Are all humans equal?

What good is high IQ if high IQ people refuse to have children? Nature couldn't give a shit about the accomplishments of high IQ people.

try the redpill. Some people are inherently superior to others (both in races and sex)

We are equal in the sense that we are all faulty, consuming entities, that are completely self-centred on a dying planet.

But we are unequal in terms of intelligence, competency and social use. There's too many people these days, doing nothing of use.

I didn't think so either until i was just asking my friends some questions and found out they believe women and men have no biological differences

We are brothers in Christ, of course we're equal. Every godless edge lord should have their throat slit

What's useful? Useful to whom?

>inb4 spooooooooks

>How would I ever prove that someone is better than someone else?
literally any metric

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

alright, I hereby decree that whoever shitposts the most on Veeky Forums is the best human.

I won't transcribe all of it, so listen between 39:00 & 45:00

youtube.com/watch?v=oAT14h5_lMo&t=2972s

This pov is a good example of how the universalist religion of Christianity was buttering whites up for the universalist religion of multicultural liberalism. Both are jewish societal/ideological cancer.

I dont even disagree with that. Sure some people will be better than others, i come from a shit hole family so i know that there are objectively bad people that are worth very little. My issue is simply that any attempts to measure for superiority are massively inadequate and would result in horrendous suffering and mass injustice. Do you measure by IQ (IQ doesnt even 100% cover intelligence as we understand it)? By personality type? Artistry/Creativity? Criminal record? Try to measure how hard working they are? Do you screen people for unconscious bias against groups of people? Or do you do a combination of these. Then after all this, what would you even do with the results? Bad people made sterile or killed?

The practicality of this type of discrimination anti egalitarians propose is just completely impossible not to mention morally bankrupt.

has anyone watched the documentary that that Land pic is from? it's actually a pretty fascinating look at how the internet was perceived in the early 90's. it's titled Visions of Heaven and Hell.

>objectively
>bad

Kill yourself

Do you know what a bell curve is? If you stop viewing it in terms of individual outliers but in terms group means, you'll have a better understanding of humanity, and why the groups that comprise it are fundamentally unequal.

"le objectivity/evil doesnt exist meme"

Cute. I was an edgy teen once as well.

youtube.com/watch?v=lwt-Jrmd5Ns&t=3900s

The part about Singapore is Land's wet dream, exactly how he envisions the perfect society - cold and efficient, like a machine.

What makes something evil?

>one on the left is largely white
Alt righters are dumb, leftists are literal potatos

Ok so you identified a "lagging group" with your bell curve well done you can read a graph that says african americans mean out at around 10 IQ points less than others. What is your plan to do with that information?

This is an honest question because you memers either say nothing or go full retard so i'll wait.

t. Pagan dork

Cancer.

We need to rid our white lands of superiority of these inferiors.

>t. will burn in Hell for all eternity

To society, to better society, rather than drain from it like thankless vampires.

I didn't mention any particular group and don't think the person I was responding to (you, I assume) did either. Perhaps you would like to take a deep breath and rephrase your question using proper punctuation this time?

Im not gonna lecture a sheltered kid who thinks mommy forgetting his tendies is suffering of the ego. Literally go read a book or go outside and get some perspective on human depravity.

Can we rid the land of inferior whites too?

OP you doomed this thread with a topic like that. Next time do something more obtuse.

Ironically, SJWs are trying to prove that with muh privileges.

I've always liked Negative Egalitarianism. That everyone is equally guilty and should be equally punished. No one gets rights, no one gets pleasure, no one survives.

>unironic white supremacy
SORT

...

Define equal.

I mean clearly, people have different physical and mental capabilities. People have different strengths and weaknesses. And depending on their genetics people have proclivities to different things.

But equal in terms of having to follow the law? Sure.

Why are people so obsessed with Nick Land?

Is it because they like the idea of fringe esoteric right-wing literature?

Yeah this is a key point in the discussion over equality. A lot of it is based on equivocation fallacy, ironically that all definitions of 'equality' are equal.

Usually what's actually being asked is "Are group differences between races, genders, and the like biological or environmental (and how can I use this as a justification for my favorite ideology?)"

>ethnic cleansing is a morally acceptable solution

kys

Where do they think babies come from?

>Mises Institute

What if there ARE group differences due to biology? I mean, there almost surely are. But that doesn't mean they have to be treated differently among the law.

There obviously are, but many people simply want to use this fact as a justification for mass killings, backwards governing systems, or other stupid shit.

Just get rid of niggers and you get rid of 50% of homocides. Get rid of Muslims and you get rid of terrorist attacks. That's the type of anti-egalitarianism that works.

It does though. Women have no reason to be in the army, for example. Nigs (except for certain exceptional cases) don't belong in science, etc.

He is the most interesting philosopher right now besides Zizek. The fact that he lives in exile from the authorities like a true philosopher would instead of being some vacuous superstar speaks to the authenticity of his ideas, too.

Give me the rundown my man.

What does Mr Land stand for?

yeah they have become shit but rothbard is worth reading regardless

I don't get why people don't just read mainstream economists. I know the math is hard, but people constantly doing textual exegesis from Von Mises or Marx seems like a colossal waste of time.

we currently don't do this see affirmative action we give others preferentiall treatment in employment

So you're proposing a law that would ban "most nigs" from "science"

basically
jacobitemag.com/2017/05/25/a-quick-and-dirty-introduction-to-accelerationism/
(You ought to have ublocker installed in your browser already!)
Accelerationism. It basically turns Marx on its head, treats Capital as a new kind of being that is already becoming increasingly more intelligent and aware, and is destined to transcend mere humanity like a butterfly sheds the carcass of a caterpillar.

Also, he is the theogonist of the Gnon, the god of capitalism, war, evolution and memetics.

The exact legal terminology.

>that is already becoming increasingly more intelligent and aware, and is destined to transcend mere humanity like a butterfly sheds the carcass of a caterpillar.
Is there any actual reason to think that's the case, apart from "sounding all cool and cyberpunk"?

I had a dream where Nick Land was my uncle, anyone else had a similar experience?

This is a pointless law. Only the right tail of the IQ distribution will go into serious sciences. Excluding blacks from science will cause social unrest due to blatant racism, waste human capital, and displease many scientists. And all for what, just to satisfy people who are angry about blacks? lel

Another question is how we do we act rightly on human differences.
Imagine there's a burning building with your brother and a stranger trapped inside. You can only rescue one.
Is it right to prefer rescuing your family member while refusing rescue the stranger?

I would argue it's not necessarily "morally right" whatever that means, but it is actually "evolutionary right" to favor your family. Given two men from different tribes, one egalitarian and one nepotist, the person (or people group) who favors his family has an evolutionary advantage. The one who "wins" (passes on genes) more often than not is the one who favors his own family. The egalitarian coin-flipper may have been a nice player in the short term, but in doing so, more often than not, he's ensured there are fewer nice players next generation.

Moreover, is it right to use violence (or threats of violence) to make someone to flip a coin when deciding which one to help?

Egalitarianism isn't the idea that all people are literally equal in all or most aspects. Do some basic research. Land's leprechaun tangent gets taken out of context by alt-right retards who are nowhere near the background required to understand his ramblings. His actual argument against it is far more complex.

>True philosopher

>how we do we act rightly on human differences.
Racial separation. Instead of one group having to deal with the refuse of another group, or being morally shamed because group X isn't performing equally, etc., we simply return to how it has always been, where each group takes care of and deals with its own.

Isn't the assertion that manual labor can't compete with automation regardless of whatever's done a kind of hint that capitalism has escaped from our control?

Yes we are all equal

Dark Enlightenment is the product of lolbertarian trust fund babbies and tech boom hustlers mad that Obama won

and how do you propose we seperate the groups? What if I am perfectly happy with black or asian neighbors? What if race isnt the defining charactaristic of my identity?

i had a dream that i was married to gilles deleuze, he basically slept most of the time

things seemed to be pretty cozy though

If you prefer living among Africans and Asians, feel free to go live among them in their countries, give them some diversity. What are you some kind of fascist who wants to force diversity on everyone else?

this

we're on a one-way ticket to the automatic planet

Just knock down idiotic anti-discrimination laws and the rest will sort itself out.

Obama was the beginning of anti-establishment politics in Washington embodied in the presidency - the whirlwind that we're caught in began when he smashed a true establishment led by Hillary back in 2008. Coincidentally, that was also the time that the news media comnpletely started dropping all pretense of objectivity.

thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/01/wrong_about_obama.html

thefifthwave.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/president-obama-and-the-joy-of-negation/

Don't assume I want to impose anything; you're the one holding a position that we can correct societal problems by separating races. I'm pointing out that such a system implies both a reduction of identity to race, and that it would actually fix anything at all.

A separation of races just strikes me as unnecessary, and beyond that, motivated from a position of always seeing the societal other by their race first.

It's not even "trust fund babbies", they're pretty much all funded by Peter Thiel to some extent. (You know, the vampire.)

Where do you stop separating the groups? Let's say we rid America of all non-whites, can we also get rid of Idahoans while we're at it since the state has the lowest average IQ in the country? What's the exact criteria for defining each group?

The real question is "is racial identity an innate part of human beings?" If it is, the concept of equality doesn't really matter, if people identify more strongly with people like themselves, this is where society will end up.

Even if, for the sake of argument, we assume it were "necessary" on paper, trying to actually implement it irl would cause more problems than it could ever hope to solve.

I've got no problem with anti-discrimination laws, but if you're positing a position of racial separation with no legal enforcement of that, you'd just wind up with what we have now, which is freedom of choice in where you reside. I think that's fine, but wouldn't that make the idea of racial separation irrelevant?

As a side point, I have no issue with maintaining culture or voluntarily separating race in a pluralistic society, but I think if you're at the point where you identify with being 'white' more than, say, 'anglo' or 'germanic' or even some particular regional version of American, you don't have that much culture left, or you're examining your way of life in a deeply reductionist lens.

Also your point on the media losing objectivity starting in 2008 is a bit off. We've had papers call for the impeachment of former presidents, and we've had newspaper magnates manufacture wars.

NIck does not (mostly) care whether or not any particular individual is better as an individual regarding any particular metric. Think in terms of aggregation and not individuation; In a swarm there are obviously larger and smaller animals, but they're all animals and it's the swarm effect which causes the greatest change. I suppose this is why Shanghai was such a wet dream for him, it's literally "anti-egalitarian cyberpunk with everyone acting as little cogs in the right places: electric bogaloo II".

We're in agreement

not this guy but landfags enjoy this. it's all about reactionary capitalism

>Everything that is not capitalism will be destroyed by capitalism.

>It is useless to resist. Fascists and communists alike have had their asses kicked. Progressives and reactionaries will have their asses kicked in the future. Humanities only salvation is to merge with the machine. We must be incorporated into it. Refuse and die.

>The market is a natural selection machine that acts on the bodies of corporations. Like sex and asexual reproduction before it, it is a filtration machine for producing more effective machines. Wherein conventional life uses three processes for evolution; reproduction, mutation, and death, capitalism uses three processes for development; entrepreneurial spirit, technological development, and bankruptcy. The corporation is an organism made of humans like the body is made of cells.

>Market formalism encodes reactionary values into capitalism by creating new property rights, (Property rights are possessive moral values enforced by state violence). The overwhelming force of globalism is little more than the selection pressure of its forms of property rights. The kinds of things that are defined as property rights dictate the embodied moral values of the system. There are capitalism(s) — plural, and what we have today can be called either parasitical capitalism, democratic capitalism, or maybe even autogenocidal capitalism. In contrast, what is proposed here is reactionary capitalism, or family capitalism. This is not a socialism or fascism, but a society based on a set of newly invented property rights. Since these new rights define new material values for a culture, they produce a new ecology/market for corporations to evolve under. They alter the environment and its selection effects, creating various evolutionary pressures for capitalism to evolve in a different direction. And they impose a new set of moral values which then seep into the mentality of the state. This is important because a set of property values that is at odds with a reactionary state will corrupt its morals and convert the state into a globalist regime.

theanti-puritan.blogspot.ca

Also, to add to this post, Nick is a hard fatalist regarding our own species: if you claim a metric being too high is going to cause or extinction, that's the one Nick will call "very good".

Statements like these lack any real moral or practical substance, and what little meme energy they had has scattered to the winds

This. I remember he tweeted something a few weeks ago about the alt-right's obsession with demographics being pointless since the human species as a whole was obsolete. He's more Ligotti-esque pessimism than anything.

But you're only seeing what you want to see. Racial identity is very important and is the foundation of identity itself. People also have instinctual, built-in mechanisms that make it impossible to carry on with the naive viewpoint you hold, which assumes everyone can and should just get along, and if they can't they're just racists etc. This is how societies are organized, and how they will always structure and sort themselves naturally, which is why there has never been a multicultural nation that stood for very long and never will be. The US is already starting to fall apart as the white majority continues to be overrun, and it is fracturing along racial lines through politics because, again, that's natural. The only thing holding it together are vague abstract notions of post-WW2 liberal values that of course will not last forever. I know you want to tell yourself that diversity is great and that it's going to work out, but this viewpoint is simply unrealistic. If you're white, you should reexamine these ideas because they are not in your own long term interest; if you're not white, I can definitely understand why it would be in your interest to want to believe.

> if you're positing a position of racial separation with no legal enforcement of that, you'd just wind up with what we have now, which is freedom of choice in where you reside.
Revoking anti-discrimination laws means that healthy communities would no longer be illegal, and money wouldn't be the only filter of where you could live.

Truth to be told, I think that the US and EU issue isn't so much immigration as stupid immigration - not only are minorities being allowed in far faster than the current society could assimilate them, the current society either tacitly or actively supports these minorities over the native population.

I'm going to make a good faith effort to address each of your points and deconstruct your argument.

Uh, it's extremely unlikely that Idaho has the lowest IQ in the nation. It probably has one of the highest since it has one of the highest percentages of whites.

You simply separate people on racial lines. I don't know what you're saying though, about where it would stop. It would stop when the groups are separated. It's pretty straight forward.

Had never existed =/= can never exist

So, having no idea what the actual figures are, you just assert that it's "unlikely" based on nothing but your personal belief that white = intelligent.

The vast majority of Africans and Arabs are incapable of assimilating, nor should Europeans want them to assimilate. The point is to safeguard the genetic and cultural heritage of your people. That's not going to happen if Europeans slowly (or quickly) turn into brown people.

Has never existed because diversity + proximity = war. You want to believe so bad, don't you?

Humans are not equal at all and its something I've had to come to the realization with at a later age

Do you know how IQ and bell curves work?

What's your working definition of "the genetic and cultural heritage of your people"? How would it be damaged by becoming more "brown"?