Evolution and Genocide

It supports racism. If we evolved different bone structures, hair texture, lactose and alcohol tolerance, fat tissues reparation , it doesn't seem likely that physical and intellectual abilities stayed identical across the whole species.
But not genocide, which is a purely political question.

Silver is a byproduct of lead mining but can also be found by itself.

More or less this.

Before that religious differences were the really big issue.

Western racism? Do you mean the racism from white Europeans to Africans? that arose because people needed an excuse for slavery.

That was environmental bigotry like the Greeks . Not racism

Haeckel played a significant part in it too, didn't he?

When they encountered subsaharans and abos in large numbers and thought "Wow, these people are extremely primitive in intellect."

a huge one, yes. Nietzsche did too, indirectly and accidentally.

I always found it interesting how so many people confuse Darwin's ideas with Haeckel's. Must be because he was more popular among laymen.

Nietzsche's sister was the one that tried to make his work look like it supported her political views?

The slave trade? None, it was just a big market of cheap and easy slaves and the tribes were willing to sell.

if anything evolution and genetics in general helped reduce racism
beforehand after all there was no objective proof all of humanity was the same species so it was significantly easier to dehumanize others

"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate." - Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man"

slave trade was mostly jews too.

No, there are byproducts of accepting national states instead of multicultural ones.

When the bourgeoisie found it profitable to divide the proletariat via "race", and to enslave Africans for essentially free labor.

Human ideas of racism and murder have nothing to do with a natural process.

I find multiculturalism to be less than desirable.

Where can I buy the honor killing rocks t-shirt?

Why? Nationalism is just cringe at this point...

ISIS.CUM m8

shill

Who would win a fight between Honor Killing Rocks, Kill Whitey and Death To The Infidels?

My money is on Kill Whitey: 2 guns, even if his aim is bad he can mow down teh other two and then the white family.

Honor Killings could do some damage if he got to you but Whitey's puffy jacket might give him a bit of stopping power.

Death to Infidels is the wildcard because if he got a running start, even if Whitey shot him up me might be able to get close enough to deliver the grenade.

Racism in the modern sense was invented to support slavery.

Genocide in the modern sense has happened since forever.

Secular Arab and eastasian nationalists seem to be quiete serious imo.
Its just that every more radical political movement in the west has become cringe at this point.

Why would teh j00s pay reasonable people to argue with stubborn morons on a Hmong Flipbook Board?

Surely for how many times I've seen the accusation "shill" teh j00s would be bankrupt by now.

No, you just don't have a reasonable discourse, and so would rather insinuate some idiotic conspiracy.

>Racism in the modern sense was invented to support slavery.

Then reinvented to support the cause or reason of the day.

Anyone wanna try to break this down?
creation.mobi/apartheid-and-the-cradle-of-humankind

I had sex with a black woman?

Most likely.

It definitly would have advanced humanity if abos had actually been hunted down
They're barely human at all with their 60 average IQ
People love to call Africans inferior but abos are just another level

>that arose because people needed an excuse for slavery.

The fact they were living like literal chimps in mudhuts didn't help their cause

Cuck.

>DA JOOOOOOOS

>what are socio economic factors?
>implying that there have been no black scientists/ aboriginal politicians.

T. /pol/fag.

Well it's undeniable that Darwinian social theories had a massive influence on the ideology of Nazism.

>“Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism... neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the worlds greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy.”
― Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany

>hi I'm from /pol/ and know absolutely nothing about african history

>muh chimps

What was the Mali Empire? The Ethiopian Empire?

T. /pol/fag who knows sweet fuck all about African history.

I bet you deny the holocaust happened too you subhuman cunt.

This source sounds fucking retarded. Hitler didn't need Darwin to convince anyone of anything.

So basically social Darwinism gave them an excuse for mass genocide? I think they also believed in polygenism.

>What was the Mali Empire?

A joke
Their capital city was literally made out of mud

Sure it was an empire compared to the nearby villages, but the smallest european city-state could have conquered it in a day

...

Hitler was a fervent Darwinian evolutionist user. It's undeniably a massive influence on his Eugenics ideology.

It didn't give them an excuse, it gave them the fundamental framework of their ideology of racial supremacy

...

He was also a Christian.

Surprisingly intellectual answers. never been on Veeky Forums before but if there are posters this smart here I think I'll stay.

Except you. You're dumb.

Didnt answer my question about the Ethiopian Empire.

Also
>implying mud wasn't practical

>muh European superiority.

Ok lad.

10/10

I love these

Have some more.

I remember seeing these two at my grandmother's house when I was younger.

are these ironic? I can't quite tell.

In what sense? The replies or the pictures themselves?

That's what makes them so great

This. I'd rather have the vitriolic nationalism of the 19th and 20th centuries than the cringey millennial /pol/ memesters that I have to deal with seeing on Twitter because of my angsty younger cousins.

Here here.

Hitler wasn't a Christian at all user.

lol I feel like the comics contradict themselves. But they don't fully grasp that themselves.

Its like when I read a book and the writer is trying to convey a stupid person. But they way they do that is by making the stupid person a strawman.

>oy vey the goyim know get the memes out

plz post a tweet from the cringe nationalists. I need to see

Alright then. I think some of his officials were trying to find some evidence that they were descended from Atlanteans. They found that they and the Tibetans shard quite a bit in common when it came to skull shape.

Yeah, he was. Definitely not the most devout man ever, but a christian none the less.

...

Jesus Christ...

You have no idea.

>this meme

People have been racist way before the slave trade.

Romans had racist ideas of the Nubians, and Arabs travelers of the 8th and 9th century characterized blacks as lazy and indolent beasts, worth for nothing more than bondage.

Even the Natives that had accepted Christianity were still treated like shit

Yes, his colleagues in the Thule Society claimed to have connections with a Lodge in Tibet who were in league with the ancient Aryan super race from Atlantis who now lived deep underground in caverns. Occultism was only an aesthetic to Hitler though. Himmler was the true occultist. Hitler was first and foremost a Darwinian Eugenicist.

He genuinely wasn't a Christian at all. I don't know where you're getting this information.

They're usually small, angsty Twitter profiles with maga hat anime/pepe avatars, that like to focus on white genocide and have a boner for trump.
I'll be sure to avoid posting any actual accounts on here but you can probably just find them with their aforementioned avatars retweetig @nero, it's an interesting game because it gets incredibly cringey.

>dude we're all just one global village lmao

Just because edgy 14 year olds have flocked to its banners doesn't make it cringy

That's a potent mix.

no but it makes it more apparent.

lmaoooooooooooooo thank you user.

Also, it should be noted that even though Darwin said that eugenics would ensure genetic stability, it would also take away what made us special in the first place: the instinct of sympathy, "the noblest part of our nature."

What's Veeky Forums opinion on that video?
youtube.com/watch?v=K63PN2bxAXE

You can't deny he's right

you need to shut up
like actually.

> being this triggered

Uh why exactly? That's a pretty cogent point he made.

...

So evolution is a myth now too, it's also a social issue important to all of us. Is there any shit the alt right won't eat up at this point.

Agree with him for the first part but he got carried away.

The simple reason we shouldn't apologize for slavery is because we personally didn't do it

Darwin matters as much to the theory of natural selection as any previous biologist who didn't have all the facts. His influence ends and begins where he contributed to it. Science is not a field where all worship the past, Darwin very much has little to do with Biology apart from what he observed which is still accurate. Any claim to the contrary shows a lack of understanding how academia works, in which case why comment on it.

Evolution should be regarded in terms of what it actually provides, which is only an exterior understanding of mechanistic functions that yields no real insight into the interior nature of the human experience.

Science is not about what it provides for you or others, you are not entitled to the labor of scientists in pursuit of truth, whether or not you disagree with it.

Many of Darwin's colleagues went on to institute the most prominent ideologies of racial supremacy throughout western society in the early and mid 20th century, including his cousin Francis Galton who pioneered the ideology of Eugenics and his son Leonard Darwin who called for mass scale eugenics reform in society. It isn't a matter of worshiping the past, but a matter of acknowledging the effect Darwinian social theories have had on civilization.

There's just a dangerous arrogance that comes with scientism that outright rejects the entire collective yield of human effort and accumulated knowledge throughout our history in favor for a reductionist conception of the human experience that only urges us towards ignorance.

>Many of Darwin's colleagues went on to institute the most prominent ideologies of racial supremacy throughout western society in the early and mid 20th century, including his cousin Francis Galton who pioneered the ideology of Eugenics and his son Leonard Darwin who called for mass scale eugenics reform in society

Let me repeat myself, so I'm clear. Darwin matters as much to the theory of natural selection as any previous biologist who didn't have all the facts. His influence ends and begins where he contributed to it. Science is not a field where all worship the past, Darwin very much has little to do with Biology apart from what he observed which is still accurate. Any claim to the contrary shows a lack of understanding how academia works, in which case why comment on it.

>It isn't a matter of worshiping the past, but a matter of acknowledging the effect Darwinian social theories have had on civilization.

They have had little, Europe wasn't a nation of saints before Darwin, it wouldn't be after. Before blacks were told they were inferior because they had the mark of Cain, or what have you biblical nonsense. Uneducated people, especially during that time, would latch onto anything to explain their fear and hatred.

Science has no politics, and accusing it of having such is fruitless.

You can have skepticism for science, without sticking your head so far up your ass you actually convince yourself natural selection is nothing but a myth and a political agenda. That it somehow makes you morally righteous to deny it somehow. That takes arrogance, I too hate.

not him but I think there is a mix up.
Science itself has no politics that much is true. But aspects of it are cherry picked and appropriated to give social theories weight. That is undeniable.

>this is what creationists actually believe.
This is why people leave the church.