Disclaimer: I have never read a book

Egoists are not against ethnicities or whatever, but against sacred ethnicities

Dumb, autistic polyp

I wouldn't mind a blond Stirner, as long as the drawings stays dank.

...

Why the fuck would Leftists be mad that a German philosopher looked German? Do you take us for liberals?

Seriously a good part of leftypol gets their sandy manlet-vaginas in a twist over anything they deem normative. (which inevitably shows deeply provincial views since it's only 'american' hollywood normative that is used as a criteria)

Dumb, autistic polyp

Yes, populations have genetic differences, but ethnic affiliation is not rooted in biology. If I moved to a neighbouring country and raised m child as a citizen of that country, nobody would notice since there there is no biological line separating citizens from my country from citizens of the neighbouring country
As long as you remember that only individuals exist and sacrifice for close family is not inherently valuable.
As long as you remember that only individuals exist and sacrifice for ethnic group is not inherently valuable.

I don't recall Stirner suffered from split personalities.

What is it with people and desperately trying to quip off posts without reading the actual chain?

Ethnicity isn't genetic it's national and cultural lineage. The borders of countries and cultures arent created by genetic factors. Although this may be true for some countries that are more geographically isolated it's not true for all countries. Now if you meant race rather than ethnicity, it is race that is about appearances and although appearances are determined by genetics the grouping of races is purely arbitrary in that it does not correlate to genetic similarity. Similarity comes by geographic population of origin but such geographic locations can consist of multiple races. On top of this if you actually look up how species are grouped by scientists you would find it's fairly arbitrary in that there is more than one system and scientists cant agree what to use. So technically race both exists (as a spook) and doesnt (from lack of genetic correlation in how people normally define race) at the same time.

Ethnicity is not a spook, the sense that you have a duty to defend your ethnicity is the spook.
Racionality is not the same as duty, one is an antecedent while the other might even be a consecuence.
You might reach to the egoist idea about sacrificing for your ethnic group, but once you get around the spook where everyone has the duty to do the same to you, you might not fall for the appeal of that idea.

Literally everybody would notice if the neighbouring country is one ethnically separated from your own, see the ethnic conflicts in Africa (contrast an Ethiopian, a Berber, a Shona or a Yoruba) or how China basically sees you as a lesser human, or not human at all, if you're not Han Chinese.
Liberal horseshit.

I must be incredibly stupid, because I watched that entire thing and I came away with the exact same belief I went in with - that genetic differences exist between population groups (ie. ethnicities)

Two groups of people that live in ethiopia have bigger genetic differences than there are between an european and an asian. Let that sink for a minute.

I don't believe in race so that doesn't change a thing for me. It's yet another affirmation of the belief that genetic differences exist between population groups

It's Steiner. So almost.
Fun fact(s). Steiner actually read Stirner, and then tried to synthesize his ideas it with magic and spiritual racism. He then started schools where children would be shaped according to his teachings. The current secretary general (the guy in charge) of NATO attended one of these schools as a child and young adult.
What is the significance of this? Only the truly woke can know.

That's because the tribal concept of Africans or Chinks is quite rigid in terms of ideal ("stereotypical") nationals when compared to eg. Americans. Yet, said model of a "plausible ethnic group member" remains in the sphere of concepts rather than being inherently tied to certain genetic traits, in other words it's definition is completely dependent on the consensus of self-described members of said community.
Stay spooked son

I mean, who denies this?

ID/POL/ PLS LEAVE

I fucked up, it's based on the overall consensus, not just of that one community.

Please dear god do that. Read your own ideology's books for fucks sake. You can't argue on a position you aren't informed about.

I don't know if you actually read further than that, but I'm not arguing any position. I'm asking questions.

All Egoists are naturally good looking people, it's a byproduct of their ideology.

I made it three minutes in and he's just trying to show that race essentialism doesn't exist.

That's obviously true. That does not mean that people of Congolese ancestry have the same gene frequencies as people of Russian ancestry (at a glance they do not), and it does not mean that the genes related to intelligence are evenly distributed in both subpopulations.

Race is a social construct with biological implications. It is medically useful to know if somebody is East Asian or if they're African. Not everybody was reproducing with everybody, and though there are obviously clines between genetic subpopulations and no discrete point at which somebody is white or black, that does not mean Australian Aboriginals generally have the same hereditary reading comprehension as Scots. Yellow is a portion of the color spectrum that bleeds together with red, but that does not make yellow the same as red.

The only genuine arguments I've seen against race realism have had to do with pointing out problems with old studies on races without offering any new studies on races (because professors can lose tenure or be permanently blackened by a study on race and intelligence).

It's not ignorance or evil, people are genuinely concerned that societies of intelligent people, and the advanced cultures they supported, are being lost.

You can reply with Stirner, but encouraging people to disregard historical progression and focus on immediate self advancement is against your own self interest (so is being a member of your university's communist party and carrying a box cutter around, in all probability).

Here's some fun reading OP:

...

Ethnicity is not defined genetically, but culturally. So no, its still a spook.

Spook is not social construct. Even if it was biological and essential it could be called a spook, as far as people do things for their race that hurt themselves.

Anyways, race being a social construct does not mean much biologically. See

Human genetic variation is literally everywhere; technically even identical twins are biologically different because of epigenetics. Trying to draw arbitrary lines is indeed spooky, especially since the real reason is some creepy bullshit about "I love my people" or whatever

Because your ethnicity is not your family. The vast majority of them are not even aware that you exist, and the majority of the remainder do not care regardless. It is also cucked as hell to sacrifice yourself in general

If this is your prime concern.Would you then support balancing out the effect of the low Autism Level ethnicity on national Autism Level with immigration from other high Autism Level populations, such as Chinese? Seems that would be the most realistic approach considering the low birth rates of whites.
And what do you then make of other indicators, such as religion? I believe that the studies that race realism draws from, also show a strong negative correlation between Autism Level and belief in a God, in fact I know they do.
Considering that religious people in general have more children, arguably because of scripture. Does it not stand to reason that religion is an equal danger, since it convinces the least intelligent of a given race to have more children?
Do you agree that if national Autism Level is the prime concern, a honest approach to race realism also must incorporate a critique of religion with the intent to destroy it, and a positive attitude towards mixing with other high Autism Level-populations e.g. chinamen?

didn't remember the word filter. Autism level is supposed to be the short form of Intelligence q-u-o-t-i-e-n-t

Do you have mental problems? Did you need to greentext all of that? Do you not see the stupidity in not even citing your obvious copypasta?

An arbitrary line is better than no line. When most of Africa has an I.Q between 60 and 80 may as well cut it off, instead of say there's no problem when morons who breed like rabbits replace the productive citizens of your country.

Chinese immigration is good with me, although that doesn't mean you should bring in people with lower I.Qs. Making irrelevant shiting between whites and Asians a policy goal strikes me as kind of gross, because when white guys fetishize Asian female conservatism, as opposed to white feminism, it disgusts me. Also, Asian women are way more likely to irrelevant shit than Asian men, and I feel bad for Asian male immigrants to Western countries. Still, I'm ultimately cool with it. It's a small thing to be authoritarian over.

East Asians also have very low reproductive rates. People with higher I.Qs generally have fewer children, and far East Asian countries have it the worst in terms of population decline. The intelligence problem cannot be addressed with mere importation, something else will have to happen in policy.

Not equal, but yes, it's a factor. This is one of the reasons Islam is particularly concerning.

This also means theocracy is, to some degree, a solution, along with general social conservatism that pushes women into marriages or financial dependence. If intelligent people do not deconvert, religion does not necessarily have a dysgenic effect. If they can, it does. So no, in reply to your question about destroying religion, not necessarily.

I.Q probably is not a comprehensive standard for testing intelligence, and there are other positive personality traits and cognitive abilities that should be selected for.

I think any solution will have to be kind of interventionist, although hopefully in a way that causes as little pain as possible. Reproductive rights, sexual liberation, or conventional childhood may have to be infringed upon if you want intelligent human beings in a thousand years. Most likely, the interventionist solution will work whether or not you're dealing with white people or Christians, although beliefs about human dignity that surround reproduction may be harmful.

No, didn't need to greentext, and you can quote a sentence and search on google.

lol fuck off

Spooks as those nitwits use it would discard everything besides hedonism married to nihilism, which is what stirner basically does (he is just acts like his own ego is transcendental). You can comfortably but stirner and all "stirner posters" in the wastebasket.

Stirner decried hedonism as a spook because it puts itself as an external standard to the individual, they become possessed by their own bodily desires. Actually read him, you dumb fuck.

and another thing, egoism is a direct contradiction to nihilism; nihilism says there are no values, egoism says the individual is the source of all value. Read. His. Fucking, Book.

That's what I said by treating the ego as transcendental. It doesn't actually make it so. Literally everything is a spook except for what you say isn't, because, for no reason, you have perfect access to truth via your own ego. Stirner can just say his "love of his fellow man" is real, but there is no reason to think this. Its a dead end on all fronts, philosophically, morally and politically.

stopped reading right there

Stirner posters are what you get when you decide to adopt a philosophy based on a doodle made on the back of a bar napkin. Don't take anything they say seriously.

Wrong, fixed ideas that repress you are spooks. A chair is not a spook. Religion is. Read. His. Fucking. Book.

nice non-argument.

I've read him numbnuts. Every fucking time he has to justify doing anything it comes down to this solipsist drivel about why it's what he wants to do because he is compelled to by love or pleasure or whatever he conjured up out if nothing.

I think he avoids saying thing like compel but somehow comes to the exact same conclusion

Go back and read him again because you clearly didn't learn anything the first time around. Platonic love is hardly hedonist.

Yeah

Your other dumb neo-nazi shit is spooks through.

But yes he looked german because suprise surprise he was fuckin german. whatever.

Stirner posters should be banned. I have never seen one make a good post, here or on /lit/. It's the middle brow equivalent of frogposting.

Imaginary man made lines to control the populations are 1000% spooks.

Can it be in your rational self interest to sacrifice yourself for close family?

Heroic sacrifice is not rational it's idiotic there is no glory or heroes in death.

Idiotic.

That Steiner photo is cancer, but not as cancer as the photo of Marc Bloch attached to a Nietzsche quote and addressing it to Stirner.

No. It is based on irrational emotional attachment to a specific group of people.

SMASH THE FAMILY

Is there a way to automatically add this to the top of every post made by anyone who has posted on Holla Forums in the last 8 hours?

Race is a biological construct.

google
murray
bookchin