogenesis, rather than mere genetic desolation. I would also compare this somewhat to a literalist reading of master-servant dialectics; that as a master breeds servants for fitness, he weakens himself through various vices. H.G. Wells portrays this in kind between the Eloi and Morlocks, that the divergence of humanity between brains and brawn leads to the destruction of intelligence. Nietzsche himself internalised this historicity, where Untermenschen were destined to become unthinking cogs in a machine, while the Ubermensch rises above it. What is important however is cultivating internal strength for this sake, so as to have independence; freedom. The master becomes enslaved unless he becomes a master of himself.
So, to summarise, the doctrine of race is theological/mythical. It sees that degeneration of a natural purity is inevitable. Even so-called "progressives" have this telos, where all races will be extinguished by interbreeding. The properly Nietzschean view is to say that even if genes become more dispersed, local selection will always strive for greatness, and establish separation from the rest. If Europeans are all related, they are also finely distinguished. So, race is inevitable, and this is what racists, and anti-racists fail to see in their eschatology.
>>2901515>>2901533Now, the descent of races is a curious matter, since in genetic expression, ancestry speaks. We read this:
<Blue eyes arose from one single mutation in one single individual (Eiberg et al., 2008) who lived in Europe or the Near East earlier than 14,000 years ago (Fu et al., 2016). This mutation turned partly off the ability of one of our genes to produce melanin, the pigment that darkens eyes, hair, and skin.https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1442500/fullAll blue-eyed people are said to have a single common ancestor. A hiccup with this is that we see Africans born with blue eyes, like how some Polynesians have blonde hair. A Nordic theory of race would then see Africans either being the descendents of a common ancestor (if African genes generally have potential for an expression of this kind). We see that black people can give birth to white children, but the opposite has never been seen. We could then show the opposite; that all races have been spontaneously born from African ancestors, rather than developed over a long period of time. Similarly, it is presumed that pale skin is due to less sunlight, when it is actually thought to be due to less nutrition after neolithic revolution:
https://www.quora.com/Did-ancient-populations-become-lighter-in-skin-color-because-of-dietary-deficiencies-and-reduced-exposure-to-sunlightSo, the mystery of race is more complicated than it seems. From each perspective, we see an autogenesis of humanity be conjectured.
not only is there no clear demarcation between the discrete racial categories of homo sapiens, there isn't really even a clear demarcation between the different species of the homo genus of great apes, or any species of any particular genus of animal. neanderthals interbred with homo sapiens, dogs interbreed with wolves and coyotes, horses interbreed with donkeys and zebras, etc. nothing is discrete, everything's been miscegenating and migrating and smearing together for billions of years and we just slap arbitrary labels on all this shit because it's the only way we can make sense of it all and be able to think about it and talk about it in our language, and then we forget that we did it and think that our labels are actually what the thing is.
>>2901585Yet a human cannot mate with a chimp.
So, there are clear differences in nature.
Quality and quantity are also at various odds. We share 50% of our genes with a banana, yet a banana is not "half-human". 70% of our body is composed of water, yet humans are not "more" ocean than fruit. The absolute distinction is one to be recognised as authentic. If not, we become like Thales, claiming that "all things are full of gods".
>>2901265Have you looked at the thread? It's filled to the brim with people trying to justify racism under the guise of "acknowledging genetic difference". It's race realist garbage
>>2901600Racism is a doctrine of racial supremacy, not racial difference.
If we say that a Frenchman is different from a German, this is a fact.
If we say that either one is better than the other, it is an opinion.
>>2901634>If we say that a Frenchman is different from a German, this is a fact.You are retarded and you, yes, you, should put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.
>>2901634>French and German are separate ethnicities because nationalityAaahahahahahahaha
>>2901818
You should really be embarrassed that you're so fucking stupid.
https://phenotypes.net/According to this France consists of Alpinids, Nordids, and Mediterranids, while Germany consists of Alpinids, Nordids, and Dinarids. You wouldn't argue with science, would you?
>>2901872If they weren't different they wouldn't have been born on different sides of an imaginary line. Checkmate, atheists.
>>2901596>it's the only way we can make sense of it all and be able to think about it and talk about it in our language, and then we forget that we did it and think that our labels are actually what the thing is.this was the philosophical crux of the comment, not the breeding compatibility between humans and different species of apes. you failed to identify and address the main point of the argument and got sidetracked into quibbling over trivialities, please try to do better next time.
>>2900047OP had zero thoughts on Lenin I see.
>>2901835You are not actually saying that my statements are incorrect.
Have you noticed that?
>>2901847So are they the same or different? You tell me.
>>2901885The crux of the discussion is about whether differences are real or "arbitrary" (e.g. randomly and prejudicially assigned). I have deduced that differences are real - and this has not yet been disagreed with.
>>2899267>>2899420>>2899464>>2899499>>2900091>People who got all of their information and subsequent rationalization regarding "ethnic ability" from the exact same set of 4chan posts. You people don't read or consult the research, or discuss things with people in the field. You just start with existing conclusions and justify it with research you grab up that doesn't even say what
you think it does. For you, it's based on vague intuition, that there must be a difference in the mental cognition of ethnicities, because your study skimming high school view of evolution tells you that "kind of makes sense", and then you just justify it with the flimsiest of narratives. I'm tired of pseuds on this board that don't even have the basic decency to check themselves on what they don't know and apply some criticality on themselves.
>In both cases, a presumption is made a priori, rather than letting reality decide. Begin with reality, then proceed.The fucking irony of this statement.
falseflaggot tread
>>2899464>I find it funny though they openly admit GALNT13 gene makes various African ethnicities vastly superior at sport,This is what I mean now and before. You don't read shit, you don't even know how to use this to try and make you're point. GALNT13 isn't restricted to African populations( not even most of said populations), isn't something in regards to all sports in general, and it sees relatively adequate distribution across all ethnicities among competitive sprinters, with a "surprising" degree in sprinters of Japanese ancestry. The jury is still out in regards to the depth of the role it plays, but it's not the "African sports gene", at best it's the gene sprinters of all ethnicities seem to have with greater frequency. Whether or not you find it more commonly in said ethnic groups is the point you should have tried to make, but even then, it's not safe to say it's the reason "Africans do sport good", and doesn't then lead to the greater jump of arguing cognitive differences because it sounds like a nice "just so" story.
>>2901991You are retarded and you make everyone around you more stupid when you talk.
Most "real realists" in this thread are the equivalent of "barbershop intellectuals" who make it up as they go along, working off pre-existing beliefs they already have.
> I'm tired of pseuds on this board that don't even have the basic decency to check themselves on what they don't know and apply some criticality on themselves
are you tired of the majority of humanity
>>2902518this post is for you
>>2902489 >>2902514Notice that you can't actually say I'm incorrect.
You agree with me, but claim I am retarded.
Syllogistically, that makes you retarded as well. Lol.
>>2901991>The crux of the discussion is about whether differences are real or "arbitrary" (e.g. randomly and prejudicially assigned). I have deduced that differences are real - and this has not yet been disagreed with.that's not what arbitrary means, it means decided by arbitration, i.e. human judgment. and this discussion isn't about whether differences between human beings are real, which they obviously are, the discussion is about whether our grouping of these differences into discrete categories is arbitrary, which it is. our grouping of everything in nature is arbitrary, discreteness itself is a human abstraction that doesn't actually exist in nature - there are no separate things that are clearly delineated from other things, we just naturally think of things that way because of how our brains work and the limitations of our perception and cognition. we can't navigate the world and draw maps of it without reducing it discrete continents and regions and rivers and landmarks, we can't study the human body and treat diseases and injuries without reducing it to discrete bones and muscles and organs, we can't study astronomy without reducing the universe to discrete stars and planets and galaxies, we can't study physics without reducing matter and light to discrete particles. human cognition is based on pattern recognition and we are cursed with the cruel irony of compulsively looking for absolute patterns in a world where everything is relative. we look at something from a certain distance or a particular angle and we see a pattern, but then we look at it from a different distance or angle and we realize the pattern was just an illusion. the spiral galaxy was just a bunch of stars, the particles were just ripples in the quantum field, the strange-looking people in the foreign land were just distant family members that we forgot about a long time ago.
>>2902623>that's not what arbitrary meansYes it is.
>there are no separate things that are clearly delineated from other thingsYes there are - which is why you can't say that plants are identical to animals; because their natures are different.
>human cognition is based on pattern recognitionYou mean that we are evolved to recognise reality?
Of course. All brains interface reality by sensation.
>we realize the pattern was just an illusionSo what is the "illusion" you're suggesting?
What has been misreciognised? Plants versus animals?
>the strange-looking people in the foreign land were just distant family members that we forgot about a long time ago.So what? Family members are different to each other.
You haven't actually denied natural and real differences.
>>2902630>you can't say that plants are identical to animals; because their natures are different.that's a matter of perspective, if an alien came to earth they might see no significant distinction between plants and animals, they would just see a bunch of complex organic structures of cells that extract energy and excrete waste and reproduce sexually. or they might see every individual organism or cell as a completely unique entity with no analog at all. or they might look at the entire terrestrial ecosphere as one holistic living system.
>You mean that we are evolved to recognise reality?not at all. we are evolved to make guesses and predictions about reality and generate mental simulations of reality and develop linguistic abstractions to think and talk about reality. we could not have evolved a direct unimpeded connection to reality, reality is far too big and complex and overwhelming for us to possibly live that way.
>>2902656>that's a matter of perspectiveIt is a matter of fact.
You yourself would distinguish between them, correct?
>we are evolved to make guesses and predictions about realityBased on what? On the patterns of reality itself.
If a guess is wrong, it is either punished or rewarded.
We could say that we have largely filtered out irrationality in the species, since those who make the least correct guesses kill themselves, no? A child without an optimal "survival instinct" has no fear of danger and so is endangered. The fear of heights is rational.
>linguistic abstractionsHow old is language compared to the species?
You are jumping from intuition to the intellect.
>reality is (x)We are real; our instincts tell us things about reality.
Sensation is real. Our feelings are real.
The mind can abstract falsehoods, but this has real consequences.
As it is said, "you can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality." Reality is absolute and unconditional and so imposes itself against all human judgements.
>>2902660>We could say that we have largely filtered out irrationality in the specieswhat world are you living in?
>>2901533>It's not even "biological" in a scientific sense, but moreso theologicalthis is true. 'the holy reich' points out some of the theological precursors to national socialist ideology as well:
<Buch’s references to race as God’s creation, whose purity must be upheld as God’s will, was not simply a pious allusion hiding a “most thoroughgoing secularization.”°7 Rather, it found expression within certain Christian circles — specifically Lutheran — as a genuine theological trend. Called the “theology of the orders of creation” (Schépfungsglaube), it valorized the Volk, along with the family and state, as God — ordained. With roots in the nineteenth century, Schépfungsglaube promoted the nation as divine because it both transcended the individual and fought the supposedly disintegrating forces of liberal rationalism and materialism. Because God created the order of the nation, it “assumed the form of an involuntary association, a community of fate” invested with values inimical to individualism and class egoism.?° This theology was advanced by an influential group of Lutheran theologians whose views, significantly, predated Nazism. After the founding of the republic, the theological valorization of the Volk in Schopfungsglaube theology was intensified. As Paul Althaus maintained, “Volk and Volkstum are God’s creation and gift…. We cannot think of volkishness without thanking God.”9? Because God had created the nation as one of his orders, the church had an obligation to serve the Volk: “The church has every reason to be happy about the vdlkisch movement.”'°° The church also had the duty to recognize the threat Jews, as deniers of Christ, posed to this order. It was essential for the churches to speak out against the Jewish menace in public and even, where necessary, resort to “bold action.”*° In a 1927 speech at the Protestant Church Congress (Kirchentag) in Konigsberg,'®? Althaus insisted that Christianity in Germany had its own special national character and that any move to promote cosmopolitanism at the expense of volkisch interests was unacceptable: “German—Christian and Christian—German coherence stand as a clear, transparent and self-evident fact. The greatest moments and the most splendid figures in our national history bear witness to this.”1°3 Althaus’ theological development was part of a larger “Luther Renaissance” that took place after World War I and involved some of the most prominent Protestant theologians of the day, including Werner Elert and Walter Kiinneth. Many of them were pupils of Karl Holl, a noted prewar theologian who led the development of a theology of nationalism.‘ In this context Buch’s Lutheranism is clearly significant.we also see these theological justifications in myatt's earlier writings
<Correctly defined and understood, National-Socialism is an ethnic philosophy which affirms that the different races, the different peoples, which exist are expressions of our human condition, and that these differences, this human diversity, should be treasured in the same way we treasure the diversity of Nature. National-Socialists believe our world would be poorer were these human differences to be destroyed through abstract ideas: through the creation of a socially-engineered cypto-Marxist society. Furthermore, National-Socialism is a pure expression of our own unique Aryan ethics, based as these ethics are upon the idealism of duty to the folk, duty to Nature, and upon the nobility of personal honour. National-Socialism is a way of living which affirms that the purpose of our lives is to contribute to evolution in a positive way. We contribute to evolution when we do our duty to our folk, since our folk (our race and culture) is our connection to Nature: how Nature is manifest in us as human beings. National-Socialism expresses the natural truth that the living being which is Nature works to produce diversity and difference: that the evolution of Nature is a bringing-into-being of more diversity and more difference.elswhere:
<It is my view, which I have expounded in various writings, that National-Socialism is a complete and unique Way of Life - or Weltanschauung - with its own ethics, based upon the ideal of personal honour, and with its own Theology, based upon what I have called "The Cosmic Being". This Being is not the same as the God of Christianity, nor the Allah of Islam.<In contrast, the Cosmic Being of National-Socialism is regarded as the Cosmos in evolution, with Nature representing one manifestation, one incarnation, of the Cosmic Being on our planet, Earth. Thus, the Cosmos Being is not complete, not perfect - but an evolving, changing, being - just as we ourselves are the Cosmic Being in evolution, and just as Nature is this being in evolution. That is, there is a symbiotic relationship between us, as individuals, as members of our folk,, between us and Nature, between us and the Cosmic Being, and between Nature and the Cosmic Being. Nature is also a being: that is, some-thing which is alive, which changes. Nature is thus that innate creative force in the natural world of our planet which causes, or is the genesis of, and controls, living organisms in certain ways. All life - on this Earth and elsewhere in the Cosmos - is regarded as connected. That is, the Cosmos is a Unity, a matrix of connexions, which affect each other. This Unity can be understood by the concept of Acausal (see below).hitler seemed to have a similar cosmotheology though and also seemed to believe at times in divine providence
>The master becomes enslaved unless he becomes a master of himself>local selection will always strive for greatness, and establish separation from the restthe problem of course is that the master's voluntary wishes to remain a master of himself rarely ever rise to the level of collective significance for all masters as one's will is parametrized by overarching material conditions. we must also asked what greatness itself amounts to. this can not be thought of as something abstract. greatness only has relevance in relation to a world
<The will to power appears <a. among the oppressed, among slaves of all kinds, as will to "freedom": merely getting free seems to be the goal (religiomorally: “responsible to one’s own conscience alone”; “evangelical freedom,” etc.); <b. among a stronger kind of man, getting ready for power, as will to overpower; if it is at first unsuccessful, then it limits itself to the will to “justice,” i.e., to the same measure of rights as the ruling type possesses; <c. among the strongest, richest, most independent, most courageous, as “love of mankind,” of “the people,” of the gospel, of truth, God; as sympathy; “self-sacrifice,” etc.; as overpowering, bearing away with oneself> taking into one’s service, as instinctive self-involvement with a great quantum of power to which one is able to give direction: the hero, the prophet, the Caesar, the savior, the shepherd; (— sexual love, too* belongs here: it desires to overpower, to take possession, and it appears as self-surrender. Fundamentally it is only love of one’s “instrument,” of one’s “steed”— the conviction that this or that belongs to one because one is in a position to use it). <“Freedom;’ “justice," and “love”!!!this is my fundamental critique of western occultism. greatness is proportional to the greatness of one's world, and within the sphere of the master-slave dialectic, the master's world is ultimately still small as he is involved in the chase after leisure and petty squabbling with other masters. it is only in the case of a stalin, napoleon, caesar, where one's object is shaping the destiny of the whole of a people that there is a true pressure for self-overcoming that would actually lead to world historical greatness. this is why i prefer lysenko's advocacy for the dialectical unity between organism and environment as the main force behind evolution. bergson somewhat saw this when recognizing the meaning of an evolutionary adaptation as the re-enfolding of the greater environment within the organism, but he brought in a vital impetus that pushes the development of the organism in an immediate and general way largely picking up the coarseness of the external environment as an accident (and then the dynamic religion "tunes in" to this vital impetus in a personalistic way). i would rather say that it is because the world itself develops in complexity that the organism follows suit, and so the vital impetus must be non-localized to the point where it no longer subsists within each and every organism, but the soil itself (this is what the nazis could not see with regards to the salience of blood and soil, and what myatt had started to see as he started to articulate Nature as itself a consciousness that inhered within it a determinate aeonic character at a given section of time - the new dynamic religion is one of the greater direction of wyrd and collective primordiality and not just immediate individual creativity)
we can bring in the concept of "meta-modernism" which i believe complements this perspective rather well. what this movement has notices is the tendency for cognitive complexity to erupt ultimately out of social complexity. at a certain level of such social complexity, there is a new meta-paradigmatic shift wherein the subjects of a society begin to think in an increasingly decentered way - from the naivite of pre-modernism to the critical methodological self-consciousness of modernism to the lebensphilosophical self-consciousness of post-modernism to finally the self-consciousness of this process of recursive reflection in the meta-modernistic age
<Such ideas find alignment with a similar vision of the metamodern articulated by author, futurist, and educational theorist Lene Rachel Andersen in her 2019 book Metamodernity: Meaning and Hope in a Complex World. [88] Andersen emphasizes more the complexification of cultural codes in terms of societal complexity than conceptual or informational complexity, but these of course overlap. Like Freinacht, she, too, identifies distinct “cultural codes” that have emerged over the course of human history as societal organization shifted from hunter-gatherer bands to agrarian civilizations to modern states to postmodern multicultural polities. To remain viable units of socio-political cohesion, each new kind of organization demands a novel kind of epistemology and collective imaginary to establish wider, more comprehensive imagined communities. As she succinctly makes the point:<The way 50 people in a tribe of hunter-gatherers organize themselves is very different from the way 50,000,000 people in an industrialized society organize themselves. Their epistemologies are radically different, and so are their collective imaginaries. [89]<As societies scale in complexity, they develop new cultural codes. Thus, for her, the premodern, modern, postmodern, and metamodern cultural codes represent collective imaginaries that have evolved to respond to increasingly complex social contexts. In the process, new ways of making meaning become salient.>>2902586>Notice thus that you do not ask me what I believe, but instead presume to know what I believeif you just raise random points without contextualizing their relevance in any way one can only speculate what is their relevance. it is not on others to contextualize statements, it is on you, especially when it is not clear how those statements have relevance to the discussion. "there are differences" - did anyone deny that there are differences? why are these differences
salient? this is like when people debate on transgenderism, and claim the other side is "denying biological reality" because men and women are different. the biology was never what was in contention but the social salience of these biological differences with regards to cultural norms
"we can generally group people based upon these traits". ok, what do these groupings do for us? if the problem is, for instance intelligence and the issue was genetic, then you would not want to only administrate only to black people (assuming these group differences were actually explainable in terms of polygenic scores, for which there is no evidence for). rather you would want to produce the relevant nootropics and intelligence enhancing technologies that would help everyone that would need it regardless of race. so why do we even talk in terms of different ethnic groups on this point at all? the reason goes back to material conditions. there is often segregation (especially in the us thanks to its history) of different groups of people based upon ethnic background. different communities of people have different accesses of resources. moreover, when organizing distribution, the recognition of any collective differences in need becomes salient for planning where production facilities would be best built and zones where more supply lines should ultimately converge. but we see what really matters at the final analysis is the conditions of determinate communities rather than quantitative groupings. group differences are relevant for us here because of the shared material conditions of particular collectives of people and their shared situation
>>2902664Where nature punishes irrationality, a species develops rational instincts. We have rational instincts of survival.
>>2902756*no longer just subsists
>>2902756>raise random pointsBut I'm not making "points", I am doing the opposite.
Why ought'nt there be racial differences? What stops it?
If there are racial differences, why is that a bad thing?
Are these points or are they counter-points?
>it is not clear how those statements have relevance to the discussionDo you lack reading comprehension? OP begs and pleads for evidence of racial equality, so I ask why it would be necessary. I am then accused of being a bigot. It's thought-terminating nonsense which you are apparently excusing, because others are thoughtless.
>why are these differences salient?If they are, they are. It's unconditional. I have no say in it.
>the biology was never what was in contentionLet's not play dumb. Woke 1.0 is over, remember.
>so why do we even talk in terms of different ethnic groups on this point at all?We don't. It's race-hustlers on the right and left who keep the object of racial difference alive. I am post-racial, which means not caring if Asians take over universities or if African-Americans fail to graduate. Let it all pass. I don't exist to save people from themselves. Be better.
>group differences are relevantYou're free to be locked into an endless race war, if you like.
>>2902779>OP begs and pleads for evidence of racial equalitywhen the discussion is on "racial equality" it is not about whether there are any statistical variables which vary between population groups whatsoever. the negative to 'racial equality' within the bounds of this overarching discussion is superiority. superiority is premised on a set of traits that our society has delineated as particularly important not just for the affairs of running society, but even for delineating the difference between man and animal which ends up determining an implicit cosmological hierarchy. the primary trait that is in contention in these discussions is always intelligence. that person went straight to the point in order to address the differences which actually matter and which anyone actually care about and you are making the ultimately empty statement that there
are differences as though we were having an abstract metaphysical discussion disconnected from facts that are of determinate social concern
>Let's not play dumbhaha no. gender ideologists
always maintained that "gender" was a social construct meanwhile "sex" was biological. the point was always to separate the social from the biological with that gesture. there were fringe cases of people trying to muddy the water with biological fact but such discussions were ultimately besides the point with regards to the fundamental ontology that was being maintained at large
>which means not caring if Asians take over universities or if African-Americans fail to graduateif a lot of people fail to graduate in an increasingly post-industrial society surely that is a problem that requires attention with regards to policy. this stance betrays a lack of seriousness
>You're free to be locked into an endless race war, if you likenotice how i contextualized where group differences are relevant and on that final analysis "race" becomes a secondary phenomenon. so no i dont think there is going to be a race war
>>2902757Nature do not punish or reward rationality. Some traits increase survival in some circusmtances, allowing those carrying it to be more likely to spread them. That's not the same thing as rewarding rationality.
It is not rational to see faces where there is none. And yet this particular quirk is deeply ingrained in our brains because those who saw predators everywhere were more likely to avoid them even if more often than not they were just running away from imaginary threats rather than actual ones.
It seems like you're suffering from a mild case of racism.
There is no cure except amputation of your head from your body, however, you can try getting out your feelings in a safe way by playing Hearts of Iron 4. I specifically recommend playing with TNO enabled.
>You yourself would distinguish between them, correct?
my so-called "intuition" or "common sense" tells me that plants are fundamentally different and separate things from me, but a more thorough examination tells me that we have a lot of similarities and inextricable relationships with one another. humans would not exist without having particular plants to eat and the particular plants humans eat could not exist naturally in such abundance if not for humans selectively breeding and eating them.
>Based on what? On the patterns of reality itself.
and the patterns are just an illusion. our so-called "intuition" or "common sense" tells us that the sun comes up and goes down every day and will continue doing so forever, but a more thorough examination tells us that it doesn't go up or down at all and it's just the rotation of the earth and that in deep time all orbits and rotations are eccentric and temporary and it just looks like a stable repeating infinite pattern from our perspective because of how short our lives are and how limited our perceptions are, but in our normal everyday lives the knowledge of how it really works doesn't really help us and our simplistic and factually-inaccurate "common sense" explanations are good enough to help us plan and survive so we use them and rely on them.
>>2902942>reality isnt realK.
>>2902816>the negative to 'racial equality' within the bounds of this overarching discussion is superiority.No it isn't. I expressly write that differences are not the same as a hierarchy, since the division of labour allows for diversity without external competition. In a complex society (like a complex ecology), we can afford to have all sorts of differences; like how fishes cannot climb trees, but this does not disable them from swimming. It is then one's exclusion from one thing which includes them in another. There is no loss; only a mutual gain. A world without complementary purpose is one set to a universal standard, since it commands an unreal egalité. As I write, "fitness" is about "fitting in"; not dominance.
>intelligenceI.Q. measures "general intelligence", which is a complex statistic, especially within groups. The breadth of I.Q. bands typically measure "creativity", for example, and we have empirical facts that in the Gilded Age, the freed black slaves were extremely inventive people, displaying a high level of creativity. African-Americans have been pioneers of popular culture since the 20th century. We see otherwise that Scandanavians have a narrow I.Q. band, so while being more generally intelligent, they lack creativity. The "high-trust" and "homogeneous" people of the North are largely talentless, which is why they have functional societies, but not important societies. It is the same case with females; that they are more generally intelligent than males, but their narrow I.Q. band leads to a lack of genius, such as we see in males. We could see genius as a type of cognitive disequilibrium, hence really creative people are often mentally ill and/or unpleasant. The racialist ideologies on both the left and right seeks to create a global Scandanavia, and I resist this entirely.
>you are making the ultimately empty statement that there are differencesNo, I am deconstructing ideological derangement. Thus I ask, why would racial differences be bad? This causes the egalitarian to ponder upon their implicit prejudices.
>fundamental ontologyWhich is what?
The transsexual question is inescapably essentialist in its justifications, the same as the homosexual question. The thread between the social and biological is needed.
>surely that is a problem It's a problem with marginal solutions (which requires a much larger discussion), but model of education itself needs reform. General education isn't for everybody. We all knew kids who would be better off somewhere else.
>i dont think there is going to be a race warWhen group differences become politicised, a race war is invoked, since one group is seen to dominate another. The same way female politics is just a sex war against men. All lf this is pure vanity.
>>2903097Don't you see the fallacy of this?
Light refraction is still real.
If "reality" is absolutely unknowable, then how is science possible?
When we type messages to each other, is this just an "illusion"?
>>2903099You are missing the point. Knowledge is never absolute, but relative. The abstractions we build in our brains will always be an approximation of reality. As the overall knowledge increases and models and theories evolve, we get closer to the what reality might be but never quite reaching it, like the curve never reaching the asymptote.
>>2903103When I look at this message, I see due to the photons reflecting off of the surface of my device, and so entering my eye. The eye is a pinhole, and thus by a camera obscura, the image is reversed, but re-settled by my brain's processing. My brain thus flips the raw data of my eyes to the actual reality of the world. The brain is actively processing reality. If not, give some examples of what we are mis-perceiving in the world.
>>2903105In your own example, you literally process a reflection. An approximation. This being aggravated by the fact our senses cannot even perceive the entire spectrum of the stimuli they're supposed to cover. Ultrasonic and infrasonic vibrations are perceived as silence by example
>>2903147All sensation is mediation, but all sensation confers reality to us.
You aren't saying that we can't know reality, but only that our knowledge is limited; precisely, but artificial instruments also allow us to perceive what is hidden from sight and sound. A reflection of photons is still a transmission of accurate information, is it not?
>>2903151>All sensation is mediation, but all sensation confers reality to us.From sensation we get phenomena. Not noumena. Even if multiplying sources of stimuli and experiences get us closer to what
is, ultimately we'll always stuck on the side of phenomena.
>A reflection of photons is still a transmission of accurate informationNo. Else there wouldn't be such thing as optical illusions. Your brain turn stimuli into data and data into information. Wheter it's accurate or not depend on paradigms, framing, context.
Treating the surrounding as a flat surface works insofar you walk around or put a ball somewhere and it doesn't roll over. Even though observing the same place from afar reveal the curve and roundness of the world, but keener instrumentation will reveal the irregularities making earth not a perfectly regular shere.
>>2903160And to build upon that. coming back to the picture I posted here
>>2903097Is the line actually straight or broken? You know from light diffraction that simply plunging a straw in water do not break it, that's an optical illusion, The line is actually staight. But the picture of this situation isn't actually the straw in the water. the line materializing on the screen is indeed broken.
As the chinese says, one mountain, several landscapes.
>>2903160>>2903162>From sensation we get phenomena. Not noumena.From sensation we get reliable results. We receive reality.
Your philosophical gobbledygook is irrelevant. If not, tell me how.
>multiplying sources of stimuli and experiences get us closer to what isWhat? When I look at something, I am seeing that thing for what it is within the visible light spectrum. I am receiving its wavelength. There are unknown aspects to it, but does that make our perception lesser, or just different? It is impossible to see in both infrared and ultraviolet, but that doesn't make one "less" or "more" than the other. It's the same.
>optical illusionsBut an optical illusion is still real. It isn't spontaneous.
When a creature camoflauges, it is testing the senses of other creatures, and so illusions are taken into consideration by nature, no?
>Wheter it's accurate or not depend on paradigms, framing, context. Notice how you are viewing knowledge theoretically, not practically. The accuracy of information is proven by our sexual reproduction and survival. If we survive, we accurately act against potential dangers.
>>2903163>From sensation we get reliable results. We receive reality.You see something looking like a face in the dark, you process that as someone trying to jump on you, you flee. You actually ran away from a pile of rocks and tree branchs rustled by the wind. The threat was real only in your head that is in no way
accurate. Yet that's still a
reliable response because the benefits of escaping a threat once outweight the inconvenience of running away from shadows every couple evenings. Unless you're supposed to watch over the area and not raise false alarms every fucking time. Then what once was reliable became a hindrance.
Reality =/= Functionality, both being dependant on context and therefore relative and not absolute. Wheter or not a using the ace against the king is a winning move depend on the rule of the game if that's not clear for you.
>>2903171We can misinterpret things, but the function itself reflects reality.
That's why I say that survival instincts count as knowledge.
The knowledge that [falling = bad] is not just functional, but true.
The knowledge is unconscious, inherent and real.
The issue is that you seem to be isolating "reality" as something unknowable in itself, but if this is so, whence cometh knowledge? What is the relationahip between reality and knowledge to you?
>>2903173>The knowledge that [falling = bad] is not just functional, but true.Falling = bad isn't true by itself. Falling in the context of diving, rope jumping or parachuting isn't something to be avoided but a way to get a high.
inb4
>But it doesn't count because it's not true falling if it's controlled/securedIf someone decide to an heroby jumping of a bridge, the falling = bad become falling = good.
Context context context.
>The issue is that you seem to be isolating "reality" as something unknowable in itself.My issue is that you consistently treat something relative as absolute.
Either reality is absolute truth, the philosophical graal of the thing in itself and it is unknowable or at best approximatively knowable. Or reality means the subjective sum of our understanding, perceptions and assumptions about the world and that means reality is relative to the observer and their context. A wasp and a human will perveive and interpret the world differently, either both fail to truly grasp what's real because of their own limitations, or both exists within their own reality, both being valid from their respective standpoint.
>>2903185>ContextSo would you say that instincts are irrational because they do not contextualise phenomena? Babies instinctively resist touching grass, but grass in itself is harmless, therefore the instinct is irrational? I would say that the heritage of an instinct acts as genetic memory, and so must encode the correctness of something, even if not immediate.
>reality is relative to the observer and their context>both exists within their own reality>both being validBut we share the same reality. It is self-enclosed.
We perceive differently, but our perceptions are still real.
There are no contradictions between the differences.
>>2903086>In a complex society (like a complex ecology), we can afford to have all sorts of differencesthis is not at all necessary. horses also have a difference with cars but the former has just gotten turned to horse meat because now that their primary function is irrelevant, their only use became their flesh (outside of course where horse races are a thing, but the majority of horses could not attend them and had to die). in an increasingly post-industrial society, the knowledge economy takes the centre stage, and such jobs
seem (there can of course be critiques on this point) to select for intelligence to harsher degrees. of course the idea that certain groups of people will just be turned into biodiesel when they are passed their use is a very liberal framing, nevertheless it is a framing that reflects our mode of production where those who can not adapt to the constraints of our society are left to die
>The breadth of I.Q. bands typically measure "creativity"not sure where you are getting this from. there is also no evidence that group autism score differences can be explained by polygenic scores as has already been established so you have been retroactively refuted. that post they made has hence actually hit quite true with regards to where you have placed yourself discursively
>This causes the egalitarian to ponder upon their implicit prejudices.i already pointed out the prejudices involved. it has never been a generic discussion about differences. we all know what differences have been deemed the most socially salient and hence ultimately what is in contention. this is like when race realists try and pretend they are not racist because "we all know blacks can run faster" -
no one cares about running, let us be honest with ourselves here. what is next, violent crime is another generic "group difference" for which our hierarchical judgements are just arbitrary? come on man. notice how you try and soften the autism score point by bringing in "creativity", but notice that is just another variable that our society has clearly deemed more important than all of the rest, and there are only a finite number of such variables
>It's a problem with marginal solutionswould the reformation of the entire education system in order to accommodate group differences really just be a "marginal solution"?>Which is what?already pointed what it was. the ontology has been partially elaborated by judith butler who was not even thinking about trans issues at all but still nevertheless emphasized "gender performativity", and before that there was a distinction made between a "psychological sex" and a physiological one
>The transsexual question is inescapably essentialist in its justificationsare you referring to brain scan studies? the point of these was affirm a innate predisposition towards particular social roles. it was not a statement that trans women literally had biological vaginas because of neuronal patterns or whatever. there were no biological variations which were actually denied, so the reduction of it to that was absurd. i do agree that some attempts to tie justify transgenders have ultimately been problematic with regards to the ontology as it would seem to undermine its feminist non-essentialist basis, but i also dont think transsexuality should have much to do with gender at all - that to me is a superficial trace
>When group differences become politicised, a race war is invokedif we compare the living conditions of a rich white city and a poor white town down the road in order to formulate policies, does this lead to a race war? no, that makes no sense. if i am deciding things based off of geographic area and the relative development of concrete communities, then the question of race has been bracketed. china has affirmative action and does not care for any race war. the country simply proceeds from the premise of bringing its more developmentally backwards parts out of the conditions they are in to fully complete its industrial revolution. there is no race-based slave moralizing but sober policy based upon what is necessary to raise the entire country up. it is race realists meanwhile who, as i have already pointed out, are all right libertarians looking for a way to argue against affirmative action and conclude that the state of the world is ultimately the system working as it should be
>eco ego99% of species have gone extinct before humans came and we have brought in several mass extinction events on our own. and of course we all know the one trait that is why man became the apex super predator of the entire planet. if you want to deconstruct that go ahead but if you give credit to people's beliefs that are not ultimately grounded in actual evidence, dont complain if people are going to level preemptive arguments against your statements
>>2903188Instinct are behavoir inherited from previous generations who lived and died in an environment differing from our own. An automatic response might once have been adequate in a given situation might become useless or counterproductive in an other.
It's especially patent in humans because we modify the environment in which we evolve -deliberately or accidentally- way faster than our overal genepool change.
>so must encode the correctness of somethingWhat's encoded is the behaviour increasing the probability of survival in the context in which natural selection favorised said behavior. Or at the very least insufficiently hindered the survival of the individuals displaying the behavior to weed them out before they reproduced.
>There are no contradictions between the differences.There are. Take pic rel. Do you see a six or a nine? It should be one or the other, after all something cannot be both A and non A. But contradictions can be solved in different ways depending of how you look at it.
Reality is absolute truth. There is no 6 or 9. People arguing over a circle fused with a comma on which they are forcing an arbitrary meaning.
Reality is relative to the observer. The symbol is a six if you are the character on the left, a 9 if you are the character on the right. If they were wiser, they would realize how it looks from the other's perspective and the symbol is both a 6 and a 9.
>>2899471>Contrarian take: Read Richard Hanania.mods should delete this thread lol. look at this final few posts, a literal retard discovering phenomenology from first principles. obviously the discussion has veered so far from anything resembling the original topic because bad faith racialists will invariably move the conversation of racial science to the metaphysical because that's always where their backwards comprehension of genetics had any leg to stand on to begin with, and they will attempt to drag everyone to this , frankly, midwit level of discussion.
>>2903193>their primary functionI'm not an anthropocentrist so I reject this framing.
>post-industrial societyThere is no post-industrial society. Industry is exported, not destroyed.
>the knowledge economyWhat does this mean, exactly?
You don't need knowledge to flip burgers.
>I.Q. You can apply the variability hypothesis to groups:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesisThe extent of distribution aligns with the threshold hypothesis of sufficient creativity as well, showing that while creativity (e.g. divergent thinking) correlates with I.Q. it also loses correlation around 120 I.Q. where the levels of divergent thinking often sink below 80 I.Q. and so if we take creativity in genders and apply it to normal distribution between racial groups, it is the same. So, if I.Q. is selected to be higher in general, creativity lessens. Creativity is also shown to differ between individualist and collectivist cultures. So, "homogenous" cultures are less creative, from (i) narrow I.Q. and (ii) collectivism. A basic example is Mongolians, who have higher average I.Q. than Europeans, yet are less creative. Inventions:
<With 50,000 total patents, Black people accounted for more inventions during this period than immigrants from every country except England and Germany.https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-black-innovators-who-elevated-the-united-states-reassessing-the-golden-age-of-invention/So, average I.Q. is less important than creative potential.
>no evidence that group autism score differences can be explained by polygenic scoresCan you elaborate on what you mean here, please?
>you try and soften the autism score point by bringing in "creativity"I am not pitiful toward the blacks, as many people are. I am not "softening" anything, but am presenting the fact that "intelligence" is a relative concept, not absolute.
>reformation of the entire education system in order to accommodate group differencesIsn't this already the failed policies of the egalitarians? I am not very considerate of group differences in this regard, but individual differences. Some kids would be better off learning a trade rather than learning maths.
>psychological sexI don't think its coherent to separate sex from gender.
What is a sexless gender, or genderless sex?
>are you referring to brain scan studies?No, I am referring to the discourse itself. The conviction of transsexual identity is not based in frivolous "play", but a modern myth of self-discovery. It is a confession of faith, which is why it takes a radically subjective form. If it was a "choice", it wouldn't be so dramatic, would it?
>feminismI think the TERFs are right that transsexualism is against the feminist movement, but I am not a feminist, either.
>affirmative actionI am against all "positive discrimination", personally. I support the absolute freedom of association. The real difficulty of the Civil Rights Movement was that it was acting against an already-existing racial protectionism, but in approaching it, simply reversed the matter, rather than abolishing it altogether. Ideas of forced integration like with busing is oxymoronic. De-segregation contains the voluntary association of different races, however. An error was the adoption of Race Relations acts in the UK which projected American circumstances onto Britain.
>>2903234>instinctIf you could get rid of instinct, would you?
>6 or 9These are propositions, not observations.
There are no contradictions between the two.
>Reality is absolute truth.So begs the question…
Does absolute truth actually exist?
If not, you are saying "reality isn't real"; a contradiction.
I say instead that "reality is real"; an axiom.
>>2903282I'm not eager to get rid of a part of myself. Understanding instinct, being critical of it, following it when it's use of me, discard it when it's not. Simple as.
>These are propositions, not observations.Now who's playing on words and engaging in gobbledygook?
>Does absolute truth actually exist?Depend how you understand truth. You can equate absolute truth to noumena, the thing in itself, the objectivity of the reality existing independently from the observer. In that case absolute truth is something that exists out of our reach.
Or truth is a purely mental construct, depending on framing and context. Santa Claus live in the north pole is a lie when you take into consideration that Santa Claus isn't an actual person. Santa Claus live in the north is a truth in the context of what is the commonly accepted lore of the Santa Claus myth. In that case, absolute truth doesn't exists. It is always relative.
>If not, you are saying "reality isn't real"; a contradictionThat's a paradox. And "reality is real" is a tautology, not an axiom.
Both proposition results from poor framing of the subject, conflating several adjacent yet distinct concepts. Typically happening when you dismiss epistemotology and philosophy as mumbo jumbo. Then you melt truth, objectivity, existence, reality and knowledge into a vibe based "it is what it is".
>>2903386>wordplayIf I see 9 and you see 6, we see the same thing from different angles, but there is no contradiction. The contradiction is proposing that (x) is 9, which excludes (x) being 6. They are both correct, by their condition. Logically stated, (x) = 6/9, IF (y), and so on. The medium is then the given perspective. It is true that it cannot be 6 and 9 according to the same condition, but this is like the infrared/ultraviolet example.
>absolute truth is something that exists If we cannot know it, how do you know about it?
How can you say an unknowable thing is unknowable?
>And "reality is real" is a tautology, not an axiom.Axioms can be tautological, like A=A.
I am demonstrating the self-identity of reality with itself.
>dismiss epistemotologyWhat is the epistemology which speculates about noumena?
>it is what it isYes - this is the unconditional nature of things.
Reality is real, no matter what we imagine about it.
>>2903277>I'm not an anthropocentrist so I reject this framing.it doesnt matter how you feel about the framing. we bred the horses and they died when their use
for us (because that is the only thing that actually matters within the bounds of discussion) was expired
>Industry is exported, not destroyed.yes, doesnt change the fact that is the the state of the mode of production we are living in in, and presumably if automation increased at some later point in time, the shift towards the knowledge economy would persist
>You don't need knowledge to flip burgers.burger flipping pays minimum wage and doesnt give you much social mobility in our current economy now does it
>The extent of distribution […]no.
>Can you elaborate on what you mean here, please?actually looking at the actual genes that correlate with intelligence and their representation in blacks and whites, there has been nothing that suggests the achievement gap is genetic
https://r.jordan.im/download/racism/bird2021.pdf>I don't think its coherent to separate sex from gender.it is perfectly coherent. gender corresponds to social norms typically subjected to a particular sex, many of which do not immediately follow from immediate primary and secondary sexual characteristics. there are cultures where males perform social roles that were normatively reserved for females. hence their gender was different from their sex. we can see the explanatory merit this distinction serves anthropologically as a purely functional description
>I am not very considerate of group differences in this regard, but individual differenceswhy defend the vague existence of group differences and the individuation of particular groups of people then? there is no reason for you to even commit to these distinct groups within your ontology given your purported approach to politics. the result is you making uncontextualized observations without any real skin in the game with regards to concrete policy
>If it was a "choice", it wouldn't be so dramatic, would it?the dichotomy between a gender being ontologically a social property and the transsexual phenomenon being more than a choice is a false one
>Ideas of forced integration like with busing is oxymoronicaffirmative action does not necessarily mean forced integration, and that is not china's perspective with respect to the policy. what they care about is the development of communities, not being fair to individuals
>>2903396also to be clear i dont think intelligence is absolutely important, but i dont like the laissez-faire attitude of "yeah well of course there are group differences but we should just care about individuals and they dont actually matter from a bird's eye view .." then get confused when people preemptively correct you that with regards to the differences that actually matter in our current society, these things are not actually very obviously liable to a genetic explanation. i also see the whole ecological imagination of seamless harmony as naive. it doesnt actually reflect how things work as it stands. if that is the perspective you want to bring to the table you need to put in more work into it (a lot more) and not just take it as a given
>>2903396>>2903405>burger flipping pays minimum wage and doesnt give you much social mobility in our current economy now does itYes, and?
It's impossible to create upward mobility for all people.
I have chosen to live a pathetic life of poverty myself.
>nothing that suggests the achievement gap is geneticRight, so regardless, let the chips fall where they may.
If there are no hard problems, we don't require extra resources.
>it is perfectly coherentYou're misunderstanding.
Is there a sexless gender? A genderless sex?
You are invoking gender as the threshold of sexual failure, and I don't disagree, but gender is still entirely relative and derivative of sex.
>why defend the vague existence of group differencesI don't "defend" anything. If group differences exist, they exist.
I am perfectly fine with differences existing. I see no problem.
>concrete policyI don't especially believe in politicising race. Sorry.
If there is no genetic disparity, there is no need for subsidisation.
>harmonyAgain, harmony is not a "policy", it is the lack of policy. Natural order.
People are different so will do different things. It's not complicated.
>>2903394>If I see 9 and you see 6, we see the same thing from different angles, but there is no contradiction. The contradiction is proposing that (x) is 9, which excludes (x) being 6. They are both correct, by their condition. Logically stated, (x) = 6/9, IF (y), and so on. The medium is then the given perspective. It is true that it cannot be 6 and 9 according to the same condition, but this is like the infrared/ultraviolet example.The point is it it can be both or none. The contradiction is solved by the framing. And framing you just did in your reply.
>If we cannot know it, how do you know about it?Now that's when axioma come in handy. You postulate that there is something rather than nothing.
>I am demonstrating the self-identity of reality with itself.That's just a claim. Not a demonstration.
>What is the epistemology which speculates about noumena?The one that concerns itself with its limits? The one that sees science and knowledge as the study of phenomena. The noumena being what's outside of its domain and can only be matter of speculation, and as such an eternal mystery or a complete waste of time.
>- this is the unconditional nature of things. Reality is real, no matter what we imagine about it.That's an empty sentence. You're just saying "there is something rather than nothing" with extra steps. There is something. Cool. Doesn't tell us to what extent what we know is true or if it is possible to truly know at all.
>>2903105the eye isn't like a camera at all, it's not a lens, it's not made of transparent material, it's a completely opaque lump of frontal brain tissue that absorbs photons and uses that information to construct extremely elaborate simulated mental pictures by way of incomprehensibly complex high-level neural processing that we will probably never understand.
>>2903409>It's impossible to create upward mobility for all people.that is where you are wrong. also see how your stance basically on a final analysis capitulates to the politics of race realists who are content condemning large sections of the population to poverty because hey there are "differences" (while bracketing out obviously more pertinent historical factors). compare your response to the op to mine
>>2899524 to see the gap in responsibility
>but gender is still entirely relative and derivative of sexso? why does this matter concretely? if there are people that are disposed to prefer a particular social role than another,
where is the denial of biology?>If there is no genetic disparity, there is no need for subsidisationsubsidisation is still useful for encouraging the development of particular localities instead of just letting them rot away. this should be basic nation building fundamentals as opposed to the clown show that is the west
>Natural orderso if you are gravely ill you dont bother taking any medicine to treat it? our current mode of production is not "natural order"
>>2903409>harmony is not a "policy", it is the lack of policy. Natural order.NTA but no it is not. First of all there is no lack of policy in human societies. The so called laissez-faire is itself a policy. People do not exists in a vacuum.
Natural order itself is bollocks concept. At best you have a metastable equilibrium allowing an ecosystem to perpetuate for a time. Anaerobic life was the "natural order" until they got marginalized by aerobic life because anaerobic lifeforms "polluted" eath with oxygen until it became hostile to themselves safe from a few niches.
>>2903418>There is something. Cool. Doesn't tell us to what extent what we know is true or if it is possible to truly know at all.Our senses reveal reality
If you don't believe that, you live in delusion
There's nothing more to say
>>2903427If everything is policed, what is the policy of nature as a whole?
There is none. As you say, there is equilibrium, with disturbances that balance themselves into further equilibriums. That is harmony.
>>2903422>you are wrongTry being deductive. Mobility is mutually excluded by competition.
If we all rise, what are we rising relative to? There must be those at the bottom for others to be on the top.
>condemning large sections of the population to povertyWhich populations? The condemnation is self-inflicted, as in my case. I am a lazy lumpen who refuses to work. I am simply one of many.
>historical factorsWhich historical factors made me poor? Tell me.
Save me from myself, why don't you?
>so? So, you cannot absolutely separate gender from sex
>our current mode of production is not "natural order"I never claimed it was. Natural order would mean deconstructing the industrial revolution. It would be all for the best. Marx himself explains quite clearly that centralised, capitalist production requires violence.
>>2903429Our senses perceive and… That' all they do.
From thoses perception and its ability to attribute meaning, your brain perform a reconstruction which is either reality itself or the approximation of reality, depending once again on how you define reality.
But to insist upon making the reconstruction of the outside world and the outside world itself one and the same is the surest way to make yourself vulnerable to delusions.
>>2903430>If everything is policed, what is the policy of nature as a whole?Nature is not policed. Society is. It is inevitable from the moment there is any degree of social organization, whether they're the result of laws or customs.
>That is harmonyNo it is not. Harmony imply some degree of concord or cooperation. An equilibrium do not have to be harmonious.
>>2903436All sensory data is factual. All sensation is real.
>An equilibrium do not have to be harmonious.Can you give any examples?
>>2903450>All sensory data is factual. All sensation is real.Empty sentence once more. Because you amalgate "truth" "existence" and "real" you are basically claiming hallucinations are real.
I will however refuse to make such confusion. Instead I will make claim that there are such thing as sensory data and sensations, that they
exists, but that they can be misleading , incomplete or erroneous. Which can make them
not true.
>Can you give any examples?An encysted abcess.
>>2903430>what are we rising relative to?relative to concrete conditions so that there arent cities with people drinking lead water and living in 3rd world conditions
>The condemnation is self-inflictedthe cia peddling drugs to black americans then starting a war on drugs to imprison large populations of the black male population destabilizing families was "self-inflicted"?
>Which historical factors made me poor?proletarianization wherein the peasants were slowly dispossessed of their land and forced to work wages while unable to afford any substantial property for themselves, and the lack of the socialization of the economy leading to the commons being gradually neglected in favour of private profit
>So, you cannot absolutely separate gender from sexno one claimed they are not correlated so you have not made a salient point
>Natural order would mean deconstructing the industrial revolutionso now you advocate for anarcho-primitivism or what?
>>2899246>I have been brainwashed by rightist propaganda into believing that human ethnicities or "races" have differing skills a capabilities because of biological factorsyou can disprove this by working in retail, where you learn that every race is equally retarded
Every time a smart, beautiful or good person dies the cosmos balances this out by also killing off an equal amount of smartness, beauty and goodness in every other race to preserve the divine mandate of shitlib equality. Only schizoid chud nazis disagree.
you guys sure do become highly motivated and talkative whenever the subject of scientific racism comes up. someone tries to talk about something legitimate like labor rights or economic sustainability on this site and it's crickets chirping, but someone talks about autism score and white birth rates and negroid skull dimensions and an entire russian novel's worth of text is generated.
>>2903826>Hallucinations are "real" even if "untrue"No. hallucinations exist but the entire point of the concept is that they aren't real.
Honestly if it was technically possiblen, there should be a worldfilter for real and reality just your posts. You just can't be trusted with thoses word you snivelling weasel.
>>2903880meant for
>>2903822 >>2903825funniest shit I've ever read
>>2903880So things can exist without being real?
Existence is an aspect of reality. Reality is primary.
<Existence is the state of having being or realityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence<Reality is the totality of existencehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealityIf existence precedes reality, can existence be unreal?
And further, can non-existence have reality?
>>2903912>simply unable to make ends meet*simply unable to find a job and make ends meet
>>2903912>something simply wrongWhat did I say that was wrong?
>calling it self-inflicted is ridiculousWhat causes people to be on welfare for their whole life? Themselves.
I think people should have the freedom to choose poverty.
It is a valid lifestyle choice to be unemployed and lazy, no?
>your choices are parametrized by the conditions you live inYes, and while some rise above, others sink to the bottom.
Being born poor is not a condemnation to further poverty.
>voluntarism also does not generalize to large populationsYes it does; all people are self-determined. We all have choices.
>historical conditions at workSo everyone who is poor is a victim of someone else?
Why is it inconceivable that many people prefer poverty?
As I say, the poor whites around me are "uygha rich" all the same.
It's not a racial thing; its a disposition to economic irresponsibility.
>>2903933>What causes people to be on welfare for their whole life?deindustrialization, the destabilization of family unit, the fact that jobs do not pay enough (there are plenty of people who are on welfare who do actually work). all of these factors lead to small opportunities and further alienation which might manifest as "laziness" at the subjective level
>We all have choicesdoesn't mean such choices exist in a vacuum from material reality. imagine a peasant being like "well i am just lazy so i am not going to work". it would basically never happen. even the attitude of just being "lazy" in this context is a process of lumpenization that presupposes prior proletarianization
>So everyone who is poor is a victim of someone else?i dont care for moralism with regards to the actions of individuals. what i care about civilizational development
Dont care. I wont live to see hidweh shit communism. I wont alter muh dna to get bibisi and have seggs. I will die an incel chud. To me, because of my short lifespan genes is metaphysic that cant be changed, now die beautiful lady😍🥰. Well, at least beautiful lady😍🥰s also wont get their wish either.
>>2901515Commies are determinists though. Youz talking about fatalism
Whats a hidweh?
>>2901515Hey sure mane. Ive seen bordiggers say how there hasnt yet been a healthy human being yet so, wez all equally subhumans to future communist society members who will look back at us with contempt. Kinda cucky of communists innit, to bring about the existence of people who will see us as lesser, as subhumans subjugated and broken by capitalism.
Materialist explanation for transes being better at knowledge economy? By transes i mean transwomen. Nobody cares about da pooners
>>2904609rna nasal sprays and nootropics are all here already. crispr is here already. bioelectric technology is currently being developed and tested on smaller organisms. they have already been able to stimulate certain organisms to grow extra organs, regenerate limbs, slow the proliferation of cancer, and such
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abj2164https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3587383/https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/14/6/1499>I will die an incel chudthe ultimate problem is that you have a loser mindset. the online right wing has come to celebrate decadence and anti-social behaviour because it now just appeals to weak failed males ("chuds") who are addicted to their screens. imagine if there was a biotechnology program as large as america's military industrial complex given the shocking progress we have already been making? naturally such a thing shall be built when we conquer the continent
>>2904613call it whatever you want. there is a difference between base determining the superstructure (in the last instance) and the idea that humans can never change what they are. the latter contradicts marx's understanding of species being
>>2904614https://hidwehproject.nekoweb.org/pages/zine/lithp.html>>2904630>Kinda cucky of communists innitthis is cuckold projection. instead of seeing yourself cultivating virtue, gradually becoming a higher being, and actively participating in cosmic evolution, you have chosen to interpret it as just being about someone else. notice how one of you guys has already referenced "bibisi" $$$ironically$$$. that just goes to show where you are at spiritually
>>2904655Well you are a beautiful lady😍🥰 plus i have no free will so whatever.
>>2904655Humans as a species do change but individuals dont. They are prisoners of fate. Fate is real.
>>2904655>muh virtueIndividualism voluntarism activism
>>2904655I was hoping for a wikipedia page.
>>2904659>>2904663the slave wallows about "fate", the higher man recognizes that he
is fate
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm<The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.>>2904664what do you think the vanguard consists in? the most virtuous men and women who have realized they have a higher cosmic responsibility. you can align with cosmic destiny or you can cope. just know "fate" is just a name you have placed on your own self-limitation
>>2904672Ye, i was wondering about le vanguard being le best of the species or some shit. Didnt say anything about free will though. You might as well consider yourself elected by fate, by capital
>>2904672>canYeah? How? You iz a doodoohead, just as much a product of capitalism as i am.
>>2904672Vanguard wont be ready for the last and only chance.
Race is real, people differ in ther capacity and many of those capacities are inborn, the problems is that rightoids use this fact to justify oppression and other abhorrent ideas, on the other side many leftist prefer to deny those differences or straight up shut down any debate about it for fear of racism, with giving the history is somewhat justifying morally but scientifically problematic.
>>2904688>race is real That is called a relative truth. Scientists will abolish race and then it will be "race was real" or some shit
>>2904688Race is real like how money is real.
>>2899246The best way is simply to not to engage with rightoids and put yourself in a position where everyone is racist around you. Humans are social animals mimic the behaviour of other ingroup members as a survival mechanism.
>>2904692>>2904696Physical difference between races exist, the more politically problematic is whether Behavioral difference exist between race, and if those are inborn, I believe that some are inborn, other not, some time ago there was study done on DNA of ancient people, they found that different groups had difference in the distribution of genes that make them tall or other physical difference, now they don't look at genes for intelligence, that would be extremely controversial.
>>2904725Read the thread. Apparently, they did.
>>2904729Sure, now that we found races varies on mental ability, what would you do with that knowledge? You could go the rightoid route and kill and opress people, or you could go the leftist route and actually help an uplift the less bright races so they can enjoy a better life like the more bright races. Those are the only options I see when you find that race varies on intelectual capacity.
>>2904778an exit from people who couldn't invent the wheel is much more easier then turning them into regular first worlders
>>2904786We have the tech right now that help select embryo by autism score, if we do that do does less bright people, in a couple of generations they will converge to the bright people, and even if we continuing selecting we could make a race of genius, no need to genocide or other abhorrent ideas, we can help them with modern day tech we have.
>>2904790literally impossible to do en mass
>>2904797It is possible, just have free embryo selection clinics as so people can use them without let this tech just he used by rich people to make super babies.
>>2904797*impossible to do with our current financial system which has slowed the progress of productive forces and even deindustrialized the economy
corrected it for you liberal
if nietzsche wasnt retarded he would have been a communist
>>2904790you're talking about domesticating human beings into racing horses and show dogs. instead of a wild genotype with a broad diverse set of attributes dictated by the random chaos of the universe and the process of natural selection which favors general survivability and adaptability, you want a domesticated genotype with a narrow uniform set of attributes dictated by the political/intellectual/economic elite which favors obedience and usefulness at performing specific jobs or fulfilling specific roles for an owner or operator.
maybe you see nothing wrong with this because you've been wired like a good obedient company man your entire life, but believe it or not you're just one person and just because you are content with debasing yourself and selling yourself short and being a subhuman tool doesn't mean that the billions of other people have to be okay with it.
i suspect that you probably see yourself as an intellectual and the development of your personal ideology is probably following the usual arc of paternalistic liberal elitism gradually metastasizing into authoritarian fascist elitism as your patience for having to live in a world that you cannot control or rule or understand begins to run out, sort of like a spoiled child who becomes increasingly belligerent and irate every time they don't get exactly what they want. the good news is, you are not alone, not by a long shot. the bad news is, you and others like you are never going to get what you want because even if you manage to sell everyone in the world on your ideas, you're never going to change the mind of the aforementioned random chaotic universe which will inevitably undo everything you manage to accomplish.
How is this the top thread rn? Any reasonable person would just ignore this bait, you guys are such idiots
>>2904866racist retard now wokescolding HAHAHAHAH. you will be put into a labor camp
>>2904870i'm already in a labor camp, it's called "the world", you will soon be sent there to work as well when your parents die or run out of money or get sick of taking care of you
>>2904866Let me ask you this: Would you prefer that "random chaos of the universe" dictate the life of people? Should we give birth to people that WILL suffer because you simplify don't like to mess with nature's odd and probability? You sound like a ludist afraid of technology.
>>2904778btw what has been established in this thread was that we have looked at the genes and have found no actual differences so the thread simply has no factual basis for it
>>2904877no no no you dont understand little brother. we will develop the productive forces to the point where everyone will only have to work 1 hour a day, but you specifically will be forced to work 12
>>2904883*no differences that would actually predict anything rather
>>2899246There is a superior race but you are not a part of it.
>>2904881>Would you prefer that "random chaos of the universe" dictate the life of people?yes i would. i would sooner fall victim to the spatially/temporally broad and uniform and indiscriminate chaos of general existence than to a highly concentrated and volatile and novel distillation of it that hundreds of thousands of years of accumulated experience and biological adaptation could never have prepared me for. i would sooner suffer a drought or a famine or the planet freezing over than have to suffer one insane egomaniacal trillionaire with a lot of zany ideas about how to re-invent the world.
>>2904964And yet you use a computer. Curious.
>>2904964Yeah, bro, sure as hell you prefer to die of famine instead of just using the last tech gadget, because tue tech is evil or something.
Man, sometimes I wonder if I'm talking to a edge teen or a actual adult.
>>2904883>everyone will only have to work 1 hour a day, but you specifically will be forced to work 12good. have fun sitting on your ass getting fatter and weaker and stupider by the minute while i get stronger and smarter and meaner, let's see if your clever little robot toys can protect you forever from horde of vengeful bloodthirsty remorseless psychopaths who aren't afraid of pain or death and will patiently wait decades for one tiny little slip-up or tunnel through hundreds of feet of concrete with a rusty spoon just to get to you and your lovely family.
>>2904978>>2904980yeah that's right keep strawmanning, it's all you've got.
>>2904985>have fun sitting on your ass getting fatter and weaker and stupiderwhy do you assume we wouldnt use biotechnology to improve our biological fitness beyond human boundaries while you toil away mining coal in the middle of nowhere? you will have a bomb placed inside your skull so the moment you think anything retarded your head will explode too
see that is the thing. you can only think small because your mind is small
>>2904989>why do you assume we wouldnt use biotechnology to improve our biological fitness beyond human boundaries while you toil away mining coal in the middle of nowhere?because no matter how sophisticated your technology is, the laws of thermodynamics cannot be circumvented. the body must expend its own energy and strain and overload its own muscles to become stronger, same goes for the mind which must expend its own energy forging and reforging neural pathways to become stronger. there can be no shortcuts for this, those baby einstein tapes and electric muscle stimulators and oscillating rubber belt machines from the 1940s are all quackery, that scene in the matrix where they rebuild neo's atrophied muscles with electric acupuncture needles was just sci-fi movie magic. also, if your amazing utopian society has the technology to regenerate and revitalize the body and create immortal superhuman demigods, then why would it be reliant on coal and slave labor for its energy needs?
>>2904839impossible to do en mass
regardless of financial system
>>2904964>i would sooner suffer a drought or a famine or the planet freezing over than have to suffer one insane egomaniacal trillionaireThere are more than 2 options dude.
>>2905041>there can be no shortcuts for thisExcept easily available anabolic steroids.
>>2905115nope. your mind is limited because you take liberalism for granted. china can easily build entire cities and high speed railways with a snap of the finger meanwhile it takes the west years to even do road maintenance because the latter is in perpetual civilizational decay
>>2905147gorillas are highly active nomadic animals and spend their days trekking through miles and miles of wilderness to forage enough stems and leaves and fruit to feed their enormous bodies and gathering materials and building new sleeping nests every day and warring with rival tribes for territory and seeking and fighting over mates and protecting their young from predators and being continually displaced by human encroachment and are sexually active year-round and do not hibernate. a species doesn't just suddenly evolve into a 500 pound hulking mass of solid muscle for no reason.
>>2902512>Whether or not you find it more commonly in said ethnic groups is the point you should have tried to make, but even then, it's not safe to say it's the reason "Africans do sport good", and doesn't then lead to the greater jump of arguing cognitive differences because it sounds like a nice "just so" story.My point is that when genes that relate to a general higher improved performance among black people, are discovered, they are loudly and proudly shouted about, but somehow magically, there is no difference between human ethnicities despite gene distribution being noticeably different.
>and doesn't then lead to the greater jump of arguing cognitive differences because it sounds like a nice "just so" story.Again, the point I will always make, humans are animals, there have been human ethnicities literally isolated for tens of thousands of years, there is no logical reason why intelligence or behaviour would not be affected by different genes and hormone distribution like they are in literally every other species of animal. But of course, you, like most Geneticists, rely on anthropocentrism as cope.
I accept 19th century race science is bullshit, I even accept the concept of large bloc races being bullshit, but I do there there are genuinely differences both physically and behaviourally, at a general level, between ethnicities even if those differences may be small or varied within the population itself.
>>2905157>a species doesn't just suddenly evolve into a 500 pound hulking mass of solid muscle for no reasondoesnt matter. we will be the ones guiding evolution while you will stay gay and retarded, forever
>>2905157also even a domesticated gorilla will rip your face off hahahaha what is this cope?
>>2904778The Piraha people are the happiest people in the world, and it's probable they wouldn't test as being too intelligent, by industrial society standards anyway. We would be idiots by their standards. Moreover, smart people tend to be better at exploiting others, a world of "smart people" would be hell.
>>2905428>also even a domesticated gorilla will rip your face offyeah i learned that the hard way when i was fucking your mother
>My point is that when genes that relate to a general higher improved performance among black people, are discovered,
They weren't, and even stretching it in the way that you want to, it wasn't even in regards to black americans.
>they are loudly and proudly shouted about,
If you don't at all understand that the media is sensationalist about discoveries they don't fully understand and has a racist undercurrent to it, after being on this board presumably this long, I don't know what to tell you. "Blacks are good at X because of Y gene" is an old trope that people lean into the confirmation of because it's a satisfactory narrative that denies all historical context or nuance.
>but somehow magically, there is no difference between human ethnicities despite gene distribution being noticeably different.
Read what I said before, because you obviously didn't.
>Again, the point I will always make, humans are animals, there have been human ethnicities literally isolated for tens of thousands of years, there is no logical reason why intelligence or behaviour would not be affected by different genes and hormone distribution like they are in literally every other species of animal. But of course, you, like most Geneticists, rely on anthropocentrism as cope.
<You, and the people who have done the work, rely on cope, while I who knows nothing about the subject outside of memes and halfchan posts is our collective bastion of scientific integrity.
Fuuuuk off you prick. "Just so" stories are not proof of a thing being the case, nor is "but it should be". Humans, relative to other creatures, haven't even been that isolated, our chemistry has been extremely fluid, and even then we've gone through some relatively extreme bottlenecks (the most significant that happened to our earliest ancestors lasting around 100,000 years) with the later ones closer to the emergence of homo sapiens making us even more closely related to each other.
>I accept 19th century race science is bullshit, I even accept the concept of large bloc races being bullshit, but I do there there are genuinely differences both physically and behaviourally, at a general level, between ethnicities even if those differences may be small or varied within the population itself.
I've discussed at length the differences physically that can arise by ancestry (not to say absolutely), but there's no proof or basis for the existence of significant or notable behavioral differences at a general level between groups of "differing" ancestries. Even what you're saying betrays itself, because if it's significantly vaired enough within all populations, it makes no sense to then draw from that the idea that there is a general behavioral consensus within a population that is genetic. And if you want to continue to believe otherwise and that there should be because it "just should be" without any evidence or proof, I've got a bundle of internally consistent religions to sell you.
Remember children Boas and other Jewish antrhopolgois Have you believe Evolution stops at the neck! Lmao
>>2911163>archeologists want you to believe that ancient humans couldve just built these massive pyramids LMAObasically the same level of arrogance when speaking about a subject you havent read about
>>2911170Boas lied about Morton’s skull collections
Was his name Morton? Idk doesn’t matter
The truth is boas lied when they re audited the skull collections they had at Princeton
That’s all you need to know
>>2911172just another gotcha that means shitall
>>2911173Your entire philosophy is based on Jewish obfuscation of basic measurements does that give you pause at all. Let’s set aside the fact that outside of their egalitarian veneer Jews are deeply supremacist in private even they don’t believe the bullshit they are selling you
Honestly I can understand why you believe in communism it’s a nice dream to chase universal equality but I will never understand how you deny such basic self evident truth as racial differences in cognition and physical traits so blindly while claiming to be atheist materialists the amount of mental gymnastics are mind blowing
>>2911179jew derangement syndrome. so every scientist is a jew because they dont agree with you?
>>2911180No, not every scientist. Just the majority of the ones that tried to discredit classical physical anthropology through blatant lies.
>>2911182basically the entire field has moved on from scientific racism. youre like a flat earther
>>2911185Due to political pressure after the post war new order. You are the one who is a flat earther/yec in this case. Cognitive differences between the races measured via psychometric testing is probably one of the most reproducible experiments of modern psychology if not the most reproducible.
You are the ones denying evolution to not hurt browns and black feelings.
>>2911187political pressure, when your theory was the mainstream one and thus held all the power…
>>2911191Nazis and white supremacy lost in 1945 last I check regrettably
>>2911196and might makes right last i checked so maybe that means aryanoids are inferior cucks
>>2911187I agree with the whole cognitive difference thing, but why can't you agree that cognitive differences change? You appealing to materialism selectively is very fake and gay.
>>2911211?
independent of how the Chinese were “viewed” Chinese and other East Asians have scored on par or even above whites in psychometric testing since literally the beginning
I don’t see where you’re going with this, the science never lied about the Asians regardless of what the vulgar masses though of China as a nation state
Unique IPs: 73