Hi Veeky Forums

Books can give you new tools to think, I'd say. Which can genuinely be helpful.

Fuck. The first part of this post was supposed to be a response to

All humans are biologically identical and interchangeable and every mind is a blank slate.

Not only that, but you could point out how we tend to think of black Africans as a single type of race, but in reality, east Africans are more genetically similar to Europeans than they are to west Africans.

Also, Rawls' A Theory of Justice is probably not a great place to start. Its overly long, poorly written, and is fairly weak as far as its arguments go. The arguments are often based on assumptions that are dubious, but there is merit to his theories, and they form the basis of much of contemporary political thought either as accepting that Rawls is right, or denying certain parts of his ideas.

You could start with the Greeks and work your way up, which probably would be ideal, or you could start with Freud, move on to Lacan, Marx, Saussure, Althusser, the post-structuralists, (particularly Foucault), then work your way up through feminist theory in chronological order, and then have a look at post-colonial cultural theory, which will address your questions about racial equality. Make sure to look at the work of Judith Butler and Richard Dyer.

OR: you could take a different approach, just go from utilitarianism through Bentham, bridge to liberalism through John Stuart Mill, Locke, etc, then move on to Rawls (liberal egalitarianism), Nozick (libertarianism), and then Michael Sandel (communitarianism).

>reads Nietzsche
>still believes in morality

I know what you're trying to do, but as I said in the OP, let's not turn this into a political discussion, this board is for literature.

Your falseflagging strawman is too obvious. I know how the game is. I have browsed /r9k/ and /pol/ for years

just leave your house?
why do you need to be spoon-fed your beliefs?

Just being involved in school is enough for a person to see that there's no such thing as a racial hierarchy.

You don't have to post a frog every time, friends

>has not read Nietzsche
>thinks Nietzsche said that getting stuck at nihilism = good
baka senpai

I didn't read Nietzsche. I don't have any experience with philosophy, so wouldn't know where to start.

Someone on /pol/ told me to read up on ressentiment, so I found some stuff.

Thanks man. Lots of stuff to get into there

>log into Veeky Forums
>two dumb frogposter threads on the dashboard

I am posting Pepes so you can see that I am OP.

Maybe now someone will start posting Pepe as well to mess with me.

Don't bother with pre-post-structuralist feminist theory though, it has no relevance to today's theory, although Simone De Bouvouir is still widely influential. You can read her. She was a better philosopher than her lover, Sartre. Early post-structuralist/marxist/freudian type feminist theory looks fucking insane at first, but just remember that it was as much a political movement as it was a philosophy and it was supposed to cause a reaction and be seen as revolutionary.

spend time with actual women. That's what moved me to the left on this. (Though I was never redpilled, just moderately socially conservative).

Some things you can get from a book, and some things you can get from life.

fuck, forgot pic

>I am now looking for recommendations on literature that argue that women and nonwhites are morally equal to me, or indeed not subhuman, or less real.
Mary Wollstonecraft and Ottobah Cugoano are both really good and concise arguments for the equality of women/men and whites/nonwhites that only appeal to some basic common sense notions and come from people who weren't just disinterestedly writing moral arguments.
When you're no longer a fucking retard, then re-read Nietzsche and learn why moral worth, humanity, racism, and subhumanity are all ressentiment

OP, a selection of minorities and women in modern liberal movement are ressentiment slaves par excellence. You are better than them.

If you truly understood Nietzsche you would not be asking for evidence that someone is equal to you, in any case 'morally equal' should scream Christian BS.

The prescription of the psychologist to the disillusioned: more Nietzsche.

I don't know what all these big words mean like structuralism. It's hopeless

I struggle with making female friends, sadly. Would like a girlfriend, though.

>OP, a selection of minorities and women in modern liberal movement are ressentiment slaves par excellence. You are better than them.
>If you truly understood Nietzsche you would not be asking for evidence that someone is equal to you, in any case 'morally equal' should scream Christian BS.
>thinks redpilled racists and misogynists are better than liberals
>claims to have read Nietzsche

one of these statements cannot be true

I don't know what to tell you -- I'm in the same exact boat. The advice I've heard to just put yourself out there, whatever that means. Maybe just get a tinder or something. I dunno.

Thanks. Mary Wollfstonecraft sounds interesting.

From this thread I've written down SImone de Bouvier and Mary Wolffstonecraft.

Is this a good place to start? Or should I go to Plato first?

Don't worry, OP. Nobody is born knowing what terms like "structuralism" mean. If you're truly interested in understanding these concepts and using them to grow as a person, then don't be discouraged by your lack of knowledge. After all, that lack of knowledge is the reason you want to learn in the first place.

It's not hopeless, OP. You've already realized and accepted the reasoning behind your perceptions of people which is extremely impressive and difficult. Don't give up.

I'm trying. Sick of feeling sorry for myself.

Thank you for the encouraging words, my friend

Why are you so shit at understanding Nietzsche user?

Yeah, besides, philosophy can seem a lot harder than it is before you've stepped into it and read enough to understand the big words.
I mean, of course, this applies when it comes to basic understanding of the concepts; deep understanding or actual ability to create new ideas is not easy, obviously.

No I guess I haven't read Nietzsche.

He had low opinion of women. Also, his view on Equality:

"The order of castes, the highest, the dominating law, is merely the ratification of an order of nature, of a natural law of the first rank, over which no arbitrary fiat, no "modern idea," can exert any influence. In every healthy society there are three physiological types, gravitating toward differentiation but mutually conditioning one another, and each of these has its own hygiene, its own sphere of work, its own special mastery and feeling of perfection. . . A high civilization is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base; its primary prerequisite is a strong and soundly consolidated mediocrity. . . Injustice never lies in unequal rights. It lies in the claim of equal rights. . . What is bad? But I have already answered: all that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from revenge. . ." - The Antichrist, passage 57

"The Race Myth" is pretty good for explaining the science of race and how it's been twisted by various supremaist groups to fit their agenda.

Also, "Africa: A Biography of a Continent" does a fantastic job of laying out why Africa, specifically Sub-Saharan Africa didn't seem to develop as many complex civilizations as Europe and Asia did. A really good, objective, and easy read on the subject.

>He had low opinion of women.
Lets be fair here: with his life experiences and the time he lived in, it'd be a wonder if he didn't. With Nietzsche, I think a fair reader needs to read about his life as well, for it was in no way average or very rosy.

However, Nietzsche indeed isn't the greatest place to start for the OP. He is good and useful once you understand other things.

Thanks, man.

Can't wait to get started on all this.

Nigga what you need right now are some children's books. I'm talking read-aloud books you read kids, with bright colors and messages that should have been obvious by age 7. Find some at the library.

>He had low opinion of women
Yes, and he had a low opinion of certain "races" (by which he meant Priests, Germans, etc, not nonwhites). But he had an even lower opinion of those who made their entire life revolve around hatred of other peoples (cf to all of his comments on anti-semites). So to say a /pol/ redpiller is better than a liberal because liberals are also driven by ressentiment is a ludicrous thing to put into Nietzsche's mouth. He gave no privilege to those whose ressentiment was simply the inverse of democratism.

We can't wait for to start either...

Please don't be like that. But I understand what you're saying.

I never had much social life and found some pretty nasty websites at an early age which were pretty much echo chambers for neo-Nazis. It gave me a place of belonging and the ideology made me feel like I was a very special person.

Small steps I guess

Literally any decent fiction. Don't do philosophy or science. That's like holding a microscope to the bark of a tree in order to figure out how to get out of the forest.

Faulkner or Egan are good bets; the former only if you're mentally prepared and the latter if you want to focus on the woman side. Ishmael Reed's Mumbo Jumbo if you're focusing the black side.

Nah man I don't blame you. It's pretty cool you can recognize echo-chambers. I jumped from left-wing to right-wing and back and forth because I didn't understand the concept of "people agreeing with you make you think you're right". Eventually I settled on "shit I don't know anything about politics".
Good luck, dumb frogposter :^)

Let's be fair: Nietzsche would rather shoot himself than to side with modern liberals. These 'redpilled racists' and 'misogynists' can at least smell the downward trajectory of civilization with it's worship of Equality and all the virtue signalling of the left. Being weak and having pity are now the highest virtues with possession of privilege literally demonized.

If you have to resort to his sexual history to critique his stance on women it can't possibly mean you have an actual rebuttal, do you?

I'm not convinced you need to read much material, rather acknowledge certain inherent truths. Nevertheless, read Rushton with this underpinning axiom:

Differences between races are real, evident and apparent. This does not, however mean that all members of a specific race are so enclined, physiologically or environmentally to conform to aggregations of phenomena - crime, moral inferiority, et. al. Rushton will introduce you to all the differences you need to know about, but also explain the bell curve, and that whilst propensity is key in majority measurements, it is not an absolute measure.

This is a good list of authors to read, sorry it's sideways.

Sounds good.

This is something that I struggled with for a long time. That there are racial differences and biological differences (between men and women) but that this doesn't necessarily make one morally better than the other.

Took me a long time to realize that.

Rushton sounds based.

You've got the redpill all wrong. Of course another race can't be inferior, because all boils down to subjectivity and personal philosophy. It's not that I think blacks are inferior, I just don't like their culture or how they behave in large groups. They should be allowed to have their own land and be governed by their own kind with their own race, culture, and religion, but I should also be allowed to have my own land governed by my own race, culture, and religion.

Good Goy

I haven't seen anything very good or developed from him regarding women. It all seemed like well, something I'm going to just ignore.

>Let's be fair: Nietzsche would rather shoot himself than to side with modern liberals.
Surely, but neither would he side with the racist idiots, I'm sure. The people getting mad and paranoid over migrants and terrorism and whatnot can be seen as almost literally what Nietzsche called the last men.
They aren't seeing a downward trajectory in that sense, most of them, anyway; their own little familiar safe space is just being touched by the rest of the world, and they want to get back to the safe times. They want their pretend-harmony back.

do you hate your mom?

This is meant for you:
All you said about resentiment is true. Except /pol/ upholds the same reactionary views regarding history and culture as Nietzsche: they understand the intrinsic danger of a society whose goal is eglitarianism, they understand the importance of values that encourage strength and growth (albeit in terms of white population growth, lol), and they are fundamentally alone against the common narrative, which is an aloofness that permits them to be creators of values.

This user is correct.

This user is an example of why the first user is correct.

I did for a long time because she was a single mother. I blamed her and her womanness for not being able to pick a proper man to father me.

Now I realize that my dad has some responsibility for leaving us as well

It seems I hit the nail.
If i have to bet, she was not only a single mother, but also very distant cold person, no kisses no hugs etc. Of course you don't realize this unless you had a friend with a close relationship with his mother to note the differences.

Okay, I see they way black pop culture glorifies crimes, drugs, and promiscuity. I disagree with these aspects but I recognize they are not inherently wrong. So am I bad person for wanting to surround myself with people of similar values?

Anything with regards to race and equality should only ever be looked at from a scientific, methodological standpoint. It is subject to so much rhetoric, dogma and sectarian opinion (and racism) from BOTH sides, that any text deviating from pure fact and analysis will cloud the course of study.

Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler is not specifically pertinent to this topic, but helps to provide an overview as to the movement of civilisations through thought and practice. It might provide some greater insight into the macro side of things. There is an excellent abridged edition out there.

this is the biggest crock of shit ever

That's all true.

I'm also starting to think that my absent father figure made me more inclined to subscribe to an authoritarian father figure on the far right.

But you're making a lot of assumptions. You have to answer all these questions in a way that will also satisfy the communitarian minded people who you identify with: What is race? What is the cutoff line for culture? At what point does one culture become distinct from another? How do you account for cultures that have distinct differences but are incredibly interrelated and cross-pollinated? What about a black person who shares the same religion, has been completely culturally samified as you, speaks the same language and has the same accent. Is he allowed in your nation? What about Italians? Or Eastern Europeans?

To achieve what you say, you have to give people rigid identities and categorizations, and in reality it's impossible and discriminatory and ends up being fascist, totalitarian and utterly conformist.

user was right. You've just revealed that you've never had a long lasting relationship with a woman, or you were treated badly by them.

Being with a woman makes you respect them more.

I've had plenty of interactions with women (yes including a relationship) and it has certainly not made me respect them more
I liked women much more when I abandoned the equality meme

> I see they way black pop culture glorifies crimes, drugs
> black culture

There's the problem. You're assuming that these things are innate and a qualitative part of black culture, when in fact they're just a part of any historical underclass. It doesn't really have much to do with being black in and of itself.

Reminds me of Satan in paradise lost. In the early books, he loved God but rebelled because he hated man, but being trapped alone in the underworld away from God led to resentment and eventual hatred.

Isolation leads to contempt.

he's trolling you. Or he's a moron

yes is good that you realize it.
And there are some appeals/ideals of the far right that i guess sound good to you (and to a lot of people actually). For instance family values.

Even friendship works though, as long as its a good friendship.

I liked my male friends girlfriends for this; they're automatically non-sexual (in the "lets not have sex or get into a relationship" way) which gave certain freedom to discuss whatever with them. These kinds of friendships were my personal first for getting to actually know women, which was a great help as my teenage misanthropy was, at that time, sort of turning into misogyny instead. But it ended up not happening, happily. Though sometimes it feels weird when I knew a guy, got to know his girlfriend, they break up, I stay friends with the girl but not really the guy.

Besides, black pop culture is hardly exclusively black culture at this point. Its just as loved by whites.

You're right, I guess I should have specified as "Popular African-Ameican" culture. I work for FedEX and some African immigrants are some the nicest, most hardworking people I've ever met. And there are also some African-Americans who have been incredibly polite. But more often then not they promote themselves in a way that is contrary to my values. I guess it all boils down to how I want my kids raised. I want them raised outside of the influence of what I see is flawed. I know I'm not one to judge what is flawed, but as a parent if you don't decide how to raise your kid, who does?

This is accurately put, but I would go further still. By natural law, race and society were never supposed to intermingle. Only through human intervention did societies come to contain within themselves multiple, contrasting cultures and belief systems. The end goal of integration is unattainable as so many members are, evidently, unable to comprehend moral codes of decency towards others who are not of their kind, let alone initiate such moral code. You could simplify this to "stupid people are racist arseholes" if you would wish to; the statement would not be inaccurate. But unless you are to eliminate those who cannot abide by a moral code, they will always cause hostility throughout a divided society. I don't like to inject Greek mythology into anything pertinent to real life, but the story of Cassandra is all too analagous to this problem. Even myself, yourself who know this are, essentially, powerless to intervene. You will never educate these people, you will never eliminate them. You can only watch over in horror.

>but as a parent if you don't decide how to raise your kid, who does?
Why should you have the right to influence the life of another to such a degree, only because they happen to be your child?

Damn. Nice insight

Because children need guidance, that's what a parent is. A Parent who does not attempt to guide and Advice their child is not a good parent in my opinion

Wouldn't it be better if all children were brought up in a neutral, collective environment, though? If you allow the parents to do that alone, some will inevitably fuck up bad.

>neutral
wew

What you're looking for isn't literature.

You're looking for propaganda.

Back to .

>There are no moral facts whatever, only moral interpretations

Nietzsche even called himself an immoralist, i.e. someone who does not believe in a moral world order or acknowledge the validity of moral imperatives.

Get the fuck out with your uni-tier grasp of Fritz

so all of human race is just one race right? Go drop your daughter off at a black neighborhood at midnight in a skimpy dress, because after all, we can't really distinguish people into distinct groups with scientific rigor. The fine black gentlemen might make up the international olympic equestrian community for all we know.

Yet he wasn't exactly against morals as long as you sort of don't follow any big moral world order or moral imperative. Getting stuck at pure nihilism wouldn't be Ubermensch.

Yeah I think it's evident some parents will fuck up bad, but I just think to keep culture intact, certain biasis are necessary, across all cultures. I don't think a perfect society is possible, maybe that's cynical of me, and antintellectual, but with such a short life, maybe it's better to be content than to be wordly? The whole ignorance is bliss schtick.

I'm really not. I'm just looking for a different perspective to the one that I've entertained for years

He really didn't say that. Stop being so belligerent and deliberately obtuse

You don't think you are, but you are.

ok. I would like to see a different perspective, so I'll take it, propaganda or not.

you don't usually see non-sequitor fallacies in discussions because most people aren't that stupid, but hey check out that non-sequitor

>so all of human race is just one race right
You have to give a convincing definition of race before you start going on about it. Is it culture? Genetics? or both? Races aren't rigidly defined, the way they're thought about often don't make sense considering genetic data, and your idea of race being responsible for rape is silly. I wouldn't send my daughter into any poor neighbourhood full of underclass people in a skimpy dress, which includes whites.

>because after all, we can't really distinguish people into distinct groups with scientific rigor.

We can, but the data doesn't support rigid conceptions of 'race',

The idea of race is nothing but pure ideology and it has meant entirely different things at different times to all peoples.

But are Slavs white?

Funnily enough I felt the same way as you when I was 15. All it took was a wikipedia reading of the cognitive bias list and 10 minutes to overcome this. Don't know why you need entire books. My conclusion was firstly that 'white' was an incoherent concept because it implied whites were one group, when in reality, historically and presently, there are whites competing against each other and some of the worlds largest nemesis unto each other are white. Also, historically, some 'white' nations contributed plenty while others contributed little next to jack shit. Also I realised geographic determinism and procedural technological development as well as imperialism are not only things but very easy things to understand. Niggers are still retarded though on average.

Go ahead and read this Also, you don't even have to live near black people if you don't want to. You can move.

considering the fact that the term "white" was invented by Americans during slave times, you could get away with saying that Slavs are white.

Not because Slavs are white, but because the term doesn't actually mean anything

>i "realized" i was "wrong" because i read about a philosophical term about as pithy as telling me "you're compensating!". please tell me leftist propaganda to replace my rightist propaganda

kys at your earliest convinience

To add on to that the reason people are annoyed at people being proud of being 'white' is because the concept of 'whiteness' is a historical establishment to justify slavery and other atrocity. East Asians were documented as having white skin and referred to as 'whites' by the Portuguese and Spanish until there was political reason to distingiush them; political reasons which are entirely irrelevant today. It's like wearing a swastika and saying you're proud of 'Germanic' culture. It's just as ridiculous as /r/asianmasculinity being proud of being Asian; the precedent of Pan-Asianism is Japanese imperialism. Nobody cares or gets offended if you're German and proud of your ethnicity for the works of Nietzsche, Durer and Hesse. Nobody cares or gets offended if you're Italian and proud of Da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Moravia. Nobody cares if you're French and proud of Descartes, Proust or De Gaulle. You can still be proud of your ethnicity while not using the most atrocious and nonsensical historical precedent there is

Yeah you definitely sound like someone who doesn't know much beyond a Wikipedia article and 10 minutes of dick stroking

We only deal in literature. It's too esoteric for you to understand.

You seem to have misunderstood.

I realized that my resentment was born from a lack of self-worth and I needed to feel a false sense of self by embracing an ideology (the redpill) which made me feel like I was someone, and perhaps even inherently superior to women and nonwhites despite being a dismal failure so far in my life

This. If you make a nation of whites, the poor whites and those of them who enter pop culture are going to glorify crime, drugs and promiscuity just as much as blacks in another country. And they do in countries were there are underclasses of mostly whites. Because if you're the bottom of the barrel, with no education, one of the best ways to get economic success is through crime, so the wealthy and respected members of that community get teh respect that goes along with wealth and having things. Its exactly the same reason why the wealthy glorify nice business suits and celebrities and fancy cars, because those are the signifiers of success within that particular type of community.

Personally I wonder if this whole "white" thing is mostly a thing for the big "white" countries.

I'm from a nordic country and surely enough "white" by skin color and stuff, I'm considered European for sure, but... There were literally thousands of years when the Greeks etc were so cultured and philosophical, yet none of that arrived to us in, well, thousands of years.
Maybe I am European and white and western, but my homelands overall history isn't any more "civilized" than many, say, African countries (though nowadays we're well off, lots of money, nice democracy and liberties, etc). We became sort of tied to "the west" when we were forced into Christianity, but much later did we actually start reading all that European culture and learning from it. Yet somehow today we're part of the big and awesome "west" and Europe, just as ready to claim the glory of the cultural legacy of the Greeks and so on.

VI
VAR
GRAEKERE

>the concept of 'whiteness' is a historical establishment to justify slavery and other atrocity.
The flaw in this concept is that the absolute majority of those who are proud of being "white" aren't in any way proud of the negative aspects within their racial history. They are proud of the positive aspects alone.

This oversight is what is fueling the rampant rise in nationalism in recent years, from Jobbik in Hungary all the way to Front National in France. To take France as an example, they are, and always will be, proud of their rich nation's history from cuisine and music to science and philosophy. They have no interest, let alone pride, in the colonial activities into Africa, South America et. al. The propagation of this "proud of the negative aspects" dogma is only fuelling the very thing that those saying it fear.

I wonder if they'll stop doing it in time?