- Joined
- Dec 2, 2013
- Messages
- 2,592
No, not all races are created equal and my Mapuche blood is superior to all of y'alls.
This is Galvarino. Captured by the Spanish and had both arms amputated to be sent back to the Mapuche as a warning of what happens when you fuck with the Spanish.
He indeed went back to the Mapuche, but instead of speaking fearfully of the Spanish, told them "Fuck those guys; they screwed up sending me back." He was promoted and given a warband. Before leading that warband back into battle, he had two knives bound to his nubs.
Then, in battle, he skullfucked countless Spaniards and helped the Mapuche become one of the only tribes to successfully repel the Spanish invasion (even the Incas couldn't do that, cuz smallpox).
Bow down to my genetic superiority.
I'm so glad I'm a minority; it's generally acceptable for me to say super racist shit.
Unfortunately, because of this, you got tons of crazy cooks calling for white genocide, but the only people rebelling against this are the badass conservatives on Breitbart and Trump supporters. They realize the racism for what it is. Good thing I'm also half-whitie, so I feel some need to preserve white America.
But yeah, I'd say that since you guys can't even come to a consensus as to what is legitimate science and what isn't, I'll just argue based on intuition (it seems to be as fallible as everything else being thrown out). Dismiss it as you will.
Every race has the capacity for extreme knowledge, extreme ingenuity, and extreme physical strength. Similarly, but not necessarily exactly, women can outperform men in math and science, but even when they do, they don't stay in the field for very long, because they have a severe need to socialize, whereas men are much more comfortable sitting in silent, solitary study.
If we're sticking with the sexes, before moving to race (it's a less controversial topic), you see that everywhere in the world, the rite of passage for men is basically "are you tough enough to be a man?" Chase wrote an article way back when detailing the various ways men prove their masculinity. It seems that masculinity does not derive from polygenesis - there is not some cultural melting pot that causes cultures that could not have had contact with each other to all test masculinity based on the same traits. Men based masculinity on some very identifiable traits, like toughness and courage, because that's what masculinity is. Over-intellectualize it all you like, the proof is in the blood of teenage men sticking tusks into their rib cage and lifting themselves into the air for an entire afternoon.
Similarly, there is probably some predisposition that each race has. The Indians (post-Aryan invasion) were exceptional in theology - even two millennia of progress in Christian theology, and Europeans still can't compete with what was known by the Brahmanical society of 600 B.C. India, in terms of categorizing the nature of reality/god in exact terms.
Why?
Because the Middle East is more poetic than India. That's why you have guys like Jesus, Rumi, etc. Their skill in transmission of their truths was poetic, not hyper-scholastic and categorical like the Buddha (though the Buddha did find himself expressing his thoughts in verse post-enlightenment and even exclaimed surprise at the fact).
But then you have the Greeks who were also hyper-logical. Aristotle, for instance. What frustrates this further is that you also have someone like Heraclites (I can never stop myself from thinking of clitoris when reading/writing his name), who was super-poetic and most readers of him, even in his time, found him super frustrating.
"Ah, see, there's no unified identity! It is culturally determined!" someone might retort. Well, you can find exceptions in any situation. The point is to find large broad strokes, if you are trying to make large broad strokes (and that's what this discussion is about).
To that, I would say that it seems different races have the propensity for certain kinds of government, skills, and lifestyles. Do they adapt to their surroundings? Probably, yeah, and I can't exactly demonstrate that it wasn't their environment that determined their genes...but that's what the genetic argument is right?
I'm not sure any of that made sense, but whatever. I guess my thesis is like this - race is like sex; you have a certain disposition for particular things, your upbringing can change it, and through sheer force of will you can change it, but it probably won't be pleasant, because you're fighting propensity.
Hector
This is Galvarino. Captured by the Spanish and had both arms amputated to be sent back to the Mapuche as a warning of what happens when you fuck with the Spanish.
He indeed went back to the Mapuche, but instead of speaking fearfully of the Spanish, told them "Fuck those guys; they screwed up sending me back." He was promoted and given a warband. Before leading that warband back into battle, he had two knives bound to his nubs.
Then, in battle, he skullfucked countless Spaniards and helped the Mapuche become one of the only tribes to successfully repel the Spanish invasion (even the Incas couldn't do that, cuz smallpox).
Bow down to my genetic superiority.
I'm so glad I'm a minority; it's generally acceptable for me to say super racist shit.
Unfortunately, because of this, you got tons of crazy cooks calling for white genocide, but the only people rebelling against this are the badass conservatives on Breitbart and Trump supporters. They realize the racism for what it is. Good thing I'm also half-whitie, so I feel some need to preserve white America.
But yeah, I'd say that since you guys can't even come to a consensus as to what is legitimate science and what isn't, I'll just argue based on intuition (it seems to be as fallible as everything else being thrown out). Dismiss it as you will.
Every race has the capacity for extreme knowledge, extreme ingenuity, and extreme physical strength. Similarly, but not necessarily exactly, women can outperform men in math and science, but even when they do, they don't stay in the field for very long, because they have a severe need to socialize, whereas men are much more comfortable sitting in silent, solitary study.
If we're sticking with the sexes, before moving to race (it's a less controversial topic), you see that everywhere in the world, the rite of passage for men is basically "are you tough enough to be a man?" Chase wrote an article way back when detailing the various ways men prove their masculinity. It seems that masculinity does not derive from polygenesis - there is not some cultural melting pot that causes cultures that could not have had contact with each other to all test masculinity based on the same traits. Men based masculinity on some very identifiable traits, like toughness and courage, because that's what masculinity is. Over-intellectualize it all you like, the proof is in the blood of teenage men sticking tusks into their rib cage and lifting themselves into the air for an entire afternoon.
Similarly, there is probably some predisposition that each race has. The Indians (post-Aryan invasion) were exceptional in theology - even two millennia of progress in Christian theology, and Europeans still can't compete with what was known by the Brahmanical society of 600 B.C. India, in terms of categorizing the nature of reality/god in exact terms.
Why?
Because the Middle East is more poetic than India. That's why you have guys like Jesus, Rumi, etc. Their skill in transmission of their truths was poetic, not hyper-scholastic and categorical like the Buddha (though the Buddha did find himself expressing his thoughts in verse post-enlightenment and even exclaimed surprise at the fact).
But then you have the Greeks who were also hyper-logical. Aristotle, for instance. What frustrates this further is that you also have someone like Heraclites (I can never stop myself from thinking of clitoris when reading/writing his name), who was super-poetic and most readers of him, even in his time, found him super frustrating.
"Ah, see, there's no unified identity! It is culturally determined!" someone might retort. Well, you can find exceptions in any situation. The point is to find large broad strokes, if you are trying to make large broad strokes (and that's what this discussion is about).
To that, I would say that it seems different races have the propensity for certain kinds of government, skills, and lifestyles. Do they adapt to their surroundings? Probably, yeah, and I can't exactly demonstrate that it wasn't their environment that determined their genes...but that's what the genetic argument is right?
I'm not sure any of that made sense, but whatever. I guess my thesis is like this - race is like sex; you have a certain disposition for particular things, your upbringing can change it, and through sheer force of will you can change it, but it probably won't be pleasant, because you're fighting propensity.
Hector
