[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / gdp2083 / imouto / leftpol / madchan / startrek / sw / thestorm ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


WARNING! Free Speech Zone - all local trashcans will be targeted for destruction by Antifa.

File: aefec33609aa72c⋯.mp4 (6.8 MB, 640x360, 16:9, race war.mp4)

 No.70058

does Homo sapiens have different races?

 No.70059

Mostly irrelevant. Biological classification has nothing to do with whether someone qualifies as a human being or not.


 No.70064

>>70059

Basically. For the most part, the people who are the most vocal about this subject are the ones who wish to create different legal treatment for different races.


 No.70098

>>70059

it is relevant for ppl interested in anthropology and science


 No.70099

>>70059

But it determines what kind of human being a human being is.


 No.70101

>>70098

So you're just interested in anthropology and science? So I take it that, if somebody answers your question, you'll go back to trying to read ancient Celtic runes and figuring out what their sagas tell us about their concept of virtue?

I wouldn't mind at all, but I doubt that's your motivation and I hate it when people try to bullshit me.

>>70099

Taxonomy cannot tell us anything philosophically relevant. It's barely even valuable for the social sciences. You can link race to crime, if you want, even with a genetic basis, without ever invoking the concept of taxonomy. You can found your own ethnostate without ever hearing of the distinction between species and subspecies.


 No.70105

>>70101

>philosophy and social sciences are relevant

>links between crime and race aren't

wew


 No.70106

>>70105

>links between crime and race aren't

I actually implied that they exist, but that taxonomy still does not at all matter. Blacks commit more crime than whites, fact. That's relevant. Whether that's due to genetic differences is, likewise, relevant. Whether they are a different suspecies, species or whether they're technically fucking birds is not in the slightest relevant. Nuances matter.


 No.71240

>>70058

sure.


 No.71244

File: 1b090b79e97b59b⋯.jpg (97.53 KB, 500x375, 4:3, subspecies abbos vs humans.jpg)

>>70058

In fact, there are different species.

Abbos have tiny 1199 ml brains, while Whites are 1400+. They aren't even the same species.


 No.71246

File: b926243ec53f7bc⋯.gif (851.12 KB, 2970x2400, 99:80, race reality.gif)

File: e781170a93c7a7a⋯.jpg (466.51 KB, 843x843, 1:1, race1.jpg)

File: 3e00465117d15f8⋯.pdf (2.28 MB, nicholas-wade-a-troublesom….pdf)

>>70058

>does Homo sapiens have different races?

The question's supposed to be "Do Homo Sapiens have different races?" and the answer is yes. There are indeed varying racial differences among each group, especially most dauntingly in terms of intelligence, with African Americans having IQs of around 85, whereas real Africans have IQs around 70, etc etc. This is what's theorized to be the reason behind blacks committing large amounts of crime despite their comparatively small population, as low IQ individuals tend to be far more violent than high IQ individuals. Put simply, the more intelligent you are, the less likely you are to be impulsively violent and certain groups are, on average, far less intelligent than others and consequently far more violent.

There's also a lot more to it as well that doesn't even have very many social implications (such as vulnerability to disease, skin, hair formation) It's actually quite an interesting subject.


 No.71259

>>70058

From what I've read 'race' in biology and race in colloquial terms are very different. There seems to be no scientific basis for how race is divided up colloquially and different kinds of races (they have a different word for it in biology but I'm a layman so forgive me) that can be distinctly identified scientifically are over 200 with most of them being in Africa while the rest of the world is very homogeneous.

So kind of but it's nonrelevant outside of scientific research.


 No.71263

>>70059

>differences between crows and swallows are mostly irrelevant because it has nothing to do with whether they are birds

I know that natural rights people love to see things binary, but holy shit this takes it to new levels


 No.71265

>>70058

yes

youre going to find statistical clusters in neurophysiology

looks like myers briggs types are a pretty close model if those

skincolor and other phenotype stuff is correlated with those, because genepools are correlated with geography and skin color etc are correlated with geography


 No.71267

>>71263

Can crows and swallows produce viable offspring? Do they share sapience? Your analogy is a non-sequitur.


 No.71272

File: bcff8ec3966a9ec⋯.jpg (39.69 KB, 312x338, 12:13, implying implications.jpg)

>>71263

Maybe I should have made myself as clear as I have the last ten times that we talked about this. If we regard humanity as a philosophical concept, then yes, it doesn't matter if blacks or abos or khmer technically aren't humans on a biological level. Do they share the fundamentals of human nature? Have they been created by God? Those are the important questions as far as philosophy and ethics are concerned, not whether they can produce offspring, have a different genetic makeup, or have a slightly different phenotype.


 No.71273

>>71272

Actually, talking about the fundamentals of human nature is tautological. Human nature is already the essence, in other words: the fundament of humanity. There are no accidents in an en essence, by definition.

Read Aquinas, you faggots.


 No.71290

>>70058

Does a bear shit in the woods?


 No.71340

>>71272

so your saying that even if they are not humans, they are still people? I can get behind this sentiment


 No.71345

It only somewhat matters if everyone is peaceful. Differences in ability fuel trade and prosperity for all participants. Races are genetic opportunities - we should notice them in that frame. If man truly cannot live with other races, it is the frame of genetic opportunity that will provide the way out.

Also, affirmative action is messed up. It codifies differential treatment. We shouldn't be taking that paternalistic burden back up. It's not culturally healthy.


 No.71367

File: 80a589dab52541d⋯.jpg (6.96 KB, 259x194, 259:194, seal of approval.jpg)

>>71340

Yes, that's how you can put it. Glad we could come to an understanding.


 No.71371

>>71290

>zoo bears

>circus bears

>polar bears


 No.71524

>>71371

>Implying urbanites are a race

>Implying taught behavior is a race

>Implying forests don't exist in Northern Canada

Also a Polar Bear is literally a genetic cousin of the Brown Bear separated by about 5,000 years, and the two can interbreed because of how close they are genetically. This would be like saying abbos are normal people, which while technically correct, ignores the fact that they're a separate species in virtually every way and were considered a missing link for decades.


 No.71642

>>71340

>>71367

thats ridiculous

the properties of an actor - or any object - absolutely determine its value


 No.71646

File: d683ae038a96147⋯.jpg (139.53 KB, 374x452, 187:226, being as dumb as a cute pu….jpg)

>>71642

Yes, and being a person is a property.


 No.71648


 No.71702

I'd say the races are different subspecies, sadly the way the world is nowadays the idea that humans evolving in different environments develop different biological traits based on that environment is evil badthink. The idea that all humans should just be lumped into homo sapiens sapiens is rather silly


 No.71899

>>71702

species is a different thing than race in zoology u moron


 No.71963

File: 2de7c90ea631d53⋯.jpg (103.52 KB, 387x423, 43:47, Did nothing wrong.jpg)

>>70106

Then what about Abbos? Are they considered human to you? Where is the line drawn? Is civility not part of being human? You need to make these decisions when leading a large amount of people. If not then any nation you try to prop up is doomed to failure.


 No.71971

Abbos are beautiful creatures that can't be domesticated


 No.72238

>>71646

>a verb is a property

wat


 No.72247

>>71963

>Then what about Abbos? Are they considered human to you? Where is the line drawn? Is civility not part of being human?

Abbos are human, yes. If they were incapable of civility and culture, then I'd say they're animals, but that's not the case. In metaphysical terms, potentiality is important, not actuality.

>You need to make these decisions when leading a large amount of people. If not then any nation you try to prop up is doomed to failure.

No nation was ever doomed by racial differences per se. Cultural and religious differences are the real killer of nations. There's plenty of nations that fell apart because of a shift in culture or religion, but no collapse that can only be attributed to racial differences.

>>72238

Want me to make it a substantive? Okay.

>Personhood is a property

Took my brain half a second to figure this out. Are you seriously that intellectually lazy?


 No.72262

>>72247

there exist many different levels of civility and culturedness

culture, psychology, curiously even preferred philosophy is mainly (95%+) influences by neurophysiology, wich is as genetic as the shape of your nose.

so, race? sortof. genetics is what ultimately matters. race is strongly correlated with genetics


 No.72267

>>72247

>No nation was ever doomed by racial differences

Well isn't that a load of crap. So much bullshit in such a tiny package, I don't really have a lot to say about a statement that retarded…it is like you have never picked up a history book in your life. The word 'genocide' is derived from racial hatreds within nations that resulted in the frigging doom of one group or the other. I can't really stomach this level of bullshit.


 No.72270

>>72267

Calm down, then read this carefully.

The definition of genocide is not racially motivated killing. The exact definition is so diluted at this point, no two scholars can agree on more than that the holocaust was a genocide. In fact, that's the very incident the term was based on. Before the holocaust, no one spoke of genocides. Everyone agreed that Basileus II. blinding of Bolgar rebels was punishment for treason. Everyone knew that Luther hated the Jews because they were unbelievers. Everyone knew that the Hussite Wars, the Albigensian Crusade and the Crusades into the Holy Land were religiously motivated. Everyone knew that if the enemy converted, there would be no war.

There's some ambiguity with the limpieza de sangre, but those aside, I think the first racial theories were made by Gobineau in 1853. Only then did people start focusing on race, and then of course race divorced from other factors - including tribality and kinship - became significant.

I'll leave it at that. Not sure how you'll respond, because your last post was a tiny bit devoid of all substance, but hopefully better.


 No.72271

yes there was first the space race and now the race to the bottom


 No.72279

>>72270

What about the reconquista?


 No.72283

>>72279

That was about religion. The affair arguably developed racial aspects later on, but that was well after the initial conquest.


 No.72284

>>72279

>>72283

By the way, I've now gotten around to reading a book on the Spanish Inquisition, including the reconquista. If you lurk more, either here or on /monarchy/, I can probably give you better information in the future.


 No.72572

>>72247

personhood is a noun


 No.72598

>>72572

So is faggotry.


 No.72647


 No.72649

>>72247

>>72267

Political differences are the killer of nations. Everything else from class, race, ethnicity, gender, and nationality, are exacerbated as a result of politics. Politicians and pundits deceive us to arbitrarily hate each other for votes and an expansion of government power. They want you to believe that the problems with society are a bunch of people superficially different from you, not the laws, regulations, and programs that limit freedom and encourage immoral behavior.

Look at North and South Korea, or East and West Germany. Here you have countries of the same nation, race, religion, and culture, and yet, two are more developed and rich than the other. If the race realist argument held up, there wouldn't be any economic differences here. But that isn't the case. Why? Because one's incentives dictate one's actions, which are especially influenced by one's country's laws. People are programmable like robots. The globalists and their underlings have understood this for centuries, but here we are, still bickering over meaningless bullshit while they work together enslaving the world in spite of their differences.


 No.72653

File: 237984edd8583c2⋯.png (445.82 KB, 600x600, 1:1, Hiroshima Detroit.png)

>>72649

Haven't read the full argument but just as a pop-in on some of these arguments;

>Political differences are the killer of nations

It's one of them, but humans are tribalistic by nature, which is to say that racial differences do have the potential to cause absolute mayhem simply due to the tribalism of human nature. One could easily point to the failure of multiculturalism in recent years as a pointer towards the issue that could come along from a multi-racial society. Mind you, the state has been trying to suppress critiques of multiculturalism through it's support of colleges and government schools.

> They want you to believe that the problems with society are a bunch of people superficially different from you, not the laws, regulations, and programs that limit freedom and encourage immoral behavior.

You're implying that both wouldn't be a problem? If someone from a region in the middle east came to the United States and started committing female circumcision on children as is custom in his homeland, don't you think that's a problem? Or let's say there's people from a certain region who come and are the ones demanding laws, regulations, programs, etc because of the way their country was run. Don't you think that's a bit of a problem?

>Everything else from class, race, ethnicity, gender, and nationality, are exacerbated as a result of politics

Just as a nit-pick: If race, ethnicity and nationality are all issues in one nation then it's not actually a nation. A nation is group of people who share common heritage, ancestry, culture, etc. If a group of individuals occupy a given space with no hint of blood relation or even follow a similar culture or language then it's not really a nation. Think Austria-Hungary, multiple different nations, heavy tensions as a result.

>If the race realist argument held up, there wouldn't be any economic differences here.

Just a quick nitpick from a race realist, no one's denying economics. If you installed a communist regime on anyone then I wouldn't doubt that the nation would suffer as a result, Russia and most of Eastern Europe was by no means made up of stupid people, however should a high IQ nation in question be left to a free market, they will most likely achieve better living standards and overall a more advanced civilization than a low IQ civilization with many of the same circumstances. For example: Somalia (for a very short amount of time) was actually stateless and was far better off than most of its neighboring nations that had governments. However, these are African standards, which is to say that these aren't very high accomplishments to begin with, when put in comparison with a European nation, Somalia (as one could imagine) pales in comparison.

Don't get me wrong, there's some countries is in Africa that do have a free market such as Botswana or even Angola (which is currently recovering from Civil War rather successfully) but by no means are these societies advanced in any way, some (if not most) parts of these countries are still extremely dysfunctional and filled with crime. This isn't due to the market by any means but rather by the fact that most people in Africa are practically borderline retarded, and as such have very little reason or capability for pursuing long-term action or respecting private property for that matter.


 No.72668

File: b926243ec53f7bc⋯.gif (851.12 KB, 2970x2400, 99:80, truth-about-race.gif)

File: e6a14cf575bc42b⋯.png (1.65 MB, 697x8275, 697:8275, blacks are stupid and degn….png)

>>72649

>North and South Korea, West and East Germany

Communism ruins nations regardless of the specific population it rules.

To expound a little bit on >>72653 "race realism," primarily relating to Africa;

There are clear differences between the races. Even when income and education level are taken into account, blacks and hispanics are significantly less intelligent than whites and asians. This is just one thing plaguing African countries - literal apes are more intelligent than some African populations, yet the Africans are still in charge of their own governments. Obviously apes are not going to be able to effectively run any aspect of an economy or government.

Other issues are the clash between African languages and European culture/economics/morality (brought by colonization), and the incompatibility of the modern state with African tribalism.

African languages (primarily Zulu, which the author of 2nd pic related is familiar with) do not contain proper words for concepts such as "time," "space," "future," "maintenance," etc. Whether this is due to brain structure/size/etc, other genetic factors, or cultural factors, this results in an inability to maintain civilized society (the way we consider it) on their own.

Also, tribalism is/was very authoritarian in that you have a chieftain and/or tribal elders directly dictating how the tribe should behave, and serving as moral (if they even have morals…) police/judges. Replacing the tribal elders with a central government of any kind results in widespread chaos, because there is no longer anyone to directly police the actions of the people.

In my opinion, the lack of fatherhood among blacks would not be such an issue if they were governed tribally, but I have no evidence to back that up. Single motherhood/fatherlessness causes many, many problems for children regardless of racial factors.

I should also acknowledge that pic related is basically a blog post, with assertions based on observations and conjecture of a single man (albeit a man with allegedly many years of experience living in South Africa, one of the most tumultuous African countries). However, I think his observations do have some merit, and accurately explain some of the differences between whites and blacks. I have not studied any of the few sources/authors he cites or any other literature on the subject.

Yes, race is something exacerbated by politics/government systems, but different races have different levels of intelligence, and lower intelligence will of course be reflected in nearly every aspect of life, including voting practices.

However, race is certainly not the only factor. It is largely irrelevant in cases such as the brainwashing of children through the American public school system for the last 60 or so years, literally and directly the case in schools such as Evergreen University. The only role race places there is that less intelligent people will likely be easier to brainwash to begin with, though in practice it clearly doesn't matter that much, given the condition of the majority of American youth (or "millenials").


 No.72684

>>72649

north and south koreans have similar iq (northeners have it lower due to malnutrition and bad education)


 No.72698

>>72668

>"obligation = "to bind one's feet"

All languages encompass some allegory in developing words. For example "capricious" comes from the Italian "curly head". Also, oblige comes from the Latin "to bind".


 No.72699

>>70058

OK tier:

whites, nips, higher caste pajeets, mongolians

Mid tier:

chinks, iranians

Shit tier:

niggers, mudshits, hues, injuns, street shitters, sandniggers, flips

Infernal tier:

jews


 No.72700

>>72699

Slavs are included in the "nigger" group tbh


 No.72704

File: a8ca318133c45c4⋯.jpg (51.56 KB, 412x284, 103:71, north-vs-south-indian-man.jpg)

>>72698

Agreed, but we are talking about dictionary definitions here, not how they developed. If the Zulu dictionary definition of obligation is the same as the latin root, rather than the Western/modern definition of "to bind legally or morally", does that not indicate that the concept of "obligation" as we know it does not exist in that language?

It basically seems that Zulu did not evolve naturally to include such concepts, it simply adopted the most basic meaning from European languages - at least based on this man's experiences. It would be very interesting to study this more.

>>72699

>higher caste pajeets

>Iranians

You mean the actual aryan ones?

How is your hierarchy organized anyway? By how much disdain they generate?


 No.72717

>>72704

>How is your hierarchy organized anyway? By how much disdain they generate?

By how they behave in my country tbh


 No.72749

>>72699

>whites higher than Jews and Chinks

kys




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / gdp2083 / imouto / leftpol / madchan / startrek / sw / thestorm ]