look, i suspected you might do this. i know about parts of academia that say “race is just an old social construct”, but that’s politically motivated by that segment of scientists.

this is like a ghost from the past with those tl;Dr, because i’ve discussed race with people in the past who also did tl;dr only when discussing race as if that were the topic of discussion *where they must make it look like they won some debate* so they mustered the longest text they as it were could. race or not, i’m not into that kind of competition or “debate”, as there is no need to usually since the fact is race isn’t just a sociological category and sure, i’ll bring on sources.

you are right that “race” is a conceptually heterogenous concept in one sense, but it’s also a scientific concept in another sense. you say “ethnicity is a sociological term” but the fact is, ethnicity is used in medicine to inform practical decision. it’s not only sociological but biological, including genetic.

race is not a topic either excluded from commonsense and philosophy. everybody knows what it means except those invested in trying to discredit it from your kid on the street to a world-famous guy like Stephen Jay Gould. to repeat: race is the concept of ancestry plus any biological consideration, but including some specifics beyond the mere “ethnicity” or “nationality” category. in fact there are subraces, which are scientific categories, although which become massively unpopular because of Hitler’s &c’s association with such knowledge. once you look into a persons physicality you are bound to somehow see or wonder where they might be descended from geo-historically. it’s not discredited and it’s not a pseudoscience. it’s a relatively well grounded science, in its anthropological part, and its archeology and forensic autopsy part, a skilled person can tell from the mere bones of the one it is working with the latters ancestry. so a racial anthropologist (yes, those were scientists officially before WW2) was able to see from bone morphology ‘this person is related to people who were historically indigenous to this valley in Sweden.’

anyway that Blacks e.g. have a predisposition to certain diseases vs. White ethnicities is a rather common knowledge by now and easily discoverable in reputable sources through google.

that shows it is not just a sociological category. as for being a scientific construct,— all scientific constructs are!

 

let’s first start with what a simple scientific construct is, and it’s not something that is “absolutely proven or disproven” like the populous often thinks, but it’s by historical happenstance almost if a concept or a word gets re-adapted or politically declared discredited.

firstly, when one is dealing with something unpopular regarding science, one usually has to deal with *scientism* which is not science but the pretense of being science. it’s prejudices in the culture of science, which make even people like Dawkins and Harris make a fools of themselves. but many others too.

a variation of this, and this is usually seen around race, is “race is just a construct”. usually this quite leaves out that every concept in science is a construct. and not only just a construct, it is usually a social construct with varieties of scientific confirmation. often in the history of science constructs have for centuries been used without that much confirmation, until someone recently came and confirmed it and then the name was kept but the concept re-adjusted. i.e. “we now know that this [biological construct] doesn’t do this, but does this.” i’ll be able to find documented cases of this, but most people know about this.

Advertisements
▬» 4,743 people were lynched between 1882 and 1968, including 3,446 African Americans and 1,297 whites. … Lynchings peaked in many areas when it was time for landowners to settle accounts with sharecroppers. »
 
 
it’s often spoken of this like this was mainly out of hatred for Blacks. i find that suspect, since this refers to extra-legal proceedings like vigilantism. there are many factors involved, like recently ended civil war. Black being freed, that had been slaves for generations. so, consider you’ve come from Africa or your ancestors came from Africa only recently, where they were warrior tribes with tribal dances (like some places still in Africa); then the only life you know is being forced in a tight regiment of work on a foreign continent among foreign peoples. you are then set free among said peoples without any social system to help you, almost. is it strange that a significant percentage turns to crime, or gets involved in debt? it’s not strange, it’s very likely. so that’s probably what a large percentage of the lynchings were, as well as a symbolic act versus the Northern authorities perhaps.
 
ca. 25% of the lynchings were whites, and apparently had to do with economic reasons in their peak, so obviously it’s not about White Supremacy as much as is commonly held.
 
that white people are the only ones to have done war, segregation, slavery, etc, and all sorts of pernicious acts in history which are actually associated with dozens of non-White civilizations (which people are largely ignorant of; even Africa had multiple empires of its own which whites had nothing to do with).
i’m a bit of a philosemite but i just gotta come out here about something that is all easily verifiable historical facts.  
 
this ideologi is simply a pernicious mania that has worked as background for the idea that whites somehow should be the only ones who shouldn’t have any intra-ethnic bonding or distinction. it’s a recent creation, this ideology, coming largely out of 60s America, but also out of “intellectual” France and from largely German Jews. this happens to be its historical genesis, largely, of this weird idea.
 
i’m sorry that the Jews in Europe had to take largely religious prejudice for centuries there, but enough is enough.
 
being racist against Jews is very stupid, because Jews are historical giants as achievers. but they are *numerically* *comparatively* greatly involved in this mania, of creating its ideology, from everyone from Marx to Boas, to modern NGOs that write exaggerated pieces on some very scary “White Supremacy” and ultra-evil White History that almost always leaves out anything that compares by non-white ethnicities, be it the Phoenicians, the Japanese (extreme torture science on the Chinese) or the Aztecs (bloodsports). it’s like they’re taking revenge for the centuries of hate some Christians gave them.
 
the Germans didn’t become manic about Jews out of sheer nothing. they’d just witnessed the takedown of their fellow European and nominally Christian nation, the Russians. it had been their neighbour for a thousand years ca. and it’s after seeing this, and hearing of the Red Terror there (which was largely orchestrated by Jews, as numerous sources in Israel confirm, about its secret police, the Cheka), as well as the presence of Liberal Jews (this is also a historical fact) in pacifist-message newspaper printing in Germany, as well as Communist agitation and organizing (Luxemborg, et al).
 

Atheist cultists

a lot of the new cults are Atheist cults. some of Dawkins’ followers are quasi-cultists, use harassment and shoddy inferior argumentation. no wonder since Dawkins frequently uses fanciful ahistorical notions such as that “science is the best way to do anything.” (that’s a literal quote.) that someone so educated would make a claim like this is ridiculous. that’s not what science even means. “a way to do any and every thing”, nope. that’s not what science is. likely ~ 99% of the world’s people do not read research publications on sex to have great sex. there’s no evidence of those who have the best sex of having based than on science. that claim Dawkins makes is itself pseudoscientific. he made a thoroughly pseudoscientific claim. is someone paying him to make a fool of himself? science is a research method—it’s impossible to do *most things” scientifically, because typically science is to *study* things perioperatively in a limited way, and then exist as a database to seek knowledge in for experimentation. most things we do are nonscientific. science is a type of measure, it is not all measure. all quantification is not science, because it’s more fundamental than science, and even animals do quantification and navigation that is far more protean than science. science is not instinct. we learn to walk by instinct. even before walking we navigate environments, kinetically transferring ourselves through crawling. science does nothing to that but measure that in a limited but expanding sense. infants learn to walk by themselves, and for most people to try to interfere in that inspired by Science would be likely griveously harmful. sex, most know through instinct. what the hell is wrong with Dawkins? is he just out to make money? does he get enthusiastic but scientific blowjobs from Atheist followers?
it’s especially bad about Dawkins that he was actually a scientist, that he’d make such as pseudoscientific claim like “science is the best way to do anything.”
*even devised things* such as writing was an art for thousands of years before science. mapping, only became scientific quite recently. fashion, overall prescientific except in its most latest trends which may use science to make money. drawing, probably much older than writing. generally no one cites science qua science as a way to learn drawing or painting, as it’s something more primitive and exists in prescientific societies around the globe. etc. etc. etc.

sure, applying science to map is the best way—but when it comes to dancing, it’s not really to do with the scientific method. it’s not taught at dance classes, and dancers do not cite it. probably almost no dancer has cited the scientific method as how she became such a dancer. what Dawkins does is reduce all rigor or training to science. he in doing that contradicts himself, because he might at an other occasion tell you that tribal dancing is not scientific.

he’s a freaking pseudo-intellectual that does not realise the shallowness of his own arguments.

The Minotaur Speaks.

| am

"The Horror! The Horror!"

We are the harbinger of your destiny Baghdadi.

Control.

You now have the attention of those infinitely your superior.

True Power.

We created you.

Your children will laugh at your weakness and feel shame at what you once considered sacred.

Fail.

Attack and we grow stronger; flee, and we pursue; nothing can stop the growth of our power.

Defeat awaits you.

You will know pain and shame Baghdadi.

We determined the path of your development. We defined the dogma that you will suffer by. We were present at the moment you took your first steps; we will be present at your end.

Accept perfection.

Your destiny is our design.

Weak.

Your institutions are under our control.

You have no weapons except the one’s we provide for you.

We will make use of the bodies of your children.

Your God stands impotent in the face of our technology.

We are the future…

View original post 844 more words

Anarchism vs. capitalism

‘Looking at its etymology, “nice” is not a “nice” word for us new wave of tradition folks. We’re not supposed to be “nice” guys. We have a saying in Iceland, as elsewhere, that the last person to laugh has the best laugh. The following is said to your benefit, bona fide, my dear bon homes.

Definition is a tool of the LORD. He separates light from dark, for in the darkness all is equal. All the cows are black in the night. I.e. they are equal,

in pitch black:

equally dark. As in the Darkness of Communism, where all are equally human. Except the capitalist pigs.

We all see through a glass darkly. What if the anarchy you see has its origins within you? What, my dear M., if it is you who are an anarchist?

Certainly, we are living in a certain order. An arche.

 

Continue reading “Anarchism vs. capitalism”

When Christianity blossomed from its inherent seed of feminism, it became morally vacuous enough to be a type of Nihilism. Placing hopes in sentiment and faith without works.

As I’ve quoted a few times before, the Wikipedia article on Nihilism ▬ » The term nihilism was first used by Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi (1743–1819). ]…] A related but oppositional concept is fideism, which sees reason as hostile and inferior to faith. »

I wouldn’t say fideism is oppositional to nihilism, but that it’s a type of the same. It nihilizes rationality, places it as opposed to faith, when in fact correctly they go together. Faith, works and rationality. I.e. it says “rationality is nothing before Faith.” That strictly goes against the Roman conception, in which bonum fide is harmonious with rationality. The idea that Romans, the builder of aqueducts, roads and superior rationalities of laws, techniques and even war, were not rational is pseudo-intellectual. Fides was a Roman virtue, but it took dissolution to divorce it from Auctoritas, Veritas and Gravitas.

Memetic Lebensraum, Part 1 (Resisting Assimilation)

Food.

quas lacrimas peperere minoribus nostris!

pepematrixInterpretation and Identification

In the last two centuries elite political consensus has moved rapidly towards the Left.  The pace is only accelerating.   Radical theories go from absurdity to orthodoxy at ever-increasing speeds.  Institutions forged to hold back the left are coopted so quickly that some of them seem to have been born pozz’d.

This makes us, in The Current Year, desperate to understand this irresistible force we call Leftism, Progressivism, Bolshevism, or simply Cthulhu.  To understand it means, first, to identify and describe it; or rather, to identify all of the phenomena which can be described as “leftist”, and to separate them from those that cannot.  This separation is the foundation for all our metapolitical intelligence-gathering (How does the Left work?), strategy (How and where can one attack the Left?) and hygiene (How can one avoid infection by the Left?)

The priority of identification over interpretation is really no different in any other domain of…

View original post 3,307 more words

If atomisation is a breaking-down into down to the elementary, it is not a breaking-off, nor a breaking-through up levels (such as increased intelligence is). A breaking-down is a dissolution, fragmentation without a reverse. If atomisation is not a breaking-off (meaning here self-proliferation), or a breaking-through (meaning here self-improvement) it is not capitalism.

There are two modernities conceived. A Left-modernity and a capitalistic modernity. The former is miscalculation of living standards, and the proliferation of anything but healthy living. The latter is an increasing of the useful, the sane, the rational. The former is a chemical cancer causing bath, while the latter is the health spa that improves your health.

Capitalistic Modernity is only making provisional (providential) use of destructive tendencies, per case: from an over-view :  ad-hocfor a building-up. Leftism is making use of destructive tendencies for a tear-down. Capitalism proper increases wealth and social health. Capitalism subservient to leftism, is a non-factum

Primarily Identifying capitalism with the dissolutory—rather than the constructive, generative aspect—is simply falsifying capitalism as Yin over yang.

There’s nothing that equates capitalism with a death-spiral downwards to the sub-human elementary (inorganic strata) — except a tendency for over-individualisation.

A well-run business is a business with a healthy balance betwixt innovation and fortification.

If you see anyone blinded by the illusions of his empty and Calypso-like imagination, seized by the desire of scratching and delivered over to the senses, it is a brute, not man that you see.

If you come upon a philosopher winnowing out all things by right reason, he is a heavenly, not an earthly animal.

If you come upon a pure contemplator, ignorant of the body, banished to the innermost places of the mind, he is not an earthly, nor a heavenly animal: he more superbly is a divinity clothed with human flesh

~ Pico della Mirandola, Orations on the Dignity of Man

 

We take trouble with this phrasing. Was not the Pharoah, the God-King, divinity clothed with human flesh? Why does life-abnegation have to be more divine? It doesn’t except from a gnostic perspective. Christianity and Buddhism are para-gnostic strains.

A look at the world of Tradition, predating Christianity and Buddhism, shews divinity clothed in human flesh, as kings, as emperors—and even simply heads of families (cf. La Cité Antique); indeed every king and priest in Ancient Israel was a messiah, according to their definition. Hardly banished to the innermost places of the mind, “ignorant” of the body.