Another shitty race realism thread

Calling upon the Holla Forums gods to answer this for me; I was browsing when I saw Ba'tko pussying out when being asked about some 'new' analysis from pic related (, though I also found him citing three threads from here over at The site is used and cited by ethnonationalists and probably Stormfags too; even the mod is wailing about 'free markets needing white people'. Site is, use something which won't give them clicks.

Other urls found in this thread:

inb4 Holla Forumsyp, CIA, falseflagging suhjuhwuh, also lel @

Didn't kraut and tea address these people in one of his videos?

I know what you're thinking, but it was still a mostly good video.

Are the peolple who run this site even scientists, or do they think science is cobtrolled by he jews too?

How is this actually relevant to leftism?

No answer. It could right, or it could be wrong.
You can't refute race realism because it's vague as fuck.
The real question is why capitalism needs this ideological shield? Also is this enough to justify slavery or exploitation?
Race realism is just an excuse to justify ideologically speaking failed capitalist states

only refutable hypotheses are elligible to be called scientific, this is pure ideology - putting "science" in brackets is especially damning for anyone operating under pretext of rationality or claiming to hold some sort of evidence.

I already have an argument which avoids the need for this whole discussion, namely a transhumanist one. Their aim is to prove that races have different cognitive abilities. We see crap like which uses measures such as patents and income to determine 'success' and 'ability' in addition to making no assessment as to how there are Autism Level gaps in mixed schools.

(>>2163391 cont.)
Of course, now that I think about it, I can see some arguments for NazBol and ethnonationalism from this. Firstly, an investigation into the use of terminology here is needed so that people in this thread don't harp on about something irrelevant. I have already started to briefly analyse it when looking at what he means when talking about 'innovation'.

I understand that I have to bump this for some attention given the shit that these threads get (for understandable reasons such as Holla Forumsyp infestation) but for fuck's sake.

For fuck's sake. You people have no fucking audacity to make any fucking arguments with me DESPITE ME SUPPORTING YOU. I am struggling to interpret this work and you aren't helping at all as usual; I have been here before with other topics about reactionaries such as Kolakowski and you did squat.

you have to go back, 4nigger


Do people realize that you don't to prove patents work to get them? A large amount of patents are bullshit, probably a majority of them. I could easily get one for some soft sci-fi nonsense technology if I wanted.

Why would you focus on that argument? That's just a case of speculation, and the polyps could dismiss it with that and go with the other arguments. To put it like this, you don't feel the need to defend every argument [insert e-celeb] makes


Our points alone don't refute their overall proposition, but it does show a consistant use of poor methodology making their arguments highly questionable.

Kraut and Tea's video was surprisingly good:
Rips apart the race realists of the alt-right pretty well.

Why should I care about race realism or any of that shit or why someone gets pissed off when we have no intent to argue about this?

race realist Chris Chan

Comrade, the sooner you learn no one on Holla Forums understands what they're talking about and that you need to go else where, the better.

Ask for a ban in the mod thread if the board is troubling you so much.

I have NO fucking idea what you sperging out about OP, maybe I'll read your links, but you mistake our apathy for a lack of an argument. Leftists give 0 fucks about race. It makes quite literally no difference in the grand scheme of our ideology, the only reason we even argue with you Holla Forumsyps about it is because it's amusing sometimes.
Nevertheless this shit is idpol, completely worthless, baseless, and a waste of time. I could care less if this is ammunition for Holla Forums, it's like handing blanks to an army of autists. Lemme larp and have their fun

Yes, different phenotype of humans exist but that doesn't make anything different. Every human can learn, run, eat, breath etc. Genetics DO play a part in how adept you are at some things but how one is raised, what you eat and the culture you're in also make a large difference.
Each individual has different abilities irregardless of "race".
The skin colour or ethnicity of a person doesn't dictate shit, it's their life experiences and unique genetics (that are a mutation of their parents and their parent's parents ect) that really matter. Generalizing a "race" is stupid because each person ultimately comes down to their individual abilities.
Race is a spook

The only reason why I """pussed out""" was because I find debates tiring, and the alternative hypothesis utilises sources which were funded by the Pioneer fund, a known fascist organisation which fucks around with evidence.

If that makes me look "weak", i'd really give a shit about what a bunch of white nationalists say about me. On top of that those "new" forms of analysis are pretty dated.
Deleting debunking stormfags was also due to the fact that I'd rather not waste my time arguing with people who use said sources, especially if they same fag and use names like "mordecai shekelwitz" and "Negroid", and there are better sources that debunk alot of race realist arguments better than I do, and do so in a more professional tone as opposed to me just copying and pasting shit from articles.

The alternative hypothesis themselves are pretty fashy, as much as they want to state that they're "unbiased". So arguing with race realists is not only a waste of time, but pointless given their positions that they're just people trying to justify their bigotry. They're also not the sanest of people

You will find Ryan Faulk as a guest frequently on many alt right outlets aswell as being the source of many alt righters who produce content such as Red Ice Radio:

as well as being a ""Nazi revisionist""
Contrary to his claims of having no political agenda and merely "wanting to talk biological facts on race" his prior internet history suggests otherwise:

He also got triggered by Vee of all people

Why "race realism" threads are allowed baffle me. It's something we've archived and debated, which is why I gave Dave and Alt-Hyp the archives before blocking them.

On top of that, it wasn't something I was committed to. I was going to do further articles challenging holocaust denial, but due to my lack of committment, I just cast it aside.

The argument about the inefficiency of capitalism itself and the potential efficiency of a 'socialist' (sorry, terminological minefield) society can be raised in its entirety to wreck that particular point, though as says, it's a stupid idea to focus on that.

dunn bulli meee im only tWENTY AND I HAVE TO MEEMEE
Found the Discord user.

Yes you fucking do have an intent to argue about it (which may mean 'against it'), particularly the political implications. Seems like 'ruthless criticism' or whatever it is has gone out the window; even the old gish-gallopers aren't to be safe.
I might be a gigantic fucking fool for seeing potential in this board to have things discussed (inb4 ass borgors) but I think I'll continue.

I am already aware of Faulk's political programme; I'll state again that I understand that he is defending capitalism - particularly a liberal-bourgeois variety - and argues that whites are crucial to drive it.

wait wat. Wouldn't the "abilities unique to the white man" be the crucial drive? Then wouldn't those skills be taught or or inherited by someone who aint white? If ability is inherited through genes then why not have mixed ethnicity babies that have the best of both races? If it's just because of white skin then what the fuck sort of retarded magic anglo fairy is gibing these whiteys their abilities?
Doesn't make fucking sense to me. Sounds like a bunch of idpol bullshit.

Let's play devil's advocate for a moment - One big problem Holla Forums has with arguing against race realists is that many of their arguments against it essentially boil down to accusing race realists of some combination of:

Now, the problem here is that any scientist who finds that trait X (I.Q. is the most common) has a strong genetic component essentially has to be guilty of academic dishonesty, perhaps for racist reasons like people such as Murray are commonly accused of, in this sort of worldview. However, we should note that two can play that game: indeed, many biologists who held more anti-hereditarian views about human traits were of Jewish descent, and there are books like the Culture of Critique that explicitly argue that Jewish scientists have intentionally distorted science on this issue in the name of anti-racism in order to prevent a future rise in racism and thus, logically, anti-Semitism. Now, the author of CoC became a white nationalist, but the point here is that if we're willing to entertain the idea that scientists are going to engage in large-scale academic dishonesty for ethnic reasons like "blacks are inferior lol", you are forced to entertain the idea that the Jews are actually lying.

Why should we allow the right to control the narrative by allowing them to force us to knock down their bullshit think tank propaganda whenever they spew it?


Never before seen Holla Forums post here.
ironically posted in a thread where arguments are being ignored?

The Right doesn't control any narratives on race, though. On the race topic, you can just sit back and let neolibs do all the work - they have a vested interest in trying to silence race realism because diversity is in their economic interests.

The argument there is: 'no, it's not useful because niggers are shit everywhere according to my very specific measures of progress, also dude AUTISM LEVEL TESTS LMAO' And again, the transhumanist argument beats them all!

Regarding your first two points, are you drunk?

Personally, I thought they were fairly nice sentences.
Did you read what I was responding to? Perhaps my Autism Level is simply too massive for this thread to contain.

Fuck your shitty attempt at entryism.

The paint isn't "who's lying"
The point is to destroy the idea of race so people can be seen for their individual attributes without being lumped into some arbitrary category of "he is black, let me judge him based on that".

Shit thread OP.

The right is gaining control of the narrative because not enough people are knocking down their bullshit think tank propaganda. Call people on their bullshit or they will spread their bullshit.

I'm not trying any entryism here. The point is that Communists are just wasting time on everything that isn't critique of capitalism, like cultural issues, racial issues, etc. because they agree with progressives on everything but capitalism, and progressives have a lot of money and a media/university apparatus supporting them.

Racial categories aren't necessarily useless. For instance, they're used in medicine, as some ethnic groups are more likely than others to have certain diseases or genetic disorders. Dissmissing a category X because the boundaries of category X can be "fuzzy" is a bit of a weak argument when treating X as a meaningful category can be useful.

Also, while I'm not totally sure which things can be said to be a spook in the sense of Stirner, I have a hard time seeing how ethnicity can be one, since it's genetically coded. At best, you can argue that what is colloquially called "race" is an American construction, but you can group peoples around the world into different ethnic groups based on genetic distance (albeit with some fuzzy boundaries) according to some suitable metric, no?

okay, well almost everything, in America at least they support gun control.

Why not just be a fucking egoist already

Pic related, it's you.

They can make the argument for trends, group-based judgement and the resultant removal of anatagonisms within society, because apparently 'it all works if they're not niggers, it's magic!!!1!'. Egoism is ultimately the analysis of what is useful, read Stirner. I can cite him if you wish.

One must be careful with the gish-gallopers, of course.

The right have completely lost control of both the narrative and their movement. Only Holla Forumsyps think otherwise.

This is a blatant lie on leftypol though. People don't want your thread to fuck off because we love liberals, we want your thread to fuck off because we've had literally hundreds of them and they were all shit and each one could have been solved with >pioneer fund.

this is literally a Holla Forums tier argument though, you will have to do better than "you are racist"

Shit man, i gotta revise my English.
Trying to make a point is hard when you dont know what words to use
Immo go get a dictionary

As I understand it, Faulk is arguing for some sort of segregation and his arguments can be used in support of ethnonationalism. That is another focus here rather than simply the validity of classification.

Two can play at that game, pic related. To paraphrase Bane, what matters is the plan.

oh and yes, categorizing people based on assumed ethnicity can be useful. What im trying to say is that saying "Blacks are objectively inferior" is fucking stupid. Again, gotta sort my shit out

Y-you only love me for my (You)s!

Am I the only person here that thinks the far right gaining seats in European elections is a threat?

But that's not the argument I'm making. My argument revolves around you fucking off because the pioneer fund actively funds the alt-right and other groups, and are engaged in heavy astroturfing and all of their research has been done to retroactively fit their agenda, which actually is racist because it's like some kind of bizarre family tradition to these porkies.
I didn't make an actual argument against the material because I don't give a shit. You are trying to get me to read it like it's something I care about, but I don't. Nobody cares to read your shit because there is absolutely nothing you can do outside of utopian Nazi masturbation fantasies to deal with niggers or whatever which would also be more difficult than fighting an actual revolution.

I have no idea who Faulk even is, I don't go on Holla Forums that often and I don't go on 4/8 Holla Forums. If I read about this sort of stuff I try to stick to textbooks and papers as opposed to randos on the internet. There is a good amount of shit science floating around on the internet, one egregious example is the r-K selection meme applied in an incorrect way to humans that's been making the rounds forever.

I wouldn't worry about it. Most far-rightists in Europe would've been centrists 50 years ago. They're typically bog-standard conservative-liberals who oppose Muslim immigration.


You are likely a CIA shill. Get out.

Faulk does use r/K a lot from whatI've seen.

And the alt-right mirror:


Yeah, some turbo-aspie (literally, also he has rather comical thoughts on Kant) made a blog post on it and it spread like wildfire because it allowed conservatives to convince themselves they were biologically superior.

Sauce on the blog post?

it's not even used correctly, another race-realist site debunked it but that hasn't stopped anyone from misusing it

Look all I'm getting at is that I'm messing with you. Do you get that? I don't really believe I'm some genius, but I do really not want to prove you right/wrong. Im just getting on your nerves because you demand information and it is way too easy to keep it from you, and it's a little funny. Why should I teach you, honestly? I feel a little mean for refusing your manic appeals, but I'm a little unhappy and enjoying this. You've gotten more than a (You), possible mission success there.

Fuck this entire thread seems to be a semantic fuckfest.
Ethnicity is real in the sense that X group of people from X place look like that because of how their bodies needed to adapt to the environment.
"Race" isn't real in the sense that you cannot tell how a person will act or what their skills are purely based off their genetics. Those have mostly to do with their upbringing and culture.
"Race" as a social construct dictating how people should act or what they should be good at is a spook.
Race as in what genes they have depending on their parents and environment isn't a spook.

Die lol

Thanks, might try to analyse.

If you're not here to argue then fuck off. You can shitpost in your spastic fashion elsewhere on the board, or on the net. Maybe even IRL too, some do it.

Does Faulk define his terms?

I don't think I have to go anywhere m8. I do agree my posts are a little spastic. A part of me wants to edit them to make them flow but another part of me (obviously the intellectual) enjoys leaving them disjointed.

need a fucking dictionary i swear


Genetics is a material condition, but race is a terrible way to model it, being largely a Victorian pseudoscience.

What do you mean by 'race'?

"I have never been to Holla Forums before but let me pull claims out of my ass anyway"

you don't need to be smart to be a good person

Someone got something right. Also mods are just confirming the shitstain nature of the board. THE FACT THAT YOU ARE UNWILLING TO ARGUE HERE ONLY SHOWS THAT YOU ARE IDEOLOGUES AND NOTHING MORE.

You know what I mean, user. Think back on the first attempts to present racism as a scientific discipline. "Mongoloid race", "the Irish hav more in common with the Negro" etc. The current, watered down version in America of white, black, Hispanic etc. is marginally less retarded, but still extremely retarded. It's like using the humors theory to practice medicine.

This is, I think, what infuriates people so much about the Current Year™ shitlib position on race. Dismissing race as a "social construct" is true in a sense, but also completely inane and contrarian, like referring to the colors of the rainbow as a social construct: Yes, technically speaking, "cyan" and "ultramarine" are arbitrary human inventions, and (disregarding official standards like the ICC or Pantone) there is no precise wavelength in common parlance at which they are separated from each other, but that doesn't mean the terms don't obviously refer to real physically distinguishable things. Similarly, just because they are real, doesn't mean that they are important, or that traditional superstitions associated with them are also real.

Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if tomorrow they started crying about the over-representation of Scorpios among CEOs, and demand more Leos and Libras in Congress.

So what is 'race' for Faulk and co? I presume they mean 'subspecies' based on picking particular genes, perhaps see:

…this is an argument how?


He lays it out in pretty unequivocal terms:
>A race of people is just a geographically defined set of populations which, in the past if not now, lived together and bred with each-other more than they bred with outsiders. Given this definition, it is obvious that races are real because it is obvious that people who descend from Africa, Europe, East Asia, etc, are real. A better question is whether or not it is useful to categorize people by race.
>For one, as we all know, the races differ in mean skin color and various other “superficial” traits such as hair color and hair type, the length and density of various bones, muscle composition, etc.
In other words, longstanding isolated genepools that are recognizable at a glance (or through cultural "tells" in aesthetically similar peoples, but supremacists won't usually say that outright nowadays).

The primary point to attack such people on isn't semantic sophistry about "lel social construct" or the fuzziness of such classification (because the race supremacists can always choose some specific genetic definitions and attach them to their historical groups), but on whether the differences (particularly regarding intelligence) they espouse in individuals are actually large enough to class races (note that the statistical significance of overlap between individuals versus trends within groups is something supremacists constantly shoot themselves in the foot on, even for their beloved "bell curves") as generally superior or inferior overall. And, after all the various non-genetic externalities are controlled for, it is on precisely this point that racial supremacism has been debunked. Because the people you're attacking aren't advocating race, or even racial superiority/inferiority in specific areas, they're specifically advocating racial supremacy.

Really, a good comparison would be with religious young earth creationists, and "intelligent design". Debating them about whether or not the "clockwork universe" was made by a deceitful, undetectable, non-interventionist entity as a test of faith is wholly unproductive, and in many instances would necessitate arguments that are logically unsound. Instead, the only useful argument with such people is "does your hypothesis have any meaningful consequences?", and after debunking all the various hypocritical appeals to divine intervention that have been materially disproven, their remaining immaterial argument can simply be dismissed.

They at least imply that their analyses can be used for various purposes besides confirming their own views. I can simulate it here and now: 'what the hell are you gonna do with all those studies now, these ones which back our views? we ain't cherry-picking, you have a look!' Besides, we need to look at Faulk's claims, not some general Stormnigger's.

Until you stop being disingenuous, it's the best I can do.

I legitimately didn't know what they were on about. You could've helped me there with your analysis instead of being a bitch.

I think his point is that racial supremacism, being more based on arbitrary spooks than any practical science, is not just lacking in rigor, but is a slippery slope down from its current continent-wide granularity to nationalism, regionalism, individual towns or dialects, then finally familial tribalistic clan warfare.

A race realist can argue that this is 'natural and shiet'. In other news, I need to lurk on YT more.

Sorry man I just thought I was referring to common knowledge: the concept of race is not only spooky but almost wholly arbitrary instead of scientifically verified. It's the heritage of pseudo-science. Ultimately it's just one of the modern iteration of past spooks like

I'm relatively new to this whole thing so I'd be happy if someone could answer this question for me. Is a lower average Autism Level present in black American population groups not only because of immediate socioeconomic factors that don't allow people to develop their full potential but also because differing socioeconomic factors lead to a differing genetic make up of the population group?

Unless you're talking about the slight increase in mutations resulting from exposure to pollution, or heritable defects from poor breeding practices (incest or over-age pregnancy for instance, neither of which are common among American blacks), then no, that would be pretty far outside the realm of accepted biology.

I was asking whether the lower average I.Q. is partially a result of conditions within that group which lead to people with low I.Q. to reproduce more frequently when compared to people with high I.Q..