What are the best books on race?

Around the world in 80 days

Lord Of The Rings

Desperate Optimist tier: WEB Dubois- The top 10% of blacks are equal to the best whites, but there has never occurred a black Hamilton or Johnson or Melville because reasons, also it's just a coincidence that he and douglass and booker washington have so much white blood)

Hopeful Realist tier: Booker T Washington- Social progress begins with individual progress

Absolute diabolical madman tier: George Fitzhugh- Slavery is moral because without it the blacks would be even worse off and starving, as the irish are, Every single human being who profits from our system is an indirect slave owner and we ought to institute a socialist system wherein white slavery is legalized

youtube.com/watch?v=9biklE2wA6M

2/10 made me reply

Dysgenics and Eugenics: A Reassessment, both by Richard Lynn
Race: The Reality of Human Difference by Vincent M. Sarich and Frank Miele
Anything by Charles Murray, especially The Bell Curve but also Coming Apart and Human Accomplishment

I don't see why it should necessarily be bait. Was it bait when Mencken or Scott Fitzgerald wrote about it? What about when Marx and Engels did?

The topic itself might not be illegitimate, but i've noticed that /pol/acks always tend to make b8 threads using one or zero lines of text, while people who are truly curious tend to be more specific and argumentative.

We're here to redpill you. We won't leave until you're a white nationalist. Deal with it

>but i've noticed
Literally no one gives a shit. I've noticed the same thing occurs in 9/10 ol Veeky Forums threads, but I'm not pleb enough to sperg out because it offends my sensibilities

My professor said that race isn't real and can't be discussed in any meaningful fashion sorry.

Oh, okay. Sorry.

Reporting OP

Yeah race is such a broad and shallow topic. Guns, germs and steel is one of the best book about how civilizations developed differently. 99% of those interested in race politics are usually brainlet pseuds from pol and should stay in that shithole jacking off to Paul Watson and Gavin Mcinnes.

You're trying too hard

>EXTREMELY defensive reply
How much /pol/-tier b8 has this faggot posted

>bitches about muh b8 ruining the board
>dismisses threads out of hand and shitposts
Was the captcha difficult for you?

>EXTREMELY defensive reply

>99% of those interested in race politics are usually brainlet pseuds

it's funny cause it's true

>citing Guns, germs and steel
>calling anyone else a brainlet

Can you not pick up on irony or satire or something?

>genuine leftardism and satire
>distinguishable
pick 1

Probably aren't any, it's a shallow subject. The best you can try to do is find honest attempts at showing the environment within a specific race, or culture rather, and then form your own opinions from there.

>human biodiversity
>shallow subject
when will you uneducated pseuds just stop

Madison Grant was a good author of Stoddard's time who wrote on race as a scientific concept. Evola, and the German conservative revolution of the 1900s had good writings on race as a spiritual construct.

nothing psued about it. just plain collectivist drivel for jobless parasite morons to obsess over

>just plain collectivist drivel
ok refute pic related (you literally cant)

>dude read these charts that ive never read lmao
been here before. someone mentions that jews/asians have the highest IQ and you faggots will just go "muh creativity"

>been here before. someone mentions that jews/asians have the highest IQ and you faggots will just go "muh creativity"
Quakers and Episcopalians have the highest iq.

Guns, germs and steel is less race baiting garbage and more a geography, history lesson. It certainly holds far more water than Alex Jones and graphs on pol, made with crayons by autistic stormfags. /pol/acks really have a lot of trouble comprehending the real world. This is what happens when you live inside your own bubble and refuse to admit that your shit stinks.

damning stuff...

i think part of the problem is that blacks "mature" faster which actually means their brains have less time to develop before plasticity declines

But without Alex Jones, you'd have to face writers like Mencken and Carlyle, who make mincemeat out of you. Or just this infographic

>"muh creativity"

no u

that's the same thing liberals do when someone shows them those charts like "but without the blacks america would have no culture! they're so artistic!"

>Guns, germs and steel is less race baiting garbage and more a geography, history lesson
The entire book is one big subhuman nigger apology.

>iz not dey fault! dey dint kno how ta tame da zebras!
>papau new guinea iz akashually betta den u stupid yt's civilamuhzashun!
pic related is an average PNG man who decided to snack on his child's brain. you might notice that he looks like a fucking unevolved neanderthal, and that's because he is. PNG is a disgusting shithole rife with all sorts of inhumanity and savagery because the genetic quality of PNG is atrocious.

lmgtfy.com/?q=guns germs and steel refutation

Denying racial inequalities that are glaringly obvious to literally anyone is flat-earth tier denial of basic evolutionary biology, and you do it all to protect your own little fragile nigger feelings.

To be fair, iq is both cultural and hereditary. That papua new guinea man likely suffers from some of the same sort of thing that affected that girl who grew up without language

Nature precedes culture. Culture of peoples stems of their innate being, their nature. Refute me.

But what part of nature precedes it? There's no reason to assume that different groups of people living under various circumstances would come to civilization at the same time. The fact that some groups are late to civilization doesn't necessarily make them eternal barbarians.

...

>Denying racial inequalities
no one's doing that. the problem is negative generalization of an entire categorization of individuals and the advocacy for discriminatory coercion part.

Get real, faggot.

>Denying racial inequalities

The book didn't deny racial inequalities, it just tried to get to the roots of why these inequalities occur. Obviously, getting less nutrients from inferior livestock and agriculture will stunt some civilization's people's development. You're just obviously butt blasted that the book tries to point that some civilizations are inferior because of unlucky circumstances instead of just agreeing with your views of them being "stupid, unemployed, anti-intellectual niggers", it somehow hurts you to consider that Africans and aborigines are victims of geography instead of willful savages. God you're fucking pathetic.

GG&S is a ridiculous book with a ridiculous argument, and a very stereotypically jewish narrative that attempts to explain European's domination of history as having little or nothing to do with genetics, when in reality genetics have literally everything to do with white people's superior ability to tame the earth and create high functioning institutions and civilizations.

Diamond is of course a jew, and therefore hates whites, so he wrote a meandering book with little direction that gave a million tidbits of information about nothing that completely failed to in any way justify what he was trying to prove.

No one even takes that book seriously anymore and genetic science has only reinforced the opposite. Beat it, Moshe.

What is your
>IQ score
>SAT score
etc.
?
How do you explain blacks who have higher scores than you?

Try to educate yourself on how bell curves work. You can't roll in these conversations if you don't even have the basics down.

Evasion ?
My Question isn't how you choose to weigh statistical data..it is about how you as an individual account for the fact that there are many blacks more intelligent, more successful financially/socially and more well endowed than you, perhaps all three at the same time? What would you say if one of these blacks forced you into sexual submission? What could you say? My point is that once you remove yourself from the comfort of your autistic statistically defined worldview, you are faced with challenging possibilities which you aren't prepared for.

Look at where your sick mind goes, you must be jewish.

But you quite obviously don't know what you're talking about. The only thing that matters is mean group IQ, and you're talking about statistical outliers since the mean IQ of blacks is lowest on the planet. Not to mention the outliers you're talking about likely only have high IQs because of high white admixture or due to the benefits they've received from living in a white society.

You are a prime example of someone who doesn't have the slightest clue about what he's attempting to speak of. Please stop wasting people's time or stick to topics you are better at feigning at least some knowledge about.

No but really imagine that a black professor of quantum biology at MIT rolls up beside you in his Mclaren and at gun point forces you to suck his 12x8" BBC? Are you going to mention the bell curve to him?

What a shit thread.

Anyways, I like Evola's writings on the topic. His idea of "spiritual race" is a good antidote to both unrealistic Nazi racialism and blind egalitarianism.

If you were more reasonable you'd realize that both environmental and genetic factors were the cause of the world domination of whites. This has been known since Darwin. But white people didn't have a distinctive "racial identity" until the 19th century. They considered themselves, not whites, not Europeans, but Christians. The decline of Christianity lead to white nationalism as a last-ditch effort to save the dying European civilization, and being such a nihilistic belief system even compared to Christianity, it failed. Race is not a substitute for culture.

Can you go more into Evola's position?

You got a sick mind, guy. Good luck fixing it.

And if you were more reasonable you wouldn't be misconstruing other people's arguments. The environmental factors are of course important but vastly overstated in Diamond's thesis. They're also intertwined, as with European people's ability to drink milk.

Your other statement is pretty stupid though. The decline of Christianity didn't lead to white nationalism, diversity is what is leading to rising white nationalist movements. And those are just beginning.

>Race is not a substitute for culture.
Race is culture; it's what every culture stems from.

>both environmental and genetic factors were the cause of the world domination of whites.

I'd opt you replace genetics with culture. Reading more into Eastern Philosopher's works, I've come to realize, it got overtaken by the West because of how rigid their world views are and how hostile they are to non-conformists. Diversity in Western society is what elevated Europe to the top, really Western European country's acceptance of individualism paved the road for countless of philosophers and innovators.

>Race is culture

People can assimilate to a foreign culture, ie, blacks in America, Spaniards in Mexico/South America, Indians/Chinese/Malaysians in Singapore. An African can't assimilate to being a caucasian or a mongoloid. How fucking stupid are you?

Different person that le jews guy, but personality traits and values are mostly genetic, so one can view culture as the expression of a group values in a given set of historical circumstances for a suitable definition of "group". So it would be more appropriate to suggest that for whatever reason, more individualistic people reproduced more, whereas in Asia, family-orientation was more prevalent. I don't know why this would be the case off the top of my head, but it is likely a combination of environmental factors and chance.

People don't really assimilate all that much, actually. It's more that different out-groups leave their own imprint on a given culture.

>Diversity in Western society is what elevated Europe to the top, really Western European country's acceptance of individualism paved the road for countless of philosophers and innovators.
Erm ... how are you using the word "diversity" here?

Individualism is an important factor in European success, but it has little to do with Europeans "accepting" it.

Europeans evolved in cold climates and to survive often required a considerable amount of creativity. This made them more individualistic --> more likely to pursue niche endeavors --> more suited to tame their environment.

All of your examples are wrong or backwards. Africans have not assimilated into white American culture at all -- not even close. Spaniards did not assimilate into Indio culture, that's why indios speak the language of Spain. And Singapore is one-way dominated by the Chinese.

So who's stupid again?

Lol. Talk about a swing and a miss.

Individualism is a Protestant meme.

Re: Europeans: There's a general consensus that European individualism evolved as a result of climate.

Your east Asian family orientation hypothesis is also off the mark. That really has little to do with it. Asians are less (and far less) individualistic due to very harsh social environments (i.e., forced conformity by past rulers). Ron Unz isn't usually very reliable but he wrote a good article explaining this.

t. the le jews guy.

Why did the harsh social environment exist and take the form it did in the first place?

Likely to keep proto-Chinese people living across a large territory in line and unrebellious, and to reinforce dominion.

>I don't know why this would be the case off the top of my head

Homogeneous population. If you look at the map, East Asia is a continent dominated by a giant landmass, China. Because of how huge it is, its influence in Asia is unmatched by any other country. Literally every country in Asia can trace their lineage back to the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, 90% of Southeast Asia. Because of this, there are very little variations in Asian civilizations. Compare this to Europe, you can't say most Europeans can trace their lineage back to the Russians, because despite it's landmass, its mostly sparsely populated. Equally powerful nations like Spain, UK, France, Russia and more developed independently, allowing numerous factors to shape each of these civilizations differently from each other, allowing them to discover more and exchange with each other their discoveries through trade and war. The lack of variation and a very static geopolitics is the sole reason why East Asian societies are so collectivist and isolationist.

>Erm ... how are you using the word "diversity" here?

Diversity in opinions and ways of thinking, the word diversity is not synonymous with just physical factors.

>Europeans evolved in cold climates and to survive often required a considerable amount of creativity.

What about cold climates required more creativity than tropical ones?

>What about cold climates required more creativity than tropical ones?

Probably that you could die in winter if you didn't prepare properly. Tropical climates have problems like parasites, but it's a lot harder to deal with parasites as a primitive human than it is to deal with the winter that comes at the same time every year.

>China
>Homogenous
Hilarious. China is made up of thousands of different languages, races, and provinces. They are only unified because of the unique nature of their writing system.

>What about cold climates required more creativity than tropical ones?
It's just harder to survive when the land is frozen over for half the year; extra evolutionary pressure tropical climates don't have. This also informs the concept of "time preference," or the ability to plan in advance. Africans could find food throughout the year so they didn't have to worry about planning too far ahead; whereas Europeans had to find ways to store food through the winter or they'd starve. This contributes to the high-trust societies Europeans build. And it contributes to why Africans are much more likely to take risks for short term gain and end up in prison: they aren't very good at planning ahead.

Tropical climates deal with typhoons, heatwaves, famines and as you say countless number of parasites and deadly wildlife. How does the winter season require more preparation than droughts and typhoons which more often than not are concentrated on certain months?

Take it from someone who has lived all over east Asia: compared to a group like Europeans, they're extremely homogeneous.

10k Explosion and A Troublesome Inheritance.

He doesn't mean tropical climates, he means deserts and the subtropics (ie the jungle)

Just the writing system? How about their engineering methods, culinary culture, law enforcement, education system?

Not gonna lie, these factors are also highly similar in Spain, Italy, France, UK but they are still more varied than Asian ones. For example, their attitudes on school uniforms, can you name one East Asian country that doesn't require primary/elementary/secondary school students to wear uniforms?

>No but really imagine that a black professor of quantum biology at MIT rolls up beside you in his Mclaren and at gun point forces you to suck his 12x8" BBC? Are you going to mention the bell curve to him?

this is easily the greatest post i've ever read on this board

I wasn't the one who mentioned parasites, but look at your own examples. Are those really things that necessitate planning ahead or that threaten to wipe out your entire society? Direct typhoon strikes are rare and can be easily avoided. Famines are also rare when you have bugs everywhere and fruit growing from trees year round. And heat waves are also not going to wipe an entire society out.

Everyone dealt with their own environments but those in tropical climates didn't have to store food half the year, and couldn't even if they wanted to. Plenty has been written on these topics, btw.

>Are those really things that necessitate planning ahead or that threaten to wipe out your entire society? Direct typhoon strikes are rare and can be easily avoided. Famines are also rare when you have bugs everywhere and fruit growing from trees year round. And heat waves are also not going to wipe an entire society out.

Yeah.

Brown/black man's planning ahead:
>"Hey look it's cloudy, we better move inland."
>"Hey I couldn't find any bananas, we should go back to the old spot."
>It's really hot, let's take a dip in the ocean later."

White man's planning ahead:
>Calculating the logistics of feeding several thousand people over the course of six months when little food will be available.

But you weren't actually interested in becoming more informed, were you? Just being an anti-white contrarian.

cold makes the brain more efficient the same way it influences a CPU.

>but THIS ONE guy
fucking brainlet

Revilo Oliver, Anthony Ludovici, Arthur de Gobineau, Evola's Myth of Blood and Synthesis of a Racial Doctrine...

>Europeans evolved in cold climates and to survive often required a considerable amount of creativity. This made them more individualistic --> more likely to pursue niche endeavors --> more suited to tame their environment.

This is so fucking dumb. Like Europeans are the only people to live in the cold.

This is true. Inuits live in much colder places and if anything it's made them more community focused (elders wandering off to die so they don't become a burden on the young).

woke yourself

>it's a "look at my /pol/ screencap" episode
classic, where's the lit again?

George Fitzhugh - one of the greatest absolute madmen of the 19th century.