Race """Realism"""

OP is cringe

Can you niggers fuck off this serious thread

...

wew. Go outside

...

The same "internet racists" are willing to shoot up mosques and synagogues over these poorly formulated ideas
It's a pretty prominent justification for ideologies that advocate ethnic cleansing and really easy to fall into for those unaware of the wider picture

Those shootings had nothing to do with the shooter thinking the people had a lack of lQ

This is no reason to reject science and material analysis

They both use Zig Forums of which race realism is a central tennet. No doubt the underlying reason Tarrant doesn't want muslims in "white" countries has more to do with their race than religion

Also if i were rejecting science i wouldn't link scientific articles on the matter

lmao that girl looks like an enderman

Race and lQ are two different things. The shootings were a result of mass migration.

What? Like most spree killers ('terrorists' included), the politics is just a thin justification/rationalisation for the act. They drift to causes like white nationalism because of their alienation/unbalanced mental state, which lets them justify the act.

Attached: supreme_gentlemen_by_thesupremegentlemen_d7t4gqw-fullview.jpg (1024x576, 87.59K)

I always thought that nationalism arose out of some way to package an antipathy towards Muslims, because people thought that they are violent but saying they just want people to live in "their own" countries is a lot more popular. Pretty sure I saw it rise ~2015 but eventually people forgot what they were covering for and ended up believing their own myths.

Muslims are the most "alien" aspect of mass immigration, though, since it seems like an open rejection of the ("Western") host society. As a kiwi our Muslim population is relatively/historically insignificant, if anything I'd think a white nationalist would be shooting up a Pasifika/Asian cultural centre or something instead.

I made responses regarding haplotypes and the idea of race here 8ch.net/leftypol/res/2845318.html#q2845456. Most of my other more in depth posts link back to it, so that should make it easier to find them in the discussion. To reiterate:

It's important to clarify that genetic markers and haplogroups exist without question. What we mean when we say "race does not exist" is that the generalized phenotype based constuct of race does not exist. As in, X group of people occupying some shared societal category based on appearance alone, generally skin tone. The problem is that Zig Forumsyps will conflate the two, which makes the statement "race does not exist" sound ridiculous when put into such context. When someone says "race does not exist" without clarifying what they mean by "race", it gives Zig Forums-types the opportunity to inject a completely different meaning to what we are saying, that is "genetic markers and haplogroups don't exist", a belief which we do not hold.

Other posts discuss race is a poor classification, and we already possess the methods to discern your specific haplogroupings. It should be important to note however that haplogroupings do not describe your entire ancestry and the information to discern haplogroup is generally taken from your paternal side.

Attached: kySt1ob.png (1933x1365, 817.64K)

Why contort language and confuse people only to have would be sympathizers turn against you?

In what way am I contorting language and what "sympathizers" are turning against?

This is that Zig Forums quality we were sorely lacking!

"race does not exist"
"what we mean by race is"

Only in very technically terms you might be correct but if you try and say race doesn't exist most people will just think thats silly.

Language was already contorted. If you try to say anything that is contrary to mainstream public opinion then people will think it's silly. Saying that liberals are rightwing is silly. Saying that competition between firms is inefficient is silly. Saying that private property is theft is silly.

Are we supposed to just accept that out of fear of alienating potential sympathizers?

BO didn't ban enough shitters.

...

It isn't possible to have a coherent discussion about race while using common terminology and without making nuanced statements.

This is just defeatism

to the baboonarium

It's an observation. When you use common racial terminology and when you avoid nuance, you are lead towards either racist conclusions or liberal egalitarian conclusions because you don't even have the words to reason your way to a coherent materialist conclusion.
It's like trying to discuss capitalism in capitalist terminology, and expecting to come to a Marxist conclusion. It's not possible. That isn't "defeatism", that's just how it works.

Immediately kill yourselves. The only discussion about "race" should revolve around history, period.

There's nothing to discuss about race. The part that you are leaving unspoken is that you believe there is a functional difference between races, which you leave unspoken because you don't want to be called racists- and make no mistake: you are racists. There are thousands of shitty youtubers like you that whine about having a "discussion about race".

From the way you describe it, it sounds like a racist reappropriation of the similar brainlet argument that anti-vaxers have been using for years. It is not that there are more autistic people now than before, it is just that with more knowledge on the subject the term was expanded to encompass more of them

Except for the part where it doesn't exist, which is what the conversation thread was about, which you apparently missed.

"Race" as its used by the majority of people does not exist. That is to say "White, Black, etc" are not things grounded in anything concrete.

No, they don't. For most people, race is categorical and is mostly defined by skin color. When people talk about the "whites" or the "blacks" they aren't talking about specific haplogroups or anything specific. They are talking about these ill-defined social constructions that have no basis besides a few arbitrarily selected phenotypes. The Nenets share significant genetic ancestry with other European groups which would be considered white, yet if a Nenet were to walk around in modern society with no indication they were a Nenet, most people would not see them as "white". Same with the Kazan Tatars, you would find very few in the west who would consider but the lightest "white", yet most share similar genetic ancestry with Eastern Europeans who WOULD be considered white.

Nope, it's inferred from peoples self identification, which is important.
Lokis wager fallacy.

You're gonna have to do better than that!

"inferred from self identification" IS arbitrary

Damn i remember when this line of reasoning was mocked with the attack helicopter meme.
So much for the rational right.

Attached: 2352837.png (496x427, 191.42K)

Ironically the right is full of transracials
They just all identify as white.

That much determinism would be nice, but things suck and I'm expected to be a functional adult with responsibilities instead of an RPG character with stats and some cool spells.

snowniggers

That's A LOT of links. I added it as a collapsible element on the Wiki.

marxistpedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

(me)
It would be nice if someone knowledgeable in this thread could build an article on the basis of it.

just to add
variation in a one ethnicity group is the same as variation between two ethnicity groups
genes expression can change significantly through one's life because of adaptation to environmental factors and genes change significantly through generations.
the mainstream understanding of race is too simplified and incorrect

Thanks, i might add that not all links are seemingly pertinent so do not treat the entire list as a measured refutation
Some studies are indeed direct addresses to hereditarian arguments, others are studies on factors relevant to racial disparities, however some are brief introductory summaries and reading material on similar subjects

how so?

Not its not

Genetic Markers don't exist?
They do.
Black and white is just short for European and African which are every real groups of people

So? you calling it ill defined does not negate these groups.

Do you not understand what outliers are?
Just because there isn't a hardline separating groups of people does not mean race does not exist.

no it should revovle around science

> 'It should revolve around science'

Attached: 1476747417002.png (1333x553, 352.8K)

Yes it should revolve around science not strawman arguments

Would you like me to dump my debunking of nordicism here?

you didn't debunk it though

You are the one strawmanning you snownigger.

Whatever

That's what I'm asking, if you'd like me to dump all my infographics and other shit on that

shitposting

So you think dumping information with no explanation behind it is an argument?
What are you even arguing against?

I'm not arguing against anyone here wtf
I was just thinking that it's a not uncommon alt right talking point and if anyone wanted to argue against it in future i could supply some ammo

then whats the point of dumping info

For others to read and use? Not every thing has to be about an immediate argument

"debunking" is inherently argumentative

What ammo could possibly convince any male of average intelligence that pygmies have the exact same mental traits as Japanese? Post some infographics debunking sex realism. Existence of biological sex is an alt right talking point too.

Do you know what nordicism is?
The belief that virtually all ancient civilisations were actually comprised of light featured aryans who were bred out by brown natives

I have a feeling you made that up.

Nope, pic related is an example of this kind of shit
Arthur Kemp: March of the Titans - a book all about how we (nordics) wuz kangz n shiet in every ancient civilisation

Attached: 1502663494159.png (1326x718, 1.19M)

no its not

Again this is incorrect it is just a history of the European people

If you don't believe me you can read it here
the-eye.eu/public/Books//4chan_pol_Archives/PDFs/Miscellaneous Unsorted/Propertarianism Library - The Great Books of the Aristocracy/March of the Titans; History of the White Race.pdf

There's a section on ancient history in which he claims shit like modern greeks aren't related to ancient greeks and their true descendents are north-west europeans

Except he says right in his manifesto that he gives zero shits what islamists do in the middle east. The second they cross over into western nations and the rape jihad begins it open season.
Is this really so hard to understand?
It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with nation and soveriegnty for the members of the nation.
If a million brits or french showed up in my hometown it would be war.

Also you clearly say "no doubt". You are peojecting. This is all assumptions that has to do with how you feel about the situation and your life experiences but flies directly counter to what was actually expressed by those involved.

You are looking for a racial spin on simple invasion. Native Americans didn't fight euros cause they were racist and thought euros were inferior. They fought euros cause they wanted to preserve their homeland and culture.

Ok and?

That is nordicism

You said Nordicism was
But the only thing that resembles this is:
To which you provided no citation or quotes. So you probably misrepresented the actual argument.

However saying one thing about the Greeks is not "EVERY civilization is made up of aryans"
So by your own definitions of Nordicism you are incorrect.

But for Kemp's actual argument it makes sense that modern greeks would be different from ancient Greeks.
2000+ years of time including being a part of multiple empires being occupied by ethnic Turks for hundreds of years, migration etc. You'd be hard pressed to make an argument that ethnic Greeks and the exact same as ancient Greeks.

Except it's verifiably false

Attached: Muh march of the titans.png (1920x3114 3.22 MB, 1.8M)

Attached: Varg told me dey wuz nords.jpg (3825x4153 3.4 MB, 3.41M)

Attached: Greek phenotype.jpg (1520x5525 2.17 MB, 2.42M)

Attached: Debunking nordicist revisionism.jpg (4319x4262 394.75 KB, 3.15M)

Do you have an actual argument?

Your cringe dump is meaningless if you have no substance behind it

Chapters 5-13 are literally him pointing out how these civilisations were ruled by "nordic" aryans
I take it you haven't actually even looked at it

Attached: 1500765318460.png (1100x608, 441.87K)

No its talking about indo european migration

Genetic evidence, anthropological evidence, artistic evidence, literary evidence
You were saying

Which he likes to think are nordic

Attached: Nordic Indo Europeans debunked.png (4371x4853, 2.19M)

An example as you seem obsessed with defending this mongoloid

Attached: Screenshot_20190512-181032.jpg (720x1113, 246.49K)

Do you have anything other than Zig Forums tier infographic?

By the way search results for nordic return 252 cases. He takes pretty much every statue as "proof" X ancient people were nordic aryans.

whats with the autistic reaction to a book no one reads?

I assume you've read it

Yes and you're arguing against points he never made
But why you're obsessing over Nordicism is beyond me

Are you fucking kidding me, just re-read the chapter on hellenes

The first picture does not challenge race realist narratives at all, as divorces are initiated by women 80%+ of the time. Meaning the white women thought they were settling for less when dating black men, and black women perceived themselves as marrying up. The race realist take would simply be that is one of the thousands of every day reflections of people knowing and acting on the fact of human biodiversity, they would also bring up the extremely high rate of domestic abuse in black male and white female couples. It cements their narrative

Then you would be lying, are you pulling a Sargon? Can you tell what race Laurence Fishburn is?

It is extremely concrete, as they are the only mathematically valid categories when sorted by haplogroups or genetic distance. This board is fucking brain dead for believing this non-sense. Every time you try to pump out the same copy pasta of that rationalwiki article, you don't even come up with new fallacies. It's the same old ones repeated ad nauseam. Not a single person on this board understands evolution

You want to genocide and slaughter people in a revolution, you don't have grounds to pretend to be indignant on anything. We can also look at the callousness you responded to the Rotherham rape gangs, there was a not single socialists who did not side with the brown rapists. Presumably the antifa bombed the houses of investigators just for a laugh

see

You're on this board

...

Why are leftists attacking people who are against the rape gangs