"race realism"

>Climate optimization had a significant enough influence to alter the behavior and intelligence of a group more than education and nutrition does

>Tens of thousands of years of sexual selection for intelligence will be undone with three hots and """"""ed-jay-kayshun"""""

>Intelligence is the driving factor for natural selection

>Marxist theory

>marxist history

>"REAL marxism has never been tried!"

>"But Marx argued..."

>any other meme form of Marxism

>"Im not a nazi, Im a national socialist or natsoc!"

>"National Socalism can be applied to any country!"

>"just because I love my race doesnt mean I hate other!...you stupid kike fuccking nigger!"

>Materialistic view of history
>Gender theory
>Universalism

Those are pretty valid objective terms, not like "race realism" which is basically product of racists being butthurt about being called by proper name. It's like if a fag would claim "I am not homosexual, I am phallic enthusiast"

> Day of The Rope

> "race realism" which is basically product of racists being butthurt about being called by proper name.
It's about as objective as any of the ones contained in your meme arrows.

You can't honestly believe that any group of distinct individuals (and you can pick any group here, not just race) can have a mean characteristic (IQ, penis size, you name it) that's exactly equal to another one. It's a completely ludicrous idea. The question is only how much difference there is.

But race has nothing to do with that idea, it is based mainly upon the culture of their upbringing as well as their own access to resources to improve themselves.

>You can't honestly believe that any group of distinct individuals (and you can pick any group here, not just race) can have a mean characteristic (IQ, penis size, you name it) that's exactly equal to another one. It's a completely ludicrous idea. The question is only how much difference there is.

Read again, I was talking about terminology. I have no desire to engage in negro-hating debate.

>when based God emperor is inaugurated in January I'll stop being a disgusting NEET and will become a well liked person with a qt gf and high paying job

>quantity beats quality

Race realism has everything to do with differences between races, why wouldn't it?

Are you implying that acknowledging differences between races is inherently racist, or what are you saying about these "terms"?

Because of the fact that all humans have the same capacity due to not being separated long enough for pronounced mutations to be produced that could serve as a meaning as to why there would be such a large divide based upon race rather than any other factors.

>post-structuralism

But your entire premise is completely counterfactual.

>Because of the fact that all humans have the same capacity
Same capacity to what, exactly?

Are you going to tell me that penis size, foot size, skull shape and affinity to get skin cancer are socialized now? There is absolutely zero reason to assume that personality traits, like intelligence, are somehow distinct from biology in the way everything else isn't.

And yours is based entirely on an idea that correlation = causation.

>Are you implying that acknowledging differences between races is inherently racist, or what are you saying about these "terms"?
All I said is that bunch of Americans, out of butthurt, again invented a new term for something that already has a term.

>Are you implying that acknowledging differences between races is inherently racist
Nope, but labeling races "inferiour/superiour" is.

>All I said is that bunch of Americans, out of butthurt, again invented a new term for something that already has a term.
I think in an age of hopeless delusion and snowflake thinking, the term has a spot for it that fits perfectly.

>Nope, but labeling races "inferiour/superiour" is.
Now, granted, I've ascribed to the term "race realism" the meaning that I think it ought to have. If it involves races being "superior" to one another, then I concede that you're right about it.

>Gender theory
>valid

>left–right politics

>penis and foot size
Based more on size that genetics, and the size difference has likely came about as natural selection pre-society.
>skull
Based on genetics and likely a result of natural selection, but doesn't have any impact aside from appearance most of the time.
>skin cancer
Tied to melanin.

And if personality traits are biological, then why have all races had geniuses of some sort? Or great leaders, like great kings or administrators?

>this entire post
What kind of a retort is "Tied to melanin" to the fact that black people are vastly less likely to get skin cancer? Do you think they take fucking melanin supplements? Get real, cretin.

>And if personality traits are biological, then why have all races had geniuses of some sort? Or great leaders, like great kings or administrators?

Personality traits are biological about as much as anything else. You can, and do, have asians with big dicks. It's just far less common than with black people who are basically all hung as opposed to asians who mostly have micropenises. And on the other hand, the fact that black people are less likely to get skin cancer by like a factor of ten does NOT mean no blacks get skin cancer.

Just take a short introductory course to statistics or something, for fuck's sake, this post is the definition of people who are limited to binary thinking.

>black people who are basically all hung
I can't believe he fell for the BBC meme.

It's a fact, bro, sorry you feel uncomfortable to deny it.

Fortunately for me and other people who got laid in their lives, freakishly long dicks are fucking useless in sex.

>ideology

>capitalism

>It's a fact, bro
It really isn't. The only study that validates that are selfreport studies. Urologists studies usually conclude that all races have pretty much the same dick size

What is invalid about it?

> think in an age of hopeless delusion and snowflake thinking, the term has a spot for it that fits perfectly.
By adding another speshul snowflake with hurt feefees to the blizzard? I don't think so.

>Now, granted, I've ascribed to the term "race realism" the meaning that I think it ought to have.
If you mean that races exist, because blacks are blacks and Chinese have silly eyes without the ideological shading. Then the people who do this do not call themselves "race realist" but anthropologists.

"valid term", read again. The theory itself mostly consists of spooky bullshit (but thats my opinion).

This. I'm asian and my penis is certainly not small, it's about 5 inches which is well above the average male penis.

"Race realism" is about as special snowflake as "realism". There's nothing less special snowflake than a term that implies one can't do everything.

Your idea of a "valid term" seems to be some completely ill defined asinine piece of bull-shit to me.

>If you mean that races exist, because blacks are blacks and Chinese have silly eyes without the ideological shading.
The difference extends beyond the eyes, but yes. Ideology kind of clashes with the "realism" part of it.

Is this the new PC term racists define themselves as?

I thought they were against PC stuff.

Guess I was wrong then. Feel free to poke holes into why black people die less of skin cancer.

>Racism

Disliking people or wishing to harm people because of their race

>Race Realism

Thinking that race is a biological rather than social phenomena.

I get why cosmopolitan ideologues mix the two up, but if you are being honest it isn't hard to spot the difference.

Then say why should we use ideologically charged term instead of ideologically blank term "racism"?

>Race realism" is about as special snowflake as "realism".
nope, realism is widely acknowledged term.

>Your idea of a "valid term" seems to be some completely ill defined asinine piece of bull-shit to me.
If you've been to school and didn't slept during the language classes then you should know that there are emotionally charged words: Pejoratives and Approbatives. In proper discourse one should seek to minimalize use of such words.

Melanine? No clue. I am not denying difference between races pal

This. Fucking this

>ideologically blank term "racist"
Are you seriously, honestly saying this with a straight face? We are talking in the context of """""cultural appropriation""""" being called """"racist"""", whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. The word is nothing BUT ideology. It's time to give up your fantasy world, mate.

>nope, realism is widely acknowledged term.
And so should race realism. Why don't we start using it correctly, friend? Let's stop racists from owning the word, eh?

>Newman, D. M. (2012). Sociology: exploring the architecture of everyday life (9th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE. p. 405. ISBN 978-1-4129-8729-5.
>Racism: The ideology underlying racist practices often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as inferior or superior.

>Thinking that race is a biological rather than social phenomena.
Nope, it is post-modern term for racism (dividing human etnics into good and bad groups and the policies such division implies) used by fringe groups. Name at least three serious (with doctorate) anthropologists, who call themselves "race realists" and then we might tak.

Struck a nerve or something?
>We are talking in the context of """""cultural appropriation""""" being called """"racist"""", whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean.
Thankfully, I don't know either. But I think it has something to do with USA and it's obsession with races.

>The word is nothing BUT ideology.
Wrong, the word does not imply it's good or bad, it's our civilization's values that do that.

>And so should race realism.
Nope. Because it equals ideological view of one side to the truth.

>Struck a nerve or something?
Yes, cretinous statements like "racism is an ideologically blank term" strike my nerves. Do forgive me.

>Thankfully, I don't know either.
Thankfully, as in thank goodness I don't have to address the point you made? "Racism" is a meaningless term at this point in the entire western world, I don't care how ignorant of current affairs you pretend to be.

>Wrong, the word does not imply it's good or bad, it's our civilization's values that do that.
Racism has an overtly negative connotation. One that I don't deny, by the way. One that you for some reason deny, by calling it "ideologically blank". Again, if you really, honestly think it doesn't, you're a cretin and now this conversation is over.

>Nope. Because it equals ideological view of one side to the truth.
Please explain how "race realism equals ideological view of one side to the truth". Especially in opposition to other ideologies, which supposedly don't equate anything to the truth.

>Wrong, the word does not imply it's good or bad, it's our civilization's values that do that.
Just as an addendum, "words" don't imply fucking anything, it's people that do. If you use an ideologically tinged word, don't fucking pretend you're not using it.

>trying to actually debate in a thread about derisively dismissing words and ideas
>this ends up being infinitely more cancerous that just shitposting like everyone else

>There is an inherent biological quality besides the ability to reproduce

Actually that is true, human intelligence is a result of our living spaces, if our living spaces require no intellect to live in like Sub Saharan Africa the humans there will be impulsive retards until a major climate change happens in Sub Saharan Africa.

Education has nothing to do with intelligence either retard, how smart you are determines if you can even be educated in the first place, why are you people so fucking stupid?

I know you have no idea what you are talking about because you are making it sound like Sub-Saharan Africa is a verdant paradise where living requires little effort.

>Nope, it is post-modern term for racism (dividing human etnics into good and bad groups and the policies such division implies) used by fringe groups.

Show me where anyone who calls themselves a race realist ranks different races as categorically superior or inferior, and then we'll talk.

Also, why are you citing a sociologist as if we have any reason to take sociology seriously ? Palm readers are more rigorous. Also, why anthropolgy? Why not biology ? Biologists are the ones who have the tools to determine if race is biological, not anthropologists.

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/07/18/what-the-experts-really-think-about-race-realism-and-white-nationalism-or-at-least-ideas-pertaining-to-it/

And it is biologists who tend believe that race is real at a higher rate. The article above may clear up some of your misconceptions.

>Intelligence is only something that you are born with
>Education has no influence on a student's mental and emotional development

>collectivism
>social good

Compared to everywhere else on earth, Sub Saharan Africa is the easiest place for humans to thrive, thats why our species has always existed in Sub Saharan Africa you fucking dumbass. The fact the most prehistoric human race is found in Africa shows its an easy place to live in.

There is game everywhere in Africa, there is no thinking required to get food in Africa, the blacks starve because they are unbelievably stupid even for humans. However rather than think complex ways to get food in the jungles blacks decided eating eachother was better idea that required no thought at all.

Listen moron your intelligence is based on how tough an area is to survive in to the point where even your physical adaptions arent good enough.

We would once minldess masses of flesh on the sea floor then became bilateral this made our perception advanced. Then we became jawless fish and perception was enhanced further. Then we became amphibians and the land made our brains become more complex to process land information. Eventually as reptiles our brains became even more complex. As Synapsids we began to develop warm bloodness and eusocial groups that stimulated more mental ability. As early mammals we had to rely on our wits to survive in a world of large diapsids(dinosaurs), in addition our senses had to be augmented, which required lots of processing eventually leading to the neocortex of placental mammals.

Then one group went into the trees and developed complex eusocial groups and stopped relying on their jaws allowing their brains to advance even further.

Eventually one creature from this group loses its tail and develops better forelimbs in addition the lack of a tail makes a challenge for it leading a more advanced brain.

For the apes the more MENTALLY challenging the area the smarter, so the Gibbon is an idiot compared to the Chimp, Gorilla or Orangutan.

>Sub Saharan Africa is the easiest place for humans to thrive
So why didn't civilization begin there instead of in Babylon?

Eventually something split from the Pan genus and developed bipedal motion which made them vulnerable leading to more brain advancement due to needing to outthink predators.

The first walking apes however were feral retards that make blacks look like Einstein in Intelligence and so fucking stupid they couldnt make a stone tool. So a climate change in Africa lead to their demise one of their descendents around 3 million years ago was Habilis the very first hominid, Habilis was much more intelligent than them but probably had the same disposition of black people today so a feral savage.

As time passed Erectus was born smarter than Habilis.

Then a hominid migrated into Europe and something incredible happened, this hominid began rapidly develop mutations for an advanced brain due to how mentally challenging Europe was compared to Africa, this ape is the Neanderthal.

Another ape the Denisova developed in the more intellectually challenging Eastern Asian region.

Meanwhile Homo Floriensis was a savage wild beast that could use spears in Southern Asia.

Back in Africa a new species of deranged savages was living in the Sub Saharan region these savages are called Homo Sapiens, they dont make much of a hit due to all of the hominids still left in Africa though.

Source? That's fucking hot

The first humans were most likely terminally retarded compared to us based on how stupid the most ancient human group(the San people) are compared to us(54 IQs in adulthood). The homo sapien was held back by its own home continent keeping it feral and stupid as its cousins became more advanced than it.

Eventually the homo sapiens split two times one group went into South Africa the other into the East Africa, then this group split again one migrating into the Congo rainforest and would one day become the most savage human breed in existence THE AFRICAN NIGGER, the other split again, the remainders became the natives of Eastern Africa like the Eriteans and so on, the other split split again the first group left Africa and interbred with Neanderthals.

The new hybrid species then colonized tropical Asia,however tropical Asia was the same as Africa thus this brown skinned hybrid species was just as feral and savage as humans back in Africa.

These hybrids are the ancestors of Abos, the natives of Indonesians, Papuans, and Melanesians.

The second split however went into the middle east and took in alot more Neanderthal DNA, then split into three groups.

One group went far into Eastern Asia becoming the ancestor of the Mongoloid race

The other stayed in the middle east becoming the ancestor of Caucasoids.

The third group mysteriously died out except in Northern Japan the Ainu.

During the time before the split the Proto Modern Human endured the Ice Age in the middle east and thus developed selections to become more intelligent. One of these selections was an augmented frontal lobe that held african animal instincts in check to a degree. This is the real reason why the humans born of this strain are the creators of all human civilization and innovation.

From this strain the Proto Caucasoid migrated back into Africa but only in the North running the savage negroids in them to extinction, the negroids had no ice age selections thus remained feral jungle beast while the Proto Caucasoids was more mentally civilized.

Another Proto Caucasoid group migrated into India, and mixed with the native feral humans there, this mixing is what created the brown skinned indian people.

A third went to Central Asia one group from this will be known as the Slavs.

Another migrated but to Iran and Pakistan.

The ones where we white people came from were a group in Northern Turkey then the migrated into Europe.

The remainders of the Proto Caucasoids would become the Semitic people while the ones down in the Arabian desert would become the Arabs.

In Eastern Asia one group of humans went far north becoming what will one day be the ancestors of all humans in the New World, another ventured north but stopped becoming the ancestors of Japs, Koreans, and Mongolians.

One stayed in Central East Asia becoming the ancestor of chineese.

Another ventured South then split three times in total.

One split is the Vietnamese,and Thai.

Another split is the Cambodians, the Laotian, the Bhutanese, and the Burmese.

The third split is the Filipino, the Malaysians, the Indonesian Mongoloids, and all the Pacific Islanders including Hawaiins.

Made a Iittle research and I concede you were right in a world where people claim race to be a social construct, there ought to be a term for people who think otherwise. My mistake was wrong comprehension of the "realist" word as in "optimist/realist/pessimist" respectivelly "unbiased". While the word actually implies "viewing race as a real thing" as opposed to "viewing race as a spook". Altough I still find it silly to use it, since virtually all of non-antropologists claiming to be "racial realist" are just in temporary closet where they try to defend their ideological view on races by science, so that they can implement racist policies.

>Also, why are you citing a sociologist as if we have any reason to take sociology seriously ?
First link on wiki and there´s nothing wrong with it. Btw you can't really criticize me for it, since you've linked such a high-quality blog

...

>798▶
>File: autistic breakdown.png (586 KB, 637x510)
> (You)
> (You)
> (You)
> (You)
Cry more black shit

>degenerate
>moral decay
>nuclear family

Nothing wrong with the term "nuclear family"

kinda self-defeating considering blacks are statistically over-represented in the nfl.

historical materialism contradicts itself and is retardedly reductionist

no one actually believes this m8

>post-anything

Spook Overload

>because you are making it sound like Sub-Saharan Africa is a verdant paradise where living requires little effort.
That is true and that was true for most of the history. In the last ice age especially, living in Sub Saharan Africa was paradise compared to freezing your ass off in ice covered and glaciated Europe with meager or non-existent food supply. Whites evolved the ability to process milk after infancy because they needed another source of protein and fat in the cold dark winters. Compared to that, living in constant 25 - 35 C climate with abundant life and food is paradise.

Therefore it required significantly less intelligence in the last ice age and the pre-history to survive in Sub Saharan Africa than in Europe. The "Sub Saharan Africa is unlivable shithole" only first appeared in post world war 2 world compared to modern day west.

>So why didn't civilization begin there instead of in Babylon?
Same reason why Rome could never have industrialized even if they developed technology. In Rome's case it was over abundance of slaves in Africans case it was over abundance of easy food but the underlying point is the same - if shit is good now why change it.

You didn't actually deny racial differences, just implied they can't be bigger than the influences of nutrition and education.

>Name at least three serious (with doctorate) anthropologists, who call themselves "race realists" and then we might talk

Do you take into account that there is barley any substantive (as opposed to nominal) freedom of speech on the issue?

Acknowledge race = kiss your academic ass good-bye

Read the bell curve, 10.000 year explosion, look into interracial adoption studies.

Nutrition and education may matter, but it doesn't change genetic potential.

Try the term H.B.D, Human Biological Diversity

There it is
Fuck off back to your hug box, you are not welcome here

>muh mental ill people can raise children too!

>Acknowledge race = kiss your academic ass good-bye
>he thinks academics all deny the existance of different ethnic groups

I was vague. But even not being colourblind is becoming more of a norm now.

It's rather when traits perceived to be negative/positive are being acknowledged. All HBD theories are well within the realm of reality, and thus have the possibility of being true. The problem is that the veracity of these claims are not being addressed. It's more rather just academic ways of saying "daz racisss". And thus making those acknowledgements can come at a major costs(see link)

politico.com/blogs/media/2015/03/new-york-times-drops-razib-khan-204287

what the fuck
im in europe studying medicine, every professor that's ever mentioned race has acknowledged it, all of my teachers in school have too, whenever it came up
you know damn right that doesn't mean you have to pre judge people - just because yun is jap doesn't mean he's a genius
it's fucking americans that can't stop twisting everything
sjw: race is a social construct man, whites are all evil racist
alt-sjw: genocide the brown people, they are all garbage

I swear, every race related picture I see I wonder how we beat the chinks. I guess their conservatism and arrogance ended up destroying them because it allowed the much more dynamic Europeans to outcompete them.

>im in europe studying medicine, every professor that's ever mentioned race has acknowledged it

Not the same user. What are you going on about? Modern medicine has progressively denied race since post WWII. They do however acknowledge that different geographical group units are genetically different, there's difference between those two.

The term for the latter is scientific racism. "Race realism" is a stupid meme term because the name itself automatically implies the ideology is correct and founded in reality, it's barely different than if I were to call Marxist historical analysis "historical realism" or some other dumb shit like that in order to make me feel better about using it and lend it credence

>nationalism

Well, I guess they have better genes on average for intelligence, but that wasn't enough to beat our superior armies and the military inventions euros had.

Europe was very good at war.

Who cares anyway, one day we'll discover which genes exactly we need to replicate and we'll just genetically engineer a race that's smarter not only on average but deterministically so, in every case.
Yes and no. Depends on what you're referring to.

There's a difference between how much sub saharan african, asian, caucasian kidneys can concentrate urine, and on that particular issue naming those 3 solely covers it quite well without going into too much detail.

But for other things you are correct, but people still consider ethnic differences for different gene frequencies etc. common sense stuff

To be fair, not all of them use this self-congratulatory term, HBD is a common contender.

What evidence is there that race goes beyond skin colour?

Of bloody course there is race realism, whites have been shown over and over to be the best race in infographics for the simple fucking common sense reason that we have evolved to be smarter because Europe is the most challenging, aryan place to live in the world. Negroids, or any over lesser race, are lesser for the simple reason that they live in easy lands, everything is handed to them on a fucking plate, whereas I and other whites are raises in aryan struggle.

I laugh at such idiotic whining from sjws, when I post said infographics on my fb. One even got triggered when I had a nazi pepe as my cover pic lol.

Rant over lol.

Back into your grave Toynbee

Why would anything ever select against intelligence, strength, speed and other desirable traits?

>globalism

What did he mean by this?

Crime rates you fucking brainwashed idiot. Think for your fucking self a second.

founder effect/ bottleneck effect, genetic drift, selection, ancient hominid admixture - though the last is just cosmetic in non coding parts of genome, but it used to be a big deal before
etc.

approx. in that order IMO
map related somewhat
i know you are baiting, but inner continental and continental climate is best for crops, best for soil, which matters for agriculture
4 seasons are much better than 2 seasons for agriculture and crops too

my geography teacher, a very stern woman, i will never forget her, taught us all this, she would have us remember all the countries in the world and their capitals, what fucking recources there are in different parts of continents etc, i've forgotten almost all already

>bloody
Aight Chap! Cherio back to /pol/ I dare say!