Do you subscribe to an Intellectual Racism?

From what I read here I can't really tell. Many of you seem pretty base in your racism. It's like you don't take the bell curve seriously enough. Justify your racism.

In a world of differences, hierarchies are inevitable. One looks at history, studies of the correlations of race and intelligence, the lack of anything from sub-Saharan africans comparable to Caucasians or Orientals.... and draws the inevitable conclusion.

This is not self-aggrandizement. I am Irish, after all. There is very little that my race, or sub-race, has accomplished to be proud about.

But I don't have to like reality.

"Justify your racism"?!



First off, define "racism".

Secondly, what in the real world speaks of an absence of diversity based on inheritance passed on via heterosexual reproduction and resulting in fit and unfit, inferior and superior?

How does intelligence evolve and why would it and why would it be such an advantage, if it is evenly distributed and a result of random chance?

History speaks of the truth of bloodlines, types, which you would call racial categories.

If the Caucasian's dominance is a consequence of random chance (luck) and the past does not matter and types are limited to skin pigmentation, then we should also conclude that man's dominance over other species is likewise, unfair, unjust, luck.

How to species splinter off into other species if environment and genetic isolation and fitness and adaptation do not matter?
If color does not matter, then why does form or texture or any other product of sensuality?


If niggers are only different to Europeans because of skin pigmentation then is it also true that man differs from a gorilla for the same reason; is the difference between a polar bear and a black bear the color of their fur?


I realize that the question is intended to justify an opinion which is already established in you.
You instinctually know that there are differences but given the defensive arguments and the methods developed to oppose your naturally developed sense of discrimination you feel reluctant and unsure and insecure about expressing your views.

For starters, do not openly express your views if they are racist or sexist, in the common sense of both terms.

Then explore nature.
What of human migrations?
What forces change or evolution or growth? Is it stress?
How do species splinter off and become different...as in how does the ancestor of the ass and the zebra and the horse splinter off to produce these diverse, similar but different, species; how does the ancestor of the cat splinter off into tiger and lion and jaguar and common house cat? Apply this to primates...then apply it further within an ongoing process...because evolution does not suddenly end.
How did man splinter of from the same ancestor chimpanzees and gorillas?
Did the process end with man; if so why? Has evolution ceased to matter with human beings and if so for what reason is man exempt from all natural considerations which are easily applied to other species and to nature in general?
What effect is globalization and this mimetically forced uniformity having upon this process? Is the past so easily overcome?
Does appearance matter, if not then why not and then how come we use it to differentiate in all other cases except when it comes to human beings?
Is beauty really skin-deep?

Flame Imperishable wrote:

Justify your racism.

Now some are called upon to justify themselves to sheltered minds who have embraced a synthetic world where all are equal and protected - a world devoid of wrinkles and blemishes - in place of the natural.

Does nature need us to defend it? If we cannot, will it fall?

Why shouldn't one respond... justify your naivety?

If you were in charge of selecting people fit to reproduce for a future society would you only choose from among the European stock or would you choose the best people in general in terms of IQ, physical health, athletic ability, or other desirable characteristics?

Race is a broad term referring to potentials.
You could have a Negro who is intellectually superior than the average European.
Taking into account race is only meant to facilitate understanding and to evaluate possibility.

Knowing that the other is Swedish does not guarantee that he or she will be tall and blond but it increases the potential of them being so in comparison to someone being Chinese.

In regards to your last question I answer by pointing to the ancient Greeks and their conception of health as being a healthy mind within a healthy body - a balance.

Flame Imperishable wrote:

If you were in charge of selecting people fit to reproduce for a future society would you only choose from among the European stock or would you choose the best people in general in terms of IQ, physical health, athletic ability, or other desirable characteristics?

One would expect people to find partners from within their own race, thereby preserving the unique nature of the speciation boundaries that have begun to appear over the past few million years; I doubt a eugenics program would be neccessary.

Diversity
It is simplistic to speak of races as they’ve been defined in modern times; or should I say, as they’ve been caricatured so as to ridiculed, in current social and cultural norms.
The categories are so broad that they can include individuals so different as an Italian and a Swede under the heading of “Caucasian” or a Pilipino and a Vietnamese under the heading of Oriental.
It would be more accurate to speak of bloodlines that coexist within similar environmental conditions and that are affected by these conditions in a similar way while reacting or coping with them in different ways, resulting in inter-racial diversity. The fact that a Swede and an Italian are distinctly different in appearance from a man being born in the orient, whether he be born a Tibetan or a Thai, is an indication that no matter what inter-racial differences there are in the bloodlines of a Swede and an Italian they, nevertheless, retain a similarity born of their common ancestry in the tribes that emerged out of Africa and then settled in the European continent, later to be genetically separated by climatic and geographic conditions. It also points to a possible gene mixing along the boundaries that separated these bloodlines and which were less formidable than those between European and African populations in the not so distant past.

A factor that must be kept in mind when speaking of race is how human interventions have affected and diverted the process of genetic uniformity, which is what a bloodline and a racial category, is.
If there is more difference within a racial group, as it is presently defined, rather than between racial groups, then it is because man intervenes upon natural processes ensuring, firstly, that not one male will spread his seed at the expense of another and that the offspring of a seeding will not face the normal, natural, consequences of dealing and adapting to the environment that challenges them.
Race mixing as it is promoted by modern ideals is also to be considered a factor along with the normal cross-breeding that happens when populations come into contact with each other.

The criteria of judging types have now shifted from natural to social resulting in a growing uniformity of thought, behavior (memes), while making it possible for an increasing diversity in genes.
When genes are protected from culling, disease, and allowed to flourish, only selected for their ability to conform and remain true to the prevailing social and cultural rules, we get an explosion of genetic mutations that are protected from their own unfitness within natural environments; protected only in as much as they exhibit a uniformity of adherence to social, or manmade, environments.
Therefore, as genetic diversity increases mimetic uniformity must increase proportionally, whereas the opposite is true within natural environments. In this case as genetic uniformity increases due to culling, geographic isolation and the dominance of a few genetic lines, mimetic diversity increases in reverse proportionality given that the very factors that lead to a single individual’s dominance and survival will be passed on to the offspring resulting in a more dominant, challenging and self-sufficient individual prone to create his or her own ideas and attitudes towards the world and towards others.

It is noteworthy that the very factors that bring an individual about will be the ones (s)he will value and defend vehemently. The individual who is a result of sheltering and rules that make monogamy a social norm and that protect him/her from the dominance of others will be drawn to defending these conditions as being “ideal”, and if enough of these individuals join forces, given that sheltering creates an explosion of populations that would not have stood a chance outside human intervening agencies, the defence of this ideal will grow into a popular one, supported by a common interest and agreement – regularity within an ideal or a mimetic congruence.
Therefore, a man birthed within environmental conditions and then supported and allowed to survive, protected from outside factors, will find these conditions desirable and he will defend them as being based upon his highest principles.
It is this social uniformity that also contributes to the illusion of human parity and the irrelevance of racial categories or the irrelevance of bloodlines and inherited genes. Once a common rule of behavior and thought is accepted then whatever genetic divergence exists becomes secondary, thusly making a uniform memetic reality while promoting genetic variations within it, just as long as they do not disrupt the homogeneity of the expanding and dominating ideal.

As a mental exercise, first listen and then try to punch holes in this liberal icon's arguments:







I've provided a response of my own above and only add in reference to his example with the sprinters:

It would be foolish to pick based on general categories of race who would be the fastest member of a team which is dedicated to winning a speed race, just as it would be foolish to pick intelligence based exclusively on racial or physical criteria...but having picked your team based on performance would you avert your eyes form the fact that the fastest members of a team are consistently from one particular racial group with very distinct and apparent characteristics or would you study it to understand why Negroes always seem to be part of the sprint team so as to focus your subsequent search for speed?

It is ridiculous to ignore the facts because of some desire to not me "cruel" or insulting and to only focus on one or two traits while ignoring the elephant in the room.
True there are individuals in china who are much faster than the average African but since evaluating potential and how genes bring it about is our goal here then we must find it interesting that the fastest individuals are consistently from particular genetic lines and rarely, if ever, form others.

Flame> If you were in charge of selecting people fit to reproduce for a future society would you only choose from among the European stock or would you choose the best people in general in terms of IQ, physical health, athletic ability, or other desirable characteristics?

What is needed is not so much a eugenics applied to human beings per se but a eugenics of morality, cultivating sensitivities. The Highest race will of necessity be one that Will adopt a re-naturalization in the aesthetic/metapolitical sphere and will be the one that Will exhibit its strength through its tolerance of life's cyclo-evolutionary diversifications, race differentiations; the strength to reflect or imitate life to a maximum possible perfection. Such a strength needs a kind of spirituality that was best expressed by the I.E stock, while there are and have been many noble races. Any healthy being would affirm his own stock, so would I.


Recidivist> One would expect people to find partners from within their own race, thereby preserving the unique nature of the speciation boundaries that have begun to appear over the past few million years; I doubt a eugenics program would be neccessary.

I agree with you.

Races are not static though.
I see periods of conservation, and periods of experimentation, when a race is strong enough to receive or give into foreign streams. Our time now demands a conservatory and self-disciplinatory mode.

"Transcendence is experienced differently by different ethnic groups. As a result, different understandings of the immutable arise across the world; from these differences emerge several “races of the spirit.

One's idea of race depends on one's idea of man: the nature of each racial doctrine is determined by its conceptualization of the human being. All distortions in the field of racism derive from a materialist view of man, a view informed by science and naturalism. By contrast, at the very basis of my racial doctrine I placed the traditional idea of man as a being comprised of three elements: body, character and spirit. I argued that an exhaustive racial theory has to take all three elements into account by examining race in its threefold manifestation: as race of the body, race of the character, and race of the spirit. Racial 'purity' is found when these three races stand in harmonious balance with one another, each race shining through the other two.

I rejected the fetish of merely physical racial purity, on the grounds that the purity of the external race of an individual is often preserved even when hisinner race has dimmed or deteriorated (a common example of this is that of the Dutch and Scandinavians). Such an approach also put the problem of miscegenation into perspective: miscegenation certainly has negative consequences in those cases where the inner race is weak; yet if the inner race is strong, the presence of an external element, introduced - albeit not in excess - by means of interbreeding, potentially provides a galvanizing challenge (hence, the opposite problem of certain aristocratic stocks which degenerate on account of incestuous unions).

Every kind of indiscriminate ethnic adulteration, on the one hand, is the consequence of a degenerated inner sensibility and of the tyranny of materialistic, individualistic and sentimental considerations, and, on the other hand, is the cause of the further degeneration of peoples and civilisations ; this must be borne in mind. Precise considerations of 'racism of first degree' should thus not be neglected in the creation of a new ruling class, ...Once, by means of the racism of first degree, a given sphere and a first selection are identified, we should proceed, through the racism of second and third degree, to further tests, in an exploration of deeper and more essential qualities than those of the outer appearance.

It has been said, by a Jew, that, just as Adam was formed by Jehovah, the Jew was formed by the Jewish law, and this truth is not limited to the Judaism of the Old Testament, whose spiritual history has been much more eventful than is assumed, but extends also to the Judaism of the Diaspora, in which it becomes even more emphatically the case, since the Talmud appears as the real essence and the real soul of Judaism.

A first important point which derives from recognising this is that 'Jewishness', before than in the blood, must be sought in the spirit : 'race', here, is essentially a behaviour, a way of being and of thinking, which, in philosophical terms, can be said to be a 'category' of spirit. It is important to establish firmly in one's mind this point in order to be able to identify a field of action of Judaism much vaster than the one that is defined by blood alone.

Western civilisation has become spiritually Judaised in important sectors, and is thus affected by a forma mentis of a more or less Jewish type, even where no crossbreeding has taken place and, therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to speak of an influence by way of blood.

To note this, and, therefore, to assert the necessity of identifying Judaism as a spiritual category, does not prevent us from noting also that the persistence of an idea, of an attitude, of a belief through generations ends up finding expression in an instinct, in something which penetrates into the blood, lives and acts in the blood, and, in many cases, completely irrespective of everything that the individual, as reflexive consciousness, thinks and believes he wants ; this is the second aspect of Judaism, this is Judaism, strictly speaking, as 'race' ; race, therefore, in a rather special, non naturalistic, sense.

When a race has lost contact with the only thing that has and can provide stability, namely, with the world of "Being"; and when in a race that which forms its most subtle yet most essential element has been lost, namely, the inner race and the race of the spirit—compared to which the race of the body and of the soul are only external manifestations and means of expression—then the collective organisms that a race has generated, no matter how great and powerful, are destined to descend into the world of contingency; they are at the mercy of what is irrational, becoming, and "historical," and of what is shaped "from below" and from the outside.

Blood and ethnic purity are factors that are valued in traditional civilizations too; their value, however, never justifies the employment, in the case of human beings, of the same criteria employed to ascertain the presence of "pure blood" in a dog or in a horse—as is the case in some modern racist ideologies. The "blood" or "racial" factor plays a certain role not because it exists in the "psyche" (in the brain and in the opinions of an individual), but in the deepest forces of life that various traditions experience and act upon as typical formative energies. The blood registers the effects of this action, yet it provides through heredity a material that is preformed and refined so that through several generations, realizations similar to the original ones may be prepared and developed in a natural and spontaneous way. It is on this foundation—and on this foundation only—that, as we shall see, the traditional world often practiced the heredity of the castes and willed endogamous laws.

If we refer, however, to the Indo-Aryan tradition in which the caste system was the most rigorously applied, simply to be born in a caste, though necessary, was not considered enough; it was necessary for the quality virtually conferred upon a person at birth to be actualized by initiation. I have already mentioned that according to the Manudharmasastra unless a man undergoes initiation or "second birth," even though he may be an Aryan, he is not superior to a Sudra.

Both the higher castes and traditional aristocracies, as well as superior civilizations and races cannot be explained by blood, but through the blood, by something that goes beyond blood and that has a metabiological character. When this "something" is truly powerful, or when it constitutes the deeper and most stable nucleus of a traditional civilization, then that civilization can preserve and reaffirm itself—even when ethnical mixtures and alterations occur (no matter how destructive they may be)—by reacting on the heterogeneous elements, and shaping them, by reducing them slowly but gradually to their own type, or by regenerating itself into a new, vibrant unity. When it comes to this point, the only forces that can be relied upon are those of the blood, which still carries atavistically within itself, Through race and instinct, the echo and the trace of the departed higher element that has been lost." [Various Selections from Evola on Race]

Satyr> Therefore, as genetic diversity increases mimetic uniformity must increase proportionally, whereas the opposite is true within natural environments. In this case as genetic uniformity increases due to culling, geographic isolation and the dominance of a few genetic lines, mimetic diversity increases in reverse proportionality given that the very factors that lead to a single individual’s dominance and survival will be passed on to the offspring resulting in a more dominant, challenging and self-sufficient individual prone to create his or her own ideas and attitudes towards the world and towards others.
It is noteworthy that the very factors that bring an individual about will be the ones (s)he will value and defend vehemently. ...
Therefore, a man birthed within environmental conditions and then supported and allowed to survive, protected from outside factors, will find these conditions desirable and he will defend them as being based upon his highest principles.
It is this social uniformity that also contributes to the illusion of human parity and the irrelevance of racial categories or the irrelevance of bloodlines and inherited genes. Once a common rule of behavior and thought is accepted then whatever genetic divergence exists becomes secondary, thusly making a uniform memetic reality while promoting genetic variations within it, just as long as they do not disrupt the homogeneity of the expanding and dominating ideal.


Nicely written; reflects Empedocles' Love/Strife cosmic mechanism;

"I will tell a two-fold story. At one time they [the elements] grew to be alone from being many, and at another they grew apart again to be many from being one. Double is the generation of mortal things, double their passing away: one is born and destroyed by the congregation of everything, the other is nurtured and flies apart as they grow apart again. And these never cease their continual change, now coming by Love all into one, now again all being carried apart by the hatred of Strife. Thus insofar as they have learned to become one from many and again become many as the one grows apart, to that extent they come into being and have no lasting life; but insofar as they never cease their continual change, to that extent they exist forever, unmoving in a circle." [Simplicius, Commentary on Physics; 31.30]

With Empedocles, you would speak of it in terms of a directly proportional relation:
Homogenous Mimetic unions will again fold into a homogenous genetic race If the memes persist long enough over time - the period of 'Love'. The concentrated strength will then, therefore of necessity seek routes to disperse, diversify, experiment, scatter itself or receive new streams within it towards a genetic/mimetic heterogeneity - the 'Strife' phase.

Do you see this proportional relation following your inverse one as a matter of course?

Isn't 'mimetic uniformity increasing because of genetic diversity' the aim and logic only of our modern technological morality? -Is that why you cite it as unnatural?

Mustn't we go further and differentiate mimetic unities from mimetic uniformities?
I wonder if the union of an indian and a german would not constitute more 'fitness' than the union of a japanese and a german or a japanese and an indian, taking into account one's power of digestion and 'safe dosage' of course?
I wonder if race-renewals from self-variations are more better than foreign elements of a similar 'semblance'? Aren't the genii more likely to occur in the former?...

Lyssa wrote:

Do you see this proportional relation following your inverse one as a matter of course?

Meaning what?

Lyssa wrote:

Isn't 'mimetic uniformity increasing because of genetic diversity' the aim and logic only of our modern technological morality? -Is that why you cite it as unnatural?

I cite it as unnatural only if the meme in question, as with most popular memes in our time, is partially disconnected from reality.
Nature is fragmentary and multiplicity....uniformity is an antithesis to it.

I consider masculinity, when left unhinged from its feminine grounding, to be nihilistic...or rather...idealistic in a unrealistic way.

Lyssa wrote:

Mustn't we go further and differentiate mimetic unities from mimetic uniformities?

All unity is counter to the flow of time, and so it produces uniformity.

Lyssa wrote:

I wonder if the union of an indian and a german would not constitute more 'fitness' than the union of a japanese and a german or a japanese and an indian, taking into account one's power of digestion and 'safe dosage' of course?

This would depend on how truly Indian and German each would be in a world already well down the road towards uniformity and nihilism.
But, in theory, a fluid environment requires a constant adaptation only genetic mixture can ensure, if this mixture is also accompanied by a mimetic uniformity.

You cannot totally consolidate mimetic diversity by combining it because just like with genetic mixing some mimetic uniformities have diverged beyond the point of a reconciliation through combination.
An ass reproducing with a horse produces a genetic dead-end in the mule.

Some memes have diverted to the point of total alienation or are simply contradictory....take Hellenism and Christianity.

Lyssa wrote:

I wonder if race-renewals from self-variations are more better than foreign elements of a similar 'semblance'? Aren't the genii more likely to occur in the former?...

Sometimes inbreeding produces a cocooning similar to solipsism.

Satyr wrote:

As a mental exercise, first listen and then try to punch holes in this liberal icon's arguments:

Pathetic.
The usual collection of liberal myths and half-truths, telling a one-sided story to maintain peace on the animal farm. Dawkins views are entirely colored by his class and politics. Some of it was laughable, as when Dawkins described Jared Diamond as a great thinker.

Loved the way he avoided any discussion of the evolutionary record and physical similartities with extant races to those which are supposedly extinct. How would he explain the evolution of human physical nature if there aren't any? How does evolution go forward? The constant apriori judgments of racial differences as 'superficial' and 'without meaning' throughout the video turned it into a farce.

An interesting thing is to run the critical ideas of post-colonial writers - who are supposedly anti-racist - against the ideas that scientists like Dawkins use as examples. In particular, the bit in the video where he discusses a patchwork of different races together in a montage, as a way of explaining how indistinguishable supposedly different races are when placed side by side. Post-colonial thinkers would criticize this as racist in itself, as it decontextualizes people from the geography and culture that makes them what they are. It's a typical technique of cultureless, Anglo-Saxon racism, or perhaps some might call it a kind of 'scientism'... blah, blah, blah.

One has to laugh at this pathetic circus of liberal scientists and their counterparts in the humanities.

Dawkins wrote:

"We are strangely reluctant to give up our divisive racial language"

The implication is that divisiveness is bad, when it is one of the primary mechanisms of evolution.

Dawkins wrote:

"We happily interbreed across races and are unequivocally and uncontroversially defined as members of the same species"

This is an excellent example of why he should stick to his own academic field, as he is obviusly ignorant of most of the historical antagonism between different races, which has its origins in evolutionary pathways.

Dawkins wrote:

"separate races - species in the making.", but there's no necessary expectation that speciation will continue to its end".

So where is it going? What an appalling, bare faced lie.

Would one say of a comet that we cannot know its trajectory, that we should not expect it to continue on its trajectory, without any reason being given?

Dawkins wrote:

"In the longer term we are all of African descent."

Another mindless, politically correct platitude.

Dawkins wrote:

"the tyranny of the discontinuous mind".

It's tragic that someone whose work I so admired when I was growing up has, over time, become so lost in the need to validate western liberal dogma. He should stick to describing the mechanics of evolution, as he did in the Blind Watchmaker, rather than acting as a standard bearer for secular liberal atheists.

Quote :

"racist contamination metaphor within white culture"

Memes follow genes. In fact, they may preempt genetic change/speciation, as consciousness may be aware before nature acts of the direction it is taking.

Dawkins wrote:

Most of the variation in humans is within the races, not between them.
largest part of genetic variation accounted for by the differences between individuals.

This old chestnut, which is wheeled out by white liberals in various guises, is a complete misrepresentation of the truth. The original claim was that Africans are more genetically varied as individuals than other races are genetically different from each other. The fact is that primates are even more genetically varied than Africans, as they are less evolved, and Africans are less evolved than other races, they are, in fact, the most backward race. Why are primates not upheld as superior to man for their genetic variation? Despite all this variation why do primates and blacks all appear so similar?

Could it be that that would be stretching the suspension of disbelief too far?

Could it be that these groups simply carry a greater number of primitive gene structures, which have not been eroded through the process of evolution, and that these genes do not necessarily express themselves through visible phenomena?

Lyssa wrote:

I agree with you.

Races are not static though.

Certainly not.

It is that fact that exposes the lie at the heart of Western liberalism, that we are all members of a monolithic, unchanging, 'human' race, where any differences are merely the deceptive acts of our own minds, and hence one can be attacked on any number of spurious personal grounds should one attempt to do so.

But in the attacks I've always found liberals expose their own insecurities, the more strident their liberalism and claims of equality, the more vehemently they deny differences and accuse others of being Nazis, the more they shout others down, the more they are trying to conceal their fear of existence, of competition with the other, and compensate for a sheltered upbringing.

Lyssa wrote:
Do you see this proportional relation following your inverse one as a matter of course?
Satyr> Meaning what?

You said, "Therefore, as genetic diversity increases mimetic uniformity must increase proportionally" - this is an inverse relation you present,, while in the Empedocles model, one could say, this mimetic uniformity would fold into a genetically uniform race of its own, if the memes persist long enough over time...
I was asking if you saw this Empedoclean model of the 'Love' phase following the trend you stated?


Lyssa wrote:
Mustn't we go further and differentiate mimetic unities from mimetic uniformities?
Satyr> All unity is counter to the flow of time, and so it produces uniformity.

There is a mimetic unity between a German reading the Vedas and an Indian reading the Eddas.
There is a mimetic uniformity amongst the people today who believe in equality and all the principles of a secular humanism.
There is a mimetic uniformity between Islam's war against modernism and the White Traditionalists' war against humanism.

Satyr> You cannot totally consolidate mimetic diversity by combining it because just like with genetic mixing some mimetic uniformities have diverged beyond the point of a reconciliation through combination.
An ass reproducing with a horse produces a genetic dead-end in the mule.
Some memes have diverted to the point of total alienation or are simply contradictory....take Hellenism and Christianity.

Yes.


Lyssa wrote:
I wonder if race-renewals from self-variations are more better than foreign elements of a similar 'semblance'? Aren't the genii more likely to occur in the former?...
Satyr> Sometimes inbreeding produces a cocooning similar to solipsism.


A Race is to shape a collective destiny. What are we against, and what are we for?
Under the former 'No'-umbrella, we would have allies and mimetic uniformities.
Under the latter 'Yes', we would have kinships and mimetic unities.

What you say is true; but I think the various I.E. branches have differentiated out so distinctly that self-variations amongst these branches is a reasonable and a balanced approach to renewing the race. When this is adopted as the healthy norm, exceptions can always be permitted.

Lyssa wrote:

Lyssa wrote:
Do you see this proportional relation following your inverse one as a matter of course?
Satyr> Meaning what?

You said, "Therefore, as genetic diversity increases mimetic uniformity must increase proportionally" - this is an inverse relation you present,, while in the Empedocles model, one could say, this mimetic uniformity would fold into a genetically uniform race of its own, if the memes persist long enough over time...
I was asking if you saw this Empedoclean model of the 'Love' phase following the trend you stated?

Yes, love is an attraction either based on genetic or mimetic similarity.
One binds with a different other along the lines of the existing similar.
The less similarity present the less possibility of a bonding to occur.
As time is a measurement of change we conclude that if there is no reciprocity over a given period of time, which would exchange or establish or spread similarities, then we get increasingly differences which cannot be reconciled.

Love is a mental bonding; hate is the reverse.

I consider existence an active multiplicity of divergence which is increasing in time. The Big Bang being the closest point to an absolute ordered, uniform, state possible, but never completed.
Life is an ordering and so it is attracted to order, particularly one which it recognizes, taking itself as a reference point.
Therefore we are attracted to what we recognize, because it is similar to ourselves, yet different form us, because difference, or differentiation, is what existence is.

I consider otherness, difference, the first experience of consciousness. It is only after this difference has been established that similarities are sought in it, as a way of understanding the alien, different, otherness.
This is why similarities, uniformities, are an obsession for all those with needs.

Lyssa wrote:

Lyssa wrote:
Mustn't we go further and differentiate mimetic unities from mimetic uniformities?
Satyr> All unity is counter to the flow of time, and so it produces uniformity.

There is a mimetic unity between a German reading the Vedas and an Indian reading the Eddas.
There is a mimetic uniformity amongst the people today who believe in equality and all the principles of a secular humanism.
There is a mimetic uniformity between Islam's war against modernism and the White Traditionalists' war against humanism.

All knowledge is an ordering of experience.
The stronger the ordering the more resistant to time it is.

All convergence is a product of or leads to uniformity...or some level of it.
When my ordering, my Becoming, comes into contact with an other's, there is an exchange of data, knowledge, experience (this is what I consider interaction), interpreted by both sides in different ways or on different levels - this determined by the level of ordering present in each and, therefore, also the level of chaos present in each.

Therefore a higher ordered state will have less in common with a lower level of order and it will take from the experience less, perhaps losing from it, given that the other has less to offer (less to teach or supply or offer).
The higher state of order will experience the interaction differently form the lower state and the degree of disparity will determine the "balance" of the relationship, or of the interacting.

A German reading the Vedas will understand it by referring it to what he knows and so will experience it along the lines of similarity between Edas and Vedas.
Where there is difference the higher wisdom will overpower or remain misunderstood or not perceived at all. There will be no point of contact, of convergence for the lower wisdom to draw understanding from in order to connect with the higher wisdom.
The more akin to on another memes are the less temporal distance lays between them. The course their divergence took establishes what differentiation followed, one leading to a higher the other to a less high or regressing to a lower state, as the case might be.

Change simply denotes an ordering in relation to the constant disordering and the attrition this produces. The level of ordering resistant present and the level of disordering it experiences is always different and this produces divergence in all things, both genes and memes. If there is no contact, no interaction, no sharing then the disparity increases in time.
Of course part of the possibility of interacting, or what is also implied by "sharing", is assimilation. The higher, stronger, might consume the lower, weaker, breaking it apart, foraging the useful elements and discarding the unused as excrement.
The utility of the other, the weaker (or stronger), is determined by what is lacking in the Becoming, ordering. This is the point where interaction commences and is maintained as long as the exchange continues - a feeding. As long as the need remains unfulfilled and both parties consume, or partake, form the other, a relationship is established which leads to increasing uniformity.

For example, a human can relate to a dog or an ape whereas the dog or the ape cannot relate to the human as much.
The animal's reference points are of a lower grade than the humans and the humans are so superior that he cannot gain much from this interaction or convergence.

Lyssa wrote:

Lyssa wrote:
I wonder if race-renewals from self-variations are more better than foreign elements of a similar 'semblance'? Aren't the genii more likely to occur in the former?...
Satyr> Sometimes inbreeding produces a cocooning similar to solipsism.

A Race is to shape a collective destiny. What are we against, and what are we for?
Under the former 'No'-umbrella, we would have allies and mimetic uniformities.
Under the latter 'Yes', we would have kinships and mimetic unities.

What you say is true; but I think the various I.E. branches have differentiated out so distinctly that self-variations amongst these branches is a reasonable and a balanced approach to renewing the race. When this is adopted as the healthy norm, exceptions can always be permitted.

The course an ordering takes - whether it be genetic or mimetic - differentiates it from another.
Sometimes returning to feed, exchange data, (genetic, mimetic) can be thought of as a renewal of energies, as attrition may have caused some aspects of the ordering to atrophy to a greater degree than in that which it diverged from.

Satyr, thanks.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

A brief on the Pre-Socratics; Empedocles incl. :
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Satyr wrote:

"Justify your racism"?!



First off, define "racism".

Secondly, what in the real world speaks of an absence of diversity based on inheritance passed on via heterosexual reproduction and resulting in fit and unfit, inferior and superior?

How does intelligence evolve and why would it and why would it be such an advantage, if it is evenly distributed and a result of random chance?

History speaks of the truth of bloodlines, types, which you would call racial categories.

If the Caucasian's dominance is a consequence of random chance (luck) and the past does not matter and types are limited to skin pigmentation, then we should also conclude that man's dominance over other species is likewise, unfair, unjust, luck.

How to species splinter off into other species if environment and genetic isolation and fitness and adaptation do not matter?  
If color does not matter, then why does form or texture or any other product of sensuality?


If niggers are only different to Europeans because of skin pigmentation then is it also true that man differs from a gorilla for the same reason; is the difference between a polar bear and a black bear the color of their fur?  


I realize that the question is intended to justify an opinion which is already established in you.
You instinctually know that there are differences but given the defensive arguments and the methods developed to oppose your naturally developed sense of discrimination you feel reluctant and unsure and insecure about expressing your views.

For starters, do not openly express your views if they are racist or sexist, in the common sense of both terms.

Then explore nature.
What of human migrations?
What forces change or evolution or growth? Is it stress?
How do species splinter off and become different...as in how does the ancestor of the ass and the zebra and the horse splinter off to produce these diverse, similar but different, species; how does the ancestor of the cat splinter off into tiger and lion and jaguar and common house cat? Apply this to primates...then apply it further within an ongoing process...because evolution does not suddenly end.
How did man splinter of from the same ancestor chimpanzees and gorillas?
Did the process end with man; if so why? Has evolution ceased to matter with human beings and if so for what reason is man exempt from all natural considerations which are easily applied to other species and to nature in general?  
What effect is globalization and this mimetically forced uniformity having upon this process? Is the past so easily overcome?
Does appearance matter, if not then why not and then how come we use it to differentiate in all other cases except when it comes to human beings?  
Is beauty really skin-deep?  

This is actually more or less the premise of speciesism, which states that a preference or natural drive to influence, nurture and propagate -- in a word, focus or act -- within your own species is by merit immoral.
It is part of the criteria of Modern Bioethics, which is an egalitarian and relativist doctrine spearheaded by none other than a Jew, Peter Singer.

Quote :

Do you subscribe to an Intellectual Racism?

Intellectual racism?! Is there any other kind?

Emotional racism, or being a skinhead, redneck, white-trash...

Satyr wrote:

Emotional racism, or being a skinhead, redneck, white-trash...

Yea, that one is a "racist" because it is how one grew up or with whom one associates oneself.
Then there is reactionary racism, which is more a less refined or interim stage of racial realism: for instance, your mate is near ravished by a pack of denizens of the African jungle, niggers, or at work no matter how you explain something, even the simplest of instructions, to niggers their feeble minds cannot ascertain it, and you begin to realize that what you've been taught to feel about sameness is not so same after all.

When it comes to hard work, especially manual labor, I'm a nigger, although I prefer the word aristocrat. It's not that I'm opposed to exertion or challenge per say, it's that I like to exert and challenge myself leisurely, in ways that're rewarding and enriching to me.
Blacks are different than whites, no doubt, they have a different sort of consciousness, but rather than deride it offhand, perhaps there's some things we can learn from them, just as there's some things they can learn from us. It might not be terrible for our race to exchange a little genetic and spiritual material with them, maybe we could use a little.

Divergense wrote:

When it comes to hard work, especially manual labor, I'm a nigger, although I prefer the word aristocrat. It's not that I'm opposed to exertion or challenge per say, it's that I like to exert and challenge myself leisurely, in ways that're rewarding and enriching to me.
Blacks are different than whites, no doubt, they have a different sort of consciousness, but rather than deride it offhand, perhaps there's some things we can learn from them, just as there's some things they can learn from us. It might not be terrible for our race to exchange a little genetic and spiritual material with them, maybe we could use a little.

There would be no superior without a coinciding inferior. A Superior undoubtedly learns from an inferior, up to a definite point, and insofar as the Superior remains indifferent, unoccupied with mingling with the Inferior, for the Superior is more keen on evolution than devolution.
An Inferior has nothing to add to the Superior; the former can only subtract from the latter. It's a monosided and feminine mentality that one should deserve without initiation and reciprocity.

Robert wrote:

There would be no superior without a coinciding inferior. A Superior undoubtedly learns from an inferior, up to a definite point, and insofar as the Superior remains indifferent, unoccupied with mingling with the Inferior, for the Superior is more keen on evolution than devolution.
An Inferior has nothing to add to the Superior; the former can only subtract from the latter.

Superior/inferior are contentious.

There's a possibility, due to sciences and technologies whites invented, that the world as we know it won't exist in the next century, that it'll be annihilated.

Quote :

It's a monosided and feminine mentality that one should deserve without initiation and reciprocity.

Were whites effete for domesticating blacks and cattle, so they didn't have to work as hard, or building machines? Were whites effete for inheriting blacks, cattle and machines?

Fundamentally, selfishness is neither feminine nor masculine, selfishness is life. You might be able to argue, this species, sex, race or individual is a little more selfish than that one, but fundamentally, we're all selfish.

What's more selfless than ants and bees, and yet they're all females.

Throughout history, females have pulled their weight, they bore, raised and reared children, while men hunted, foraged and fished, or cultivated the earth, how're they anymore parasitical than anyone else? Only recently, has the relationship between sexes become more one-sided, due to both leftwing and rightwing feminism.

It could be said females are more slavish, more able/willing to occupy the bottom of the totem pole without complaint.

Are aristocrats effete for inheriting wealth and power they never worked for?

Hrodebert wrote:

Divergense wrote:

Robert wrote:

There would be no superior without a coinciding inferior. A Superior undoubtedly learns from an inferior, up to a definite point, and insofar as the Superior remains indifferent, unoccupied with mingling with the Inferior, for the Superior is more keen on evolution than devolution.
An Inferior has nothing to add to the Superior; the former can only subtract from the latter.

Divergense wrote:

Superior/inferior are contentious.

Only because of inferiority complexes: it's uncomfortable, offensive, for people to accept that Nature is hierarchical. Everyone must be on the same level, even to the extent that those with disadvantageous organizations are giving preferential treatment, hence regression towards the mean in superseding generations.

Divergense wrote:

There's a possibility, due to sciences and technologies whites invented, that the world as we know it won't exist in the next century, that it'll be annihilated.

Quote :

It's a monosided and feminine mentality that one should deserve without initiation and reciprocity.

Were whites effete for domesticating blacks and cattle, so they didn't have to work as hard, or building machines? Were whites effete for inheriting blacks, cattle and machines?

Fundamentally, selfishness is neither feminine nor masculine, selfishness is life. You might be able to argue, this species, sex, race or individual is a little more selfish than that one, but fundamentally, we're all selfish.

What's more selfless than ants and bees, and yet they're all females.

Throughout history, females have pulled their weight, they bore, raised and reared children, while men hunted, foraged and fished, or cultivated the earth, how're they anymore parasitical than anyone else? Only recently, has the relationship between sexes become more one-sided, due to both leftwing and rightwing feminism.

It could be said females are more slavish, more able/willing to occupy the bottom of the totem pole without complaint.

Still need to focus my thoughts on the aforementioned.

Divergense wrote:

Are aristocrats effete for inheriting wealth and power they never worked for?

This is where it can be difficult to discourse as I hold a directional/intentional position of evolution which could be, at least as a derivative, ascribed to what others know as, although crude and cursory, reincarnation: that we are the consequences of our past choices; that the past transitions, leads, flows into the present with our actions as the vector. This is both physical and spiritual justice. Is not Justice what can imply Karma.
An aristocrat inherited his wealth by way of the wealth gained through past choices. It's in toto that which he deserves. (Dissonantly, we are not always immediately hint with that which we deserve.)
What does he do with it now it: that will henceforth decide his Character.

How convenient for the rich and the powerful that you believe that.

I see all that as just another form of domestication/feminization - the Vedic variant, as, not so opposed to the Abrahamic, variants. The Babylonians and Egyptians had theirs as well. I was the Greeks, Romans, Carthaginians, Etruscans and even the Indians who partly managed to break free from that sort of thinking.

[quote="Divergense"]

Hrodebert wrote:

Divergense wrote:

Robert wrote:

There would be no superior without a coinciding inferior. A Superior undoubtedly learns from an inferior, up to a definite point, and insofar as the Superior remains indifferent, unoccupied with mingling with the Inferior, for the Superior is more keen on evolution than devolution.
An Inferior has nothing to add to the Superior; the former can only subtract from the latter.

Divergense wrote:

Superior/inferior are contentious.

Only because of inferiority complexes: it's uncomfortable, offensive, for people to accept that Nature is hierarchical. Everyone must be on the same level, even to the extent that those with disadvantageous organizations are giving preferential treatment, hence regression towards the mean in superseding generations.

Divergense wrote:

There's a possibility, due to sciences and technologies whites invented, that the world as we know it won't exist in the next century, that it'll be annihilated.

Quote :

It's a monosided and feminine mentality that one should deserve without initiation and reciprocity.

Were whites effete for domesticating blacks and cattle, so they didn't have to work as hard, or building machines? Were whites effete for inheriting blacks, cattle and machines?

Fundamentally, selfishness is neither feminine nor masculine, selfishness is life. You might be able to argue, this species, sex, race or individual is a little more selfish than that one, but fundamentally, we're all selfish.

What's more selfless than ants and bees, and yet they're all females.

Throughout history, females have pulled their weight, they bore, raised and reared children, while men hunted, foraged and fished, or cultivated the earth, how're they anymore parasitical than anyone else? Only recently, has the relationship between sexes become more one-sided, due to both leftwing and rightwing feminism.

It could be said females are more slavish, more able/willing to occupy the bottom of the totem pole without complaint.

Still need to focus my thoughts on the aforementioned.

Divergense wrote:

Are aristocrats effete for inheriting wealth and power they never worked for?

This is where it can be difficult to discourse as I hold a directional/intentional position of evolution which could be, at least as a derivative, ascribed to what others know as, although crude and cursory, reincarnation: that we are the consequences of our past choices; that the past transitions, leads, flows into the present with our actions as the vector. This is both physical and spiritual justice. Is not Justice what can imply Karma.
An aristocrat inherited his wealth by way of the wealth gained through past choices. It's in toto that which he deserves. (Dissonantly, we are not always immediately hint with that which we deserve.)
What does he do with it now it: that will henceforth decide his Character.

Divergense wrote:

How convenient for the rich and the powerful that you believe that.

The convenience (here, contemptuous resentment) is placed rather on choosing to forgo by dereliction accountability and responsibility; a denial that our actions/reactions have both short-term and long-range consequences, with an eminent resultant of either evolution or devolution.

I'm responsible for what I do or don't do, I'm not responsible for what other people do or don't do. I did not choose the state of the world, I do choose how I'm going to respond to it. However, these choices are based on my physiology and neurology colliding with my environment, I acknowledge causality. I explained my thoughts on masters, slaves and rebels more thoroughly in my new thread - The Higher, the Fewer - you're welcome to participate.