How to argue with race realists?

How to argue with race realists?

Other urls found in this thread: iq gains.pdf

You can't. All of their ideas are made up and based on feels.

Tell them that whites are genetically inferior in every aspect and then make fake info graphs without any sources or with sources that contradict what you are saying. In other words, do what they do, but in reverse.

ask them to provide a source for the existence of race that doesn't include race axiomatically.

The only real part of "race" is the fact that the bourgeoise exaggerate differences to divide the proletariat

Anyone have that compilation image of arguments against racism

You don't. You guys are fighting a losing battle on this front looking at China's increasing predominance in genetic research and their output relative to race.

Or alternatively you can drop the position that group level inequalities in outcome are a priori evidence of discrimination and the whole byzantine discussion need not be had in the first place.

But we both know you're not prepared to do that.

If you believe in divergent evolution, you believe in race.
The proper argument is that, even if they are intrinsically different, that isn't any reason to make any legal distinction based on race.

If we found a gene with a high correlation with criminal behavior, would that be cause to preemptively remove them from society/oppress them? Of course not, so why is this even an argument?

Call them spooked.

Genetic manipulation literally prove everything race idealists belive wrong

No, it doesn't.

fuck you retards.
godless children you will all burn in the fires

Yes, it literally does

Who are you quoting?

You can't. They're correct.


burn in the fires, you horrible swine

How can we promote equality if people are biologically unequal.

Use facts and remind them the only gene discovered to affect Autism Level only causes a deviation by 3 Autism Level points more or less

lol wasn't aware of that filter
It said eye queue, not Autism Level for anyone not aware

The problem here is that you misunderstand the term unequal, people are not biologically unequal, they are biologically different

Point out that it's completely fucking irrelevant whether, on average, certain races are more "civilized" than others because you can't treat people as averages. When they inevitably disagree, point out that feminism uses exactly the same arguments to justify their assumption that all men are rape-hazards.

Thats a great argument actually.


I can't think of a scenario where I'd have to argue with race realists. And argue on what exactly? Provide me with some points.

There argument is basically
"Communism is fight for equality and equality isn't real because some people are biologically inferior"

It's not like we have a right wing sister board that constantly raids us

They are wrong on both levels, then.


don't listen to
The argument is that genetics influences behavior/intelligence and since race is a result of genetics it follows that race and behavior/genetics are intrinsically related.


Race as a biological designation does not exist because it's impossible to accurately draw these lines in humans from a scientific standpoint. Ethnicities are not dog breeds. Of course differences in biology exist, just not how they say they do.

In fact, they are basically liars about being 'realists' because they believe aggressive, unintelligent whites get a free pass because muh statistics.

But the feminism argument that men are rape-hazards no longer works statistically when you exclude the niggers.

Black women are still far less likely to be criminals than white men, though.

I love Holla Forumsyp logic

Well, I do believe that genetics are important. I'm a materialist. Does anyone like to be born with genetic deficiencies? No. For example, I'm balding as fuck. I wish there was a gene that my parents doctors could have edited to prevent that. I'm not sold on what the race realists have to say though, for the simple reason that it doesn't affect me in any way if some tribe in South Africa has a lower average Autism Level.


So effective that skittles had to say something when the right took the exact same "poisoned skittle" argument that was passef around by feminists and just word replaced men with refugees and rape with terror.

Google is your friend.

Also, he never actually rebuked what said.

That is only a problem with the theory if you make it one. The genetic variation is undeniable, the categorization is where it gets arbitrated. You have two choices in categorizing "race:"
ie. "these are the genes which define what people are what race so we'll put people in their boxes basedon that"
ie. "these people fit in this box, so we can understand the nature of their race based on the genes they have."
Obviously, there's a right way and a wrong way to go about both of these methods. Regardless, the genes are still there and they correlate to whatever race they are defined to be.

You couldn't be more wrong on that point. They don't think whites get a pass. You know why? They have the "superior" genetics yet they choose to be degenerates regardless.
Btw, race realism doesn't necessarily make any claims of superiority. That is purely a value judgment.

Race realism is simply the stance that race does exist. "It doesn't affect me in any way if some tribe in South Africa has a lower average Autism Level" is basically like saying "it doesn't affect me in any way if mass is the result of a particle's interaction with the Higg's field."

Then how is it politically important?

By your own logic, race as a metric is highly arbitrary, even from a biological perspective. This makes it useless in politics.

Then the majority of them are hypocrites since they only care about human genetic variation insofar as race is concerned.

Then what if I just don't care and don't think it should apply to politics?

You might have to actually source this argument, I googled it and it's not really backing up what you're saying. Keep in mind, this chart is violent crime, where it's expected that men are offenders more than women but the numbers still aren't that far apart between men and women. Also keep in mind blacks keep up with white crime despite being 13% of the overall population.

Also consider that black women are far more likely to be on welfare. Also that children of single mothers are far more likely to be criminals. Also that 72% of blacks are raised by a single mother. It's then hard to argue that white men have a more negative impact on society than black women.

Racial supremacists use it to justify that their race is somehow superior. Like i said, this is purely a value judgment and is only as important as you make it.

I guess if the correlation between blacks and crime were so ingrained in their genetics that no negro could possibly help himself when faced with the opportunity to rob/brutalize/rape, the political relation would be obvious. But we (and they) know it's not quite that significant.

no. arbitration =/= useless. the line between murder and manslaughter is arbitrary as fuck, as is the line between manslaughter and self defense. these distinctions are very important though. The genes related to races are a factor, and if you think them to be a big deal then a way of categorizing them has a lot of utility.

lol, what? They think race is A factor, not the ONLY factor.

that is a perfectly fair stance to take from what i can tell. but those who use race realism to justify their bigotry would disagree.

It doesn't actually matter to the argument. If they can use that logic to deport all the blacks, then the feminists can then use the same logic to confine all the men to sperm-donor internment camps.

So? Individual genes that affect height don't have a huge effect. Do genetics have nothing to do with height, now?

Why is it that everyone who tries to "debunk" race realism is statistically illiterate? Learn math, fags.

But blacks are more likely to be rapists, and if you've deported the blacks, you've lowered the rape statistics. Then feminists can't really use that argument any more.

Point out that the Irish aren't white.

You clearly don't understand the use case for statistics and misuse them where analytical thought is required. Common amongst low-I.Q. individuals.

If you remove the background causes for rape, you'll limit it even further. Race realism is just a case of not wanting to address the issue.

Im actually really smart,

An inability to observe extraneous circumstances that might affect statistical findings is a symptom of being blinded by ideology, and a symptom if being blinded by ideology is a system of having an I Q lower than average.


What's the background cause for rape ?


whew I went full zizek right there

Maybe feminists should, then. Let me have my /monster/ waifu daki in a paradise summer camp free of 3d.

Even if it was definitely proven that some races are somewhat genetically inferior, segregation based on it would be morally abhorrent, and would also introduce a slippery slope where you could start discriminating someone on literally every difference.

Now that's what we should be discussing in a political board.

I beg to disagree with you on that.

You guys are missing the point.

They're, or at least the majority of them (think Sailor, Pinker, Rushton etc), are not using race realism as a wedge to push for any particular policy, they're using it as a wedge to invalidate the *already held assumption* that inequalities in outcome are -a priori- the result of discrimination and environment.

That is how public policy works today and it is founded on a false premise and what basically amounts to 18th century pseudo-science and 11th century theology (tabula rasa).

even if you provided sources, they would either call it Jewish, post some edgy underground like study which doesn't have mass consent from the scientific community, and even if you made an environmental case in determining intelligence and behaviour, they'd deny it.

muh feelz

Battle was already won m8.


if you're going to equate morality to "feels" then any argument you make in support of segregation goes out the window too, retard.

Being a nigger.

No. We are discussing facts brought up by statistics, you insert feelz through moral principles.

Stop abusing statistics, some of us love that science.

Post pictures of albino children with straight hair

Even though studies have shown that race doesn't influence your behaviour. :^)

Harrison, Guy (2010). Race and Reality. Amherst: Prometheus Books. Race is a poor empirical description of the patterns of difference that we encounter within our species. The billions of humans alive today simply do not fit into neat and tidy biological boxes called races. Science has proven this conclusively. The concept of race (…) is not scientific and goes against what is known about our ever-changing and complex biological diversity.
^ Roberts, Dorothy (2011). Fatal Invention. London, New York: The New Press. The genetic differences that exist among populations are characterized by gradual changes across geographic regions, not sharp, categorical distinctions. Groups of people across the globe have varying frequencies of polymorphic genes, which are genes with any of several differing nucleotide sequences. There is no such thing as a set of genes that belongs exclusively to one group and not to another. The clinal, gradually changing nature of geographic genetic difference is complicated further by the migration and mixing that human groups have engaged in since prehistory. Human beings do not fit the zoological definition of race. A mountain of evidence assembled by historians, anthropologists, and biologists proves that race is not and cannot be a natural division of human beings.
"If races don't exist, why are forensic anthropologists so good at identifying them?" He concluded:

[T]he successful assignment of race to a skeletal specimen is not a vindication of the race concept, but rather a prediction that an individual, while alive was assigned to a particular socially constructed "racial" category. A specimen may display features that point to African ancestry. In this country that person is likely to have been labeled Black regardless of whether or not such a race actually exists in nature.

Sauer, Norman J. (1992). "Forensic Anthropology and the Concept of Race: If Races Don't Exist, Why are Forensic Anthropologists So Good at Identifying them". Social Science and Medicine. 34 (2): 107–111

this was his statement:
he didn't make an argument against race realism. he made the claim that segregating based on that would be wrong. if you disagree, you are applying moral principles to the issue yourself.

Abusing it how ? Blacks are 13% of the population and make over 50% of violent crime, and this is a correlation bigger than that of poverty.

Pop science books simply aren't good sources. As the Snyderman-Rothman Study showed, there's a massive discrepency between what "media friendly" scientists in this field believe and what the field as a whole believes. Not to mention that North America and Western Europe are relatively unique in disbelieving in the concept of race in the social sciences and anthropology.

In one study I read (I'll dig it up for you) a majority of Eastern Europeans in anthropology believed in race as a valid concept, and every single Chinese researcher they interviewed also did.

No, I'm merely pointing out that think something is wrong is introducing moral principles. I'm not saying being against segregation is right or wrong.

How society treats disability and hereditary illness is a far better example of this. Figures like Rushton were quite openly fond of far right authoritarian politics.

Rushton literally believed that Islam was genetic. Not exaggerating.

Go back to youtube, reddit, or 4chan, take your pick. Stop hiding behind your total 'le rational logic' when you don't fucking understand the science of statistics.

How would they demonstrate this?

You'd have to literally map every single allele frequency of every single behavioral trait and then compare the degree to which variation existed for every single one for each race in turn.

It's a truism in behavioral psychology and genetics that every broad-level behavioral trait (eg propensity for aggression) is an even split unless proven otherwise.

You guys are clueless, you're literally reposting Stephen J. Gould shit ITT. Get with the times.

How to tell if someone doesn't read books

And violent criminals are an extremely small part of the populace–one that has shrunk dramatically over time, which is not how genetics work.

yes, we all know "right and wrong" are moral concepts (in this context at least). you weren't bringing up any new information. you're just being le edgy relativist caricature.

I'm not disputing that race doesn't necessarily exist but to say I'm of a different species is false. What we argue is oppostite to stormfags, in which they say that race determines your intelligence of behaviour which we consider to be false.

It may not be wise to fight spooks with spooks.

nobody thinks race=species. they liken it more to dog breeds (though dogs have much greater genetic variation and therefore greater differences)

Just show me wrong dude. Why can't you ?

This isn't an argument.

Hume, Descartes, Galileo, Bacon, etc. didn't die for reactionaries to piss on scientific methodology

One man's far right authoritarian politics are another man's center. Trump is to the left of most non-western leaders in the world to day for example.

He believed religiosity and the forms it takes are an expression of a group's average phenotype, which isn't even novel to him anyway. And is a fairly good point (look at how Islam had to adapt to actually convert the Persians they hadn't either forcibly converted or killed to Islam).

Religion is like laying a bedsheet over a series of contours that are already in place.

Which reasonable person has ever claimed different races constitute different species?

No one. Ever.

What do you mean by "intelligence of behavior"?

If human intelligence isn't heritable to a substantial degree… How did humans ever evolve it in the first place?

Yet crime has been decreasing, and as a demographic more of them are in poverty.

Combine that with a single motherhood rate which has been known to have a correlation with crime as well as poverty and thug culture, you can't really say that it's entirely genetic.

Nobody, and i mean NOBODY thinks genetics is the only factor.

What is there to 'show wrong'? Everything you've said has been flatout SPOOKED by concepts that haven't existed until 400 years ago. You're arguing against an incredibly wide scientific consensus and are absolutely refusing to look at possible outside explanations for statistics. You don't understand history, man, I'm sorry.

Pissing on scientific methodology is exactly what people like Lewontin and Gould did.

If you are so blinkered you cannot believe that left/liberal leaning people in the social sciences or hard sciences have biases that interfere with their work, then you're delusional. Gould literally lied wholesale about Morton's cranial measurements. The guy fucking made it all up to blacken a dead man's research in order to advance the cause of "anti racism", and the NYT report on the matter was generally sympathetic for his reasons for doing so.

And why is singlemotherhood a thing in the black community ?

Marxism, socialism, nunavut existed 400 years ago :^)

Also, what if I told you that the spook meme is one of the reason why leftypol is dying ?

Yes it did, I hope you aren't stupid enough to believe that leftist or collectivist thought began with Marx.

Poverty doesn't actually have (in comparative terms) as strong a relationship with crime as less PC explanations though.

In global terms it has hardly any. I'm from Romania, our "middle class" here are way poorer than American blacks, yet there's nothing like the love of sociopathic, pointless violence that you have in America's black community.

On a global scale the relationship becomes even less pronounced.

Race was a concept to the ancient Greeks. Likely before but im positive about Greeks.

nb: not actually in Romania at present.

Race existed, but not outward racial hierarchy. Stop shifting goalposts.

Yes. Isocrates talks about keeping the stocks of particular poleis pure.

Race = Groups based on shared-kinship bonds. That idea has been around since forever. It's literally what founder myths were about:

I.e. an ethnos.

Not to mention the oldest anti-miscegenation laws are from Tang China, circa 800AD or so.

War on drugs, cops abusing power and taking away black fathers (albeit this is more within the 20th century but has had a nonetheless negative impact)

Combine that with irresponsibility of individuals who walk out on their kids, a which later influences the offspring to engage in similar behaviour, a higher teen pregnancy rate and a shitty sex-Ed you have a recipe for disaster.

I'm not shifting goalposts. This thread is about race realism, not hierarchy based on it.

Not him but poverty is a straw man factor anyway. The real factor of crime in most of the world is politics, even by international standards. This is why Burkina Faso is relatively safe while Central America is partially a civil warzone.

Do you actually believe the US wages any sort of strong "war on drugs"?

Serious question and not meme'ing.

Collectivist societies have existed far longer than "race realism". Belief in the inferiority of other races is a fucking SPOOK.

Couldn't find the article, so the video will have to do

I disagree. So much crime in contemporary western societies is driven by sociopathic, non-pecuniary motivations. It's literally "he looked at me wrong" type shit that drives a lot of the street crime here.

I know it's comforting to think it's something that can disappear with the right amount of hocus pocus social engineering, but it's not going anywhere unless the high time preference idiots doing this sort of crime are dealt with, one way or another.

and im not denying that collectivism is a thing. You, however, seem to be denying that race is a thing.

stop strawmanning me.

Race realism isn't the same as believing in races, you fucking moron.

Does Sargon at any point compare the predictive effects of socio-economic factors to the predictive effects of race?

Yes it does. That is literally what race realism is.

No,it literally doesn't.

Should I forget about the actual WAR ON DRUGS?

No it isn't. You literally do not know what you are fucking talking about

Hot tbh

Reminder american statistics are useless

Yes, it literally does

It's a PR term.

For any serious, reasonable person. The most basic expectation for any "war on drugs" would be: "Well, does this country execute traffickers like Singapore, China etc do?"

If the answer is "No", then that country is not waging a meaningful "war on drugs" because the most basic disincentive force available to you is set a strict liability law to execute anyone who brings over a set amount of a hard drug into a country.

But that image is flawed because of bourgeoise social and economic structure

Except it literally is going away, at least in the US. It has been for a while.

By the way, why is it that factors like infection and mental illness are never important in biopolitics? Lead pollution has a very strong correlation with urban crime but bringing that up is liberal pee cee lies. Only race matters.

He does.

In the same way they wage a war on terror, yes. In other words they divert vast quantities of money into the hands of state-sponsored thugs to spread violence and suffering.

*he does

But to say that races act in a predictable way is again; false

Give this a read:

Bear in mind that although homicide rates have been cut significantly by medical technology, most western urban capitals -still- have homicide rates higher than they were in the 1950s.

Western urban centers are undoubtedly more dangerous than they were 60-70 years ago.


Exactly. It's not actually a meaningful attempt to stop drug trafficking, it's just a half-assed attempt to cut it off at the source.

Singapore and China wage a real war on drugs, and the proof is in the pudding there. Most East Asians would consider you a complete loser for even smoking week a couple of times.

The pic literally proves you wrong. Race is more predictive than SES.

Fuck off back to your AIDS riddled faggot who ruined Nietzsche with his poz.

So glad he died in agony. Literal disgusting faggot.

Note that Foucault is also responsible for the phrase "black bodies" (indirectly).


Not an argument.

Most East Asians would also consider you a complete loser for playing games for 2 hours a night after school.
I'd have to see much more evidence from more countries with varied cultures before I'd begin to believe your conjecture.

Working overtime proky?

Pick one.

They're right.

Yeah, sorry. We're only allowed to draw conclusions from national comparisons when it's Portugal's drug liberalization case study, then no other evidence or examples are needed whatsoever. Likewise with Norway's "rehabilitation criminal system", no other evidence needed there too.

But woah dude, don't bring up East Asian states with even lower rates of drug addiction and crime. That's not cool.

Capitalism requires a racist superstructure to function

Without capitalism there is no need to segregate people

what is your definition of race realism then?

Nigger, it was the power of the state that forcibly HAD to integrate people.

When left to their own devices, people voluntarily self-segregate as a matter of course. Neighborhood demographics within city limits being the perfect example of this.

Still not an argument, since it doesn't actually address the substance of what we were initially talking about, but oh well.

Wrong, human migration during the ice ages prove humans do not become sedentary unless the material conditions allow it

The state does not forcefully integrate people, otherwise it would not defend the right to property

No one will debate you using bourgeoise economics

It's easy to disprove a positive assertion (eg. "Legalizing drugs always leads to terrible things happening") with a single counterexample, but it takes a lot more evidence to convincingly prove a positive assertion (eg "Harsh drug laws are the best way to reduce the harm caused by drugs in a society")

Those people were not migrating for the purposes of "integration", they were migrating for the purposes of resources, and such migrations frequently brought them into conflict with other groups.

Simply using it as a handwaving wildcard variable you can play when you're down on your luck and have no more arguments left to play isn't an argument, no.

Firstly, this starts off with a strawman, so it's not an argument. It's also really dishonest and you should just abandon the whole "Portugal proves drug legalization works!" line of argument entirely if you want to maintain consistency here.

Secondly, among developed nations those with the strictest laws on the trafficking and use of drugs also have the lowest rates of drug dependency/addiction (Singapore, Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan etc).

Drugs in themselves aren't a problem. Have you tried using metrics which measure quality of life?

In order to win a conflict against the strongest tribe smaller tribes often had to integrate with one another

The desire to integrate comes from the desire of self-well being

Capitalist want no well being to the working class, they wont let them integrate because of this

Therefore it is imperative to confront the economic and political issue first, again, no one will debate you using bourgeoise economics

What would you like to use exactly?

We've discussed criminality already. There isn't a single urban center in Western Europe or North America as safe as Hong Kong, Tokyo, Taipei etc. This is a fact.

lol Communist prehistory:

Read Pinker. 40% of people across all pre-agricultural civilizations died violent deaths, unless they were in comparatively sparsely populated parts of the world, like ice age Scandinavia.

Then there would be no need for forced integration in western countries. But as it stands race is the single most pronounced factor that causes self-segregation. Stronger than class - and more diverse neighborhoods are, even when controlling for social and economic factors, less trusting and less cohesive than racially homogeneous ones.

I mean your argument just fails at the first hurdle since it is the state attempting to use things like Section 8 to "integrate neighborhoods" in the first place. It is not a voluntary process.

Nobody has thus far brought them up.

You are an unhygienic shitposter.

These dubs are confusing…

Lol then/pol/yp is getting desperate now

History proves my assertions right, tribes join forces to destroy a stronger one, which is why capitalist must mantain the proletariat separated

There is no such thing as "western countries", that is a manmade concept, a spook, the necessity of mantaining any country "intact" or "pure" is a bourgeoise one, nations work against the interest of the working class

But the number of conflicts through antique, medieval, pre-modern and modern history that were fought on account of ethnic or quasi-ethnic reasons dwarf the number that were fought on account in the name of "class".

You can count the number of alien ethnic groups teaming up together to fight their respective "ruling classes" together on one hand.

No, Nations work against the interests of international capital, which is why the entire mainstream media has been going apeshit at what a "terrible year" 2016 was, because the supranational institutions favored by western elites are taking a pounding and globalism/liberalism are in retreat.

It's amazing how many people on Holla Forums live in a world where Silicon Valley corporations and other huge MNCs are somehow funding Golden Dawn/FN/AfD and secretly want a Not Socialist revival in Europe, hate mass immigration and so on.

The corporate elites are on your side dude. They hate borders too. They hate nations and they want to turn "nations" into nothing more than vague economic zones through which capital and labor passes unhindered.

What kind of plane of existence do you have to live on to think America's corporate elites actually support ethnic nationalism?

And as a result, all of them stablished a hierarchy that was as bad as the one they tried to destroy

If we agree that the wars fought under the banner of ethnic and quasi-ethnic ideas, and that these revolts did nothing for the working class, why should the working class fight another one while under the control of spooks?

Nations defend the right of property which is utilized by global capital, without bourgeoise law being defended by nations, international capital will find its job harder

Lol, imagine being this fucking stupid

Most corporate elites do not support protectionism, which is why the vast majority supported Hillary.

The reason for this is very simple: They're not concerned about domestic job creation or maintaining a national industrial base, they're concerned about quarterly profits and their own personal bonuses - which is why they put short term interest (technology transfers with chinks in exchange for access to their markets) before long term national interests.

Nationalism and protectionism do nothing about the bourgeoise living inside those borders

Defending the hierarchy imposed by the national capitalists while denouncing the international ones is hypocrisy, and this is why the ruling class wont be free under your bourgeoise ideas

If people liked segregation so much, why did they protest against it?


They are obviously controlled by the jewish, marxist, atheist, muslim, hispanic globalist elite who want to destroy the white man :^)

All of what? All ethnic conflicts?

Working class people care about their nation, for Chinese people, driving the Japanese people out (an ethnic conflict) may not have improved their material lot by a great deal, but it was meaningful and allowed them, as a self-defined ethnic group to become masters of their own destiny again.

You don't understand this because you are deracinated and lack a real racial identity of any kind (hence why you're obsessed with weird esoteric forms of Marxism, it's a sublimated desire to have some form of group identity), but you go and tell a Chinese person that maintaining their Nation through battle and its territorial integrity was and is not important to them. Or a Russian person. Or a Gulf Arab.

The vast majority of people on this earth care about their race and what they see as their kinfolk. The fact that you and other urban white leftists do not is meaningless.

Race-denial is ironically the whitest thing imaginable.

In lieu of nations, private property isn't going to disappear you fool. You're simply going to have even more powerful, invasive, tyrannical institutions resembling world governments in its place. Only this time they're enforcing open borders and refugee resettlement at the point of a gun, similar to what Merkel did to the Hungarians, Balts and Poles earlier last year.

Corporate elites support liberalism, I didn't say they wanted to destroy capitalism.

Why can you not engage in an argument without autistically conjuring up strawmen argument?

Nationalism does real and meaningful things for working class people, like protect national industry, stimulate domestic capital investment, guard the country's borders so millions of people aren't just allowed to up and settle wherever they like, inflaming tension, raping their daughters while the government, police force and other elements of the state cover it up.

What does leftism advocate?

"Fuck borders man, just let them in. Everyone knows that Pakistani Muslim Islamists are going to become Communists anyway. Historical Materialism said it is thus."

Most whites supported segregation. Most blacks did not. That's why.

More or less, is irrelevant. You decide to omit that there are corporate elites, who belong to the same political class as Hillary (Trump, Cristie, et al) that support protectionism. These politicians and "intellectuals" often champion market competition—but what they mean by that is competition among low-paid service workers, production workers, or computer programmers who face competition from trade and immigration, occupational insecurity (feeding into the reserve army of labour), while elite professionals sit behind a protectionist wall, get tax breaks and devalue the wealth of other statist-protectionist nations. Workers in occupations with no higher educational requirements see their wages held down by millions of other Americans denied a high-quality education and competing for relatively precious vacancies.

Daily reminder that leftists really did systematically cover up the rape and abuse and torture of tens of thousands of white british girls, some as young as 11, in the interests of "community cohesion".

There's your "internationalism", you faggot.

So if that was the case, then those white people who were in favour of dismantling it didn't count. And if a majority of white people were against it, then the laws wouldn't have changed.

I suppose the majority of white people being in favour of the referendum which granted aboriginal people the right to vote in Australia doesn't count either?


None of this changes the fact that the vast majority of corporate elites support social liberalism and free trade.

It's also untrue to highlight programmers, since SV firms are some of the biggest advocates of free trade deals. You're thinking more of hard manufacturing/industries like steel, where quotas and tariffs are protecting both the guy at the top and the guy at the bottom.

Yeah, that' s quite right. Laws have never been passed without an absolute majority of people agreeing with them.

What people say publicly isn't really meaningful. Plenty of white people openly opine liberal beliefs in public or attach themselves to them out of a sense of altruism, but what's really important is what they actually -do- and how they -act-. Where they choose to live, where they choose to send their children to school - Even Tim Wise (nee Weiss) lives in a 99.5% white neighborhood.

Yes, I guess I should forget about Muslims like Maajid Nawaz (who coined the term regressive left and bigotry of low expectations), the Quillam foundation which advocates for the reform of Islam so it can better intergrate with Western culture.

George Bush and """weapons of mass destruction""" ring a bell?

Nawaaz has been called Islamophobic by just about every single left-liberal rag out there, from HuffGlue to the Graun.

And in any event, it won't work. Young Pakistanis in Britain are objectively more religious and radical than their parents or grandparents. Likewise for Danish Muslims. It's a pattern that repeats around the continent. There isn't going to be any "integration" because they have the numbers to form large, hermetically sealed communities now.

George Bush was a liberal.

All center-leftists and center-rightists are liberals. This is basic stuff.

Again, Australian referendum. And you lied about the majority of white people being against civil rights in America you dishonest faggot

Then why trust politicians at all? Or social movements for that matter?

It must be pretty meaningful if there's a giant movement behind it.

Ever heard of AFL-CIO? Pat Buchanan? Anyone in Trump's cabinet?

Which is why we oppose identity politics m8, we're not the SJWs of the huffington post.

I agree, that pc culture has to stop, and that SJWs should be pushed away.

Again, I won't dispute that this is a problem and that is a valid point. Islam can be deemed reactionary and fascist. And as the Quillam foundation pointed out, there needs to be better integration programs. No one on this board is denying that radical and fundamental Islam is a problem, as well as mass immigration. But to say that these people act this way because of their race is objectively false. If that was the case, all white people would be the fascist dickheads that SJWs deem us to be.

I hate to be that guy but surveys are a terrible source for this kind of argument. They are based totally on arbitrary input by randomly selected citizens, as opposed to, say, arrest and incarceration rates from the FBI.

Disparate crime rates are also a forced perspective on crime because they don't factor in absolute crime numbers relative to the population, nor do they consider the similarities and differences between criminals and non-criminals beyond identities like race and sex. A gang member from Compton isn't going to have much in common with a businessman from Austin just because both of them are black.

For being black to be too relevant to ignore regarding crime, you have to prove that at least a significant fraction of blacks are criminals when in reality violent criminals are a tiny percentage of the populace, and a disproportionate share of something tiny is still tiny.

Yes, ethnic conflicts, they did nothing to emancipate the workers

Why should we keep fighting for it? Because of your spooks? Fuck your spooks

Collaborative classcucks who benefit from the work of the very bottom of the pyramid do, but that is not my concern, that is not the concern of the exploited labourer

The bourgeoise cares about the nation, not the worker

The chinese workers are not in any way masters of their own destiny, for someone who denounces esotericism, it is funny that you are using esoteric phrases yourself

I do not need to engage in conversation with bojrgeoise nationalists, their concern is not my concern, the concern of the anarchists residing inside those borders is what is my concern

Funny that your only defense left is to denounce me of race denialism, when you have failed to prove that the cause of race idealists like yourself will help !y cquse in any way

The fact that you and other urban rightist think the nation matters for the working class is irrelvant, as it does not


Liberalism is a façade, it is a false dichotomy caused by the capitalist in order to further divide us

Your petite mind cannot understand such unversalis like working class emancipation, but that is none of my concern

Lol this is why your idealists movements will only end in failure, just like in the past

Reported for not being able to handle any banter

You have to be 18 to lurk

I don't.

I don't.

Yes of course, you can't engineer social causes. Not like all it took to get the libtards up in a state of mass hysteria was a few days of back to back coverage of the Great Aleppo Holocaust(tm) last year eh?

Imagine what wall to wall TV, broadsheet, weekly/monthly pubs, other official mainstream outlets, entertainment industry shilling for it too will do.

I know Buchanan and the Paleocons.

I also know the number of laws, particularly in a Federated states like America, India and Russia - are not really that important.

One tariff law, like China's on foreign goods that jacks up the price of virtually all foreign HQ'ed manufactured goods, is far more powerful in its effects than all of America's laws.

Many East Asian protectionist measures aren't driven by law but by bureaucratic whim anyway (eg use of the great firewall to penalize competitors to domestic web services providers, or other service providers like Uber). Or selective auditing of firms in Japan.

No fucking shit Trump's cabinet is packed full of the few protectionists in the US business community, because he ran on that platform for goodness sake.

Not the fellow you're replying to, but the NCVS is literally the largest dataset on crime available that isn't a uniform crime report.

It's usefulness comes from comparing it to the uniform crime reports and arrest data therein. For example, victims of crime generally report blacks as perps of specific types of crime at about the same rate as they're arrested for that type of crime. Meaning that police are not, generally speaking, unfairly targeting blacks.

All fair points, I just don't share your optimism. Racial conflict is a function of racial diversity and always has been. The only way to contain it is with an imperial or quasi-imperial state (think the Soviet Union or PRC).

No, the vast majority of non-white people care about their nations and are nationalistic enough to make Donald Trump look like a leftist.

Learn a non-western language and do some traveling.

The bourgeoise cares about supranational organizations and one-worldism in the name of liberalism. Not "the nation". Everything they have done over the past 30-40 years in regards to delegating power to such institutions, trade deals etc disproves this.

You are clueless. Liberalism is the governing philosophy of the entire western world.

It's not a matter of idealism. Nationalism simply is. It is the default state of affairs for any truly national polity. The only aberration here is the idea that human beings are all the same, all interchangeable and all fundamentally headed in the same direction.

Remember when liberals thought the "arab spring" was going to be about LGBT and feminism back in 2011?

You're the equivalent of them today.

I meant all violent and property crime. Murder has always been a minuscule percentage of this and usually has much different motivations from other violent crimes.

This has obvious political implications that you cannot possibly ignore without being biased in methodology. If you know what bullshit Chicago has been through over the last few decades, you'd be amazed if it wasn't a shithole.
On top of this, crime is increasing in certain areas, but is also being increasingly centralized. It has gone down overall, and for most of the nation, quite drastically.

Except it's not just Chicago. It's Paris, London, Marseilles, New York etc.

And again, people in Romania who are middle class are objectively and verifiably less wealthy than Black Americans.

Trying to attribute this all to economic causes does not fit the facts, friend.

Dude, did you even read the article? That's not about trade - it's about regulating the sale of equities.

No, it's about the "tenuous" relationship of the business community to its governments.

race is a social construct

This image makes everything crystal clear, sempai

This is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Going by the UCR (i.e. the verified data), men are overwhelmingly more likely to commit violent crimes:

Only because you are continually straw manning what "economic causes" entail. As a matter of fact, they and biology can overlap.

Here is a good example of one: lead poisoning. There is strong evidence that simply banning lead fuels and switching to unleaded gasoline has led to a substantial decrease in violent crime in the US:

everybody is equally different, therefor making their equal differences meaningless upon comparison

This would be a fair argument if hominids that aren't homo sapiens were still alive, but they are not.

The vast majority of class collaborators are none of my concern, I am not for democracy

Explotation of the weak by the majority is still exploitation, it doesnt matter if the stick is the people's stick

I do not live in the west, you should learn another language and realize the west has systematically repressed and sabotaged movements for and by the working class

Of course not, as he who pulls the strings understands the nation is an illusion used to control the working class, he has succesfully created an army of retards like you who defend the division of the masses

Lol, those ebul liberals


Of cohrse nationalism is the default state of affairs in a national policy,, but this is none of my concern, your nation is merely an illusion and I am happy it keeps you controlled, you do nothing but support my egoism

You are arguing about bourgeoise economics like GDP, your post invalid

Can we get a collection of links and pics going that disproves or at least disputes "race realism"? It's just a codeword for justifying racism, imperialism and fascism

Post 'em

Getting into semantics and nitpicking details will only encourage them. What you need to do is debate the political implications they derive from their evidence (regardless of how awful or irrelevant said evidence is).

Will they take this as an admission that their preconceived notions are right? Probably. But they were going to do this anyway.

If you mean arguing how it isn't an excuse for Nazism and segregation, I do that too. But we can't let normal people be swayed one bit by their vitriol.

it's the understanding that divergent evolution applies to humans as well.

then why is Holla Forums so obsessed with using it to disprove socialism?

a person with down syndrome isn't biologically equal to a person without it. dosen't mean you have to be a dick about it.
Also you can argue that different ethnic groups have different genetical abilities, Like how many african athletes are dominating in running for example

because Holla Forums is a bunch of demagogues who reach for any possible way of confirming their biases.
more accurately: they thing the variation between races is so large that attempting to generate equality between races is a non-starter.

Literally everyone is a "race realist" by this standard if they aren't a creationist. I still think figure heads like Jared Taylor are useless sophists.

No they aren't, actually. The common belief is that races are inherently the same in every meaningful way other than what society has enforced,

What is your definition of "meaningful"? Human genetic diversity is complicated and fuzzy. I would even argue that there is too much difference between humans to neatly divide people into racial categories; in other words, white people are not similar enough to each other to be grouped together.

so what do we do

we can't just let them spread their bullshit until people start getting hurt irl

anything related to behavior.

just because it's not neat, doesn't mean it's nonexistent.

that's why race realists don't usually consider race to solely be based on skin color. if you predefine skin color to be the standard of variation between races you're only going to find that they have skin color in common. It would be like defining dog breeds solely on the color of their coat.

Argue that racially based laws are wrong regardless of how much variation there actually is?

It's not that hard.

No. Even if we define the concept of race in terms of population's anatomical and physiological characteristics as being divergent from other populations, we still cannot say there are such things as "pure races" nor deny the data that biological variability was as great within any race as between races. Moreover, "subspecies," "breeds," and so on, are taxonomic categories, not evolutionary units. A race is not an incipient species in the sense that it has already acquired partial reproductive isolation from other sympatric populations.

And you think Holla Forums and fascists will accept that?

you cannot necessarily say there's such a thing as a pure dog breed outside of the breeds we have defined. all breeds today are the result of selective breeding and at some point someone drew a line and said "this is a new breed."

lewontin's fallacy?
the fact that there's far more variation within sexes than between them (the only thing defining sexes is 1 chromosome) doesn't mean sexual dimorphism isnt a thing.

1. they don't think races are "incipient species"
you mentioned "taxonomic categories."THAT is how race realists see race. categories.
2. They have acquired reproductive isolation. That's what led to the variation to begin with. Different populations spent thousands of years apart, never interbreeding.

the goal isn't to convince Holla Forums or fascists of anything. it's to prevent more of them from being created.

While the person's, who came up with the term 'Lewontin's fallacy,' argument that 'most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data' is correct, it does not invalidate Lewontin's original argument, because racial groups being genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. Nor does it mean that races are not social constructs, and the result of eugenic intervention, as is the prevailing view among anthropologists and social scientists, because the particular genetic differences that correspond to races only become salient when racial categories take on social importance. Moreover, there is no such thing as a set of genes that belongs exclusively to one group and not to another (there is no such thing as divergent species of Homo sapiens; this is also why I say there is no reproductive isolation because whites can still mix with blacks and vice versa). That correlations between geographical areas and genetics exist in human populations is obvious, but what is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century—the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. "The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population."

well obviously the individual would be the most basic. Race (to a race realist) is DEFINED AS the most basic biological division. if there are smaller subgroups within a race, your racial categorization is wrong.

anything's a social construct if you're autistic enough. you construct the races based on their genes.
could you elaborate on this? i don't want to assume you're saying something that you're not saying.
and nobody thinks there is.
im definitely gonna need this one explained.

Checks out

I'll try to give my best answer if you don't mind waiting a bit for me to finish something up.

no problem. i hate impatience om imageboards.
i get your warning though. i remember a thread on /n/ about fracking where the person i was arguing with made a statement, then came back 6 minutes later thinking he BTFO'd me because i didn't respond by then.

I now see why leftists have problems with economic models: you don't understand anything with numbers. This is absolutely hilarious.

This is not about people but civilization. Go compare apples and oranges while you're at it.


If your father is a muslim, you are a muslim from birth. Even if you renounce or convert, you will always be known as a heretical muslim from the muslim community.

t. muslim apostate

So, he's more right than wrong about that. But you wouldn't know because you're culturally illiterate, like the rest of this board.

that argument is flawed. the largest group is the overlap, yes. but the median and mode scores are different and that's how you estimate the Autism Level of an individual if no other information is provided.

honestly are these threads just poltards roleplaying each other or does any actual genuine socialist engage in them. ive been ignoring this shit for years and am wondering why people still waste their time trying to argue with nazis

If you aren't anti-science, then do you acknowledge the physical differences between the races such as brain size and skull structure and the differences in intelligence quotient test performance? The physical differences alone prove that the races have evolved separately from one another and when you combine that data with the differences in intelligence quotient test performance and school performance, it becomes clear that the races do not perform the same physically or mentally. If the environment is the causing factor for the different scores and performance, then why is the data and results persistent through every country and civilization? Why is it that in every country the data is always the same, where East-Asians score higher than whites and whites score higher than Africans?

Jewish-American average intelligence quotient level - 113

Asian-American - 106

White-American - 103

Hispanic-American - 89

Black-American - 85

Sub-Saharan African - 70

Australian Aboriginal - 62

1. Brain size is only weakly correlated with Autism Level.
2. Brain size is largely a result of upbringing. Chinese people used to have a smaller brain size on average than white people

But okay Mr. Science man. I'd like to identify which genes you think are causing low Autism Level, the frequency of these genes in each population, how these genes interact with other genes, and how all these genes don't, or do interact with their environment. I'll wait.

define white.

An intelligence quotient test measures someone's short-term memory, analytical thinking, mathematical ability, and spatial recognition. It doesn't test someone's amount of information they have learned, but rather their capacity to learn. It is the best way to measure someone's intelligence, that is why it is used to identify intelligent people to be used in genome sequencing to figure out which genes are associated with intelligence.

Are you retarded?

Nope, you tell me. Who counts as white? Come on, tell me.

Russians? Turks? Greeks? Maltese? Portuguese? Americans? Canadians? Jews? Slavs? Irish? What about mixed race people? What about religion and irreligion? What does it take to be considered white?

Well fist move to Venezuela a true Fuckn socialist paradise LeL, then tell them that race is a social construct / culture Is a social construct, you tell them we need more culture so more immigrants from black country's because you find they have more culture & thire race is beast race, after all the mental gymnastic beat of to cuck porn and kill yourself.

Very vague

Nothing, every one knows white people are a myth. Silly cummie

So I can say Nigger cuz we nigs in sheeeet


Your non-argument hasn't refuted anything I have said, but instead evaded the scientific evidence behind the differences between the races physically and mentally.

They're real enough in your mind

Europe doesn't equal white. The Irish never used to be considered white. Nor were Italians, Poles, Jews etc. Racial definitions are constantly changing, and they'll change again.

you realize Autism Level tests are not an objective measure for intelligence and intelligence is not even properly defined in psychology, right? theres a reason we have a bazillion different Autism Level tests because as a professional you will pick whatever test you need depending on the subject youre testing and even then theyre just used as a general guideline since theyre really not specific at all. our tests that test general intelligence are the shakiest of all and are still evolving and improving upon themselves today, since theyre always created with a baseline in mind that might be dependant on how the imagined subject has been brought up in their lifes

one example is including literacy and speech in Autism Level tests, some do this because they want to test this part, however its obviously something thats highly dependant on the environment you grew up in and only makes sense to test subjects which show signs of being extremely deficient or proficient in these areas.

jesus i swear to god the misunderstanding of Autism Level tests is the most triggering thing to me

Intelligence quotient tests don't include literacy and speech sections, are you retarded? You don't even need to know a language to take one. I think I have better faith with Chinese and European scientists using intelligence quotient tests to identify intelligent people to be used in genome sequencing than some idiot on a commie board saying they are irrelevant and wrong with made up reasons.

And yet you are intentionally citing old, outdated information that was often poorly cited to begin with. iq gains.pdf

Not to mention most of your questions are extremely leading and loaded while making bold assertions without any backing, like you are gambling on no one calling you out with counter-evidence, or evidence at all for that matter.

All you are doing is trying to bully people into accepting your political beliefs without you having to actually argue them by their philosophical merit.

These differences exist even between individuals. God help you if you want to quantify this in a political manner without ending up in some cartoonish dystopia.

The neatness is what defines it as a concept, so yes, it dies.

First of all, you know nothing of biology if you think human races = dog breeds.
Second, the fact that everyone has their own arbitrary definition of what races are in this context is what makes it so flaky and unreliable as a classification. Bias is virtually impossible to avoid.

no, but you seem a bit slow in your reading comprehension. SOME test do, most dont. i was pointing out how every test is a bit different depending on various factors. there EXIST tests with language sections, i know because i have used them myself

I took two for psychiatric reasons and I distinctly remember literacy and speech being relevant. They are certainly useful tests, but the idea of measuring human worth with them is frankly horrifying and probably the brainchild of someone who is too stupid to understand political theory and thinks he can meander out of politics entirely through biological determinism.

You also have yet to refute the main point in .

yes, and races a groups of individuals,


they essentially are, dog breeds are just far more varied due to selective breeding. the same thing could happen to humans. and it does to a small extent
that's why you agree on what defines a race then stick to that definition.

Well for starters, you should stop referring to them as "race realists". It gives credence to the idea that "race realism" and racism are different things.

Nobody will ever agree on what race is. It's too loaded with social and political connotations.

i would never expect a socialist to jump the is/ought gap…

List some specific, scientific, qualities of the white race. Surely this shouldn't be hard for you?


Nice assertion. Having a neatly defined concept if what allows for elucidation, if you fail that you are just jumping between definitions.

This is untrue. It'd be much more appropriate to compare races to subspecies in Chimps. Even then, the small differences in Chimp subspecies encompass a genetic distance 3-4x greater between continental groups that the ones between human continental groups.

Humans are clinal, there is no clear cutoff between this race and that race.


Then there's no disputing it, clearly the master race is…sperm whales. Since they have larger skulls and brains sizes than any human "race". And since brain size is dirctly linked to intelligence, we know this to be true. Checkmate!

Exactly as I expect from a race denier.

You can't. All of their ideas are based on absolute facts.

Would you ask how to argue with mathematicians because you don't want two plus two to equal four?

Are you sure that's science, user?

No gene has been found to affect intelligence quotients more than about points
Intelligence quotients are mostly developed based on social experiences

*about three points

You cannot argue for a particular action using logic since morality isn't objective.

If some study comes out and proves beyond a shadow of doubt that "Blacks commit 100% of all world crime", so what? You can't jump to "then we should segregate them all" using a purely logical argument.

Rolled 1 + 1 (1d1)you cant. race is real

Do they actually think whites and blacks in America started on equal footing? like this just naturally happened? I can't believe hundreds of people actually read this utter shit, the anti-intellectualism in our society is disgusting and making us retarded

That's like asking how to argue with Yankee fans.
If you believe being be tangentially related by birth right to victories won by a team in a somewhat rigged competition make you a better person, then…. I guess that's what you believe.

The Yankees still aren't going to cut you a check. Also doesn't mean Red Sox fans are going to admire you or non sports watchers will ever give a flying fuck either.



Post a .pdf of it and I will read it.

This is much much better

We wean them off their racial opiate they're addicted to nice and easy but with firm rehabilitation to proletarian internationalism.


Is it filled with incomprehensible academic jargon that I won't understand? critical theory seems impossible to read for a retard like me

Explain this Nazi

Do you have a stance against material Geographic Essentialism?


Acquaint their skulls with the pavement.

I am the person in that picture and I would also recommend Guns, Germs, and Steel!

deny facts because they make you feel bad
oh wait…


We need mo money fo dem programs

What argument other than nature and lust forces the black man in todays America to rape more compared to his brothers?