Why do so many contemporary philosophers deny the role that human nature plays in much of what people do?

Why do so many contemporary philosophers deny the role that human nature plays in much of what people do?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=XEEPXMlqxJ0
leninology.co.uk/2017/04/against-nature_13.html
youtube.com/watch?v=3fkWMrw4nFY
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_human_nature
youtube.com/watch?v=e-BY9UEewHw
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

do they?
isn't that like saying that the fact rain falls isn't the reason everything gets so uniformly wet when it rains?

because capitalism and the market demand a completely malleable subject that exists only as a subject of technical administrative manipulation.

ding ding

They always prefer social and cultural explanations for phenomena, and view biological explanations as politically and ideologically problematic. If one group outperforms another in some narrow field, then they talk about how the prevailing power structures exist in order to benefit that successful group, rather than assume that that dominant group is simply inherently better suited to that narrow field.

Because the racial differences that have resulted from nature is the most taboo subject of our age.

Get real.

BOOYAKASHA

dis man knows tings, innit. foreals

thread over, yagetme bruv.

GG rasclaats.

pwnt

Then why are so many of the post-structuralists promoting this denial of human nature marxists?

Because they're jews.

>get real

not an argument bruv.

u is out ov ur depth, innit.

go back to ur pampers kiddie school yung 'un, seen.

ain't got time for ur newfag fuckery.

youtube.com/watch?v=XEEPXMlqxJ0

You're an idiot if you believe systems like capitalism have minds of their own and are not reflections of the people in charge of shaping and defining them. This is about people, not "technical administrative manipulation."

Today, philosophers are obliged to do their work in or at least around the academy. Today's academy is itself leftist. While this does not in and of itself imply that most philosphers are somewhere left-of-center in terms of political orientation and value system, it does at least suggest such - and on inspection, such is indeed the case. And there's a big reason why leftists dislike this concept of human nature, user.

A major historical tradition which cuts through all of philosophy, the academy, and philosophical literature - in fact, the one single thing which answers your question, OP, is - Karl Marx. While later thinkers elaborated upon the Human Nature argument (pro or con), the con tradition traces itself most direclty to Marx's misreading of the way that he world is. Marx was obliged to so misread the world, in order to put his hegelian superstructure on his program where it was totally unnecessary, and could (Marx's program) instead have been carried out just as well as the simple normative, ethics-based program that it really should have been, for greater intellectual consistency. But no, Marx found it necessary to autistically screech Muh Historical Materialism, pretend that he could predict the future, and pretend that labor and class are the end-all be-all categories of human life (they aren't. Categories such as sex and race/ethnicity are more immediate to the human experience). In this latter, the SJWs are actually partly right, but don't tell them I conceded anything.

For further reading, check out the Chomsky-Foucault debate, which is free to watch online and is also availble as a short little book. To his credit, Chomsky correctly defends the notion of human nature for what it really is, during the first half - a meaningful, real and useful category of inquiry. Foucault typifies the leftist scoff which is too-skeptical of same, this skepticism being rooted in Marx.

For further reading, see the recent blog post by earnest leftist Richard Seymour, also a thinker of a sort, who (himself very much in the tradition of Marx) is again obliged to deny human nature in order to force whatever it is that he cares about and thinks is the case, to work.

leninology.co.uk/2017/04/against-nature_13.html

I'm not that guy but he would probably claim these people are actually not being very marxist at all, but I'm not gonna paint any defense whatsoever to Marx or Marxism here because I don't think it's the core of denying human nature.

What actually I think, is the answer to lies closer to Enlightenment than to Capitalism (though they are surely related in some ways); prejudice in general and racism specifically has become akin to the Christian doctrine of the original sin. It is literal heresy to claim anything remotely racist no matter how scientific, falsifiable, etc. it might be, because it goes against the primordial tenant of the blank slate (everyone must be born into equal opportunity). I suppose the blank slate thing is where people draw the marxist link from, even though things like fetishism of commodities is much more closer to this malleability-yet-uniformity of human beings (therefore a marxist post-structuralist, if this term even makes sense, would be AGAINST it, not in favor of).

>capitalism is democracy

u is gone in the head son!

batty bwoy to da extreme.

I feel da cringe on ur behalf. U so murrycan i can smell u from here. enjoy ur ideological echochamber.

why u read foucault without reading marx, Nietzsche, Freud, lacan et.al bumbaclaat?

oh mi gosh. u out u depth, pickney.

youtube.com/watch?v=3fkWMrw4nFY

It is dangerously close to a strawman to claim that his first post was about capitalism having a mind of its own. Fire ant colonies do not have minds of their own and are reflections of the way each ant moves and acts, yet you would never say a single fire ant can fully explain the collective (emergent, actually) behavior of the whole colony, not even the queen since she needs the others to act accordingly to her pheromones (which, for the most part, the queen doesn't even fully control herself). A system does not require conventional "intelligence" to act on its own motives, it simply needs to be an emergent system with certain available paths to certain states. In short, if something is about people as a collection of people, and not about individual people, then it IS about administrative manipulation, only this manipulation is not done by the individual, and not by anyone: just an emergent effect.

The Blank Slate has been dealt with for at least 50 years. Amazing that ideologues still behave like it is a worthy theory.

Most of what you said is correct, but you left out the most important component here: Marx was a jew. To understand what he was trying to accomplish and why he is so revered in academia today, you have to understand that he was advancing the tribal interests of jews. And he succeeded in that, which is why the jews running our academic institutions today praise him throughout the humanities.

humans are creative producers.....insects aren't

This. Marx tried so hard (and got so far) to establish historical analysis like it was Newtonian mechanics, that in the end it didn't even matter, as he had to introduce tons of world breaking ad hoc hypotheses that had nothing to do with observation of history.

define human nature.
everybody who goes muh human nature usually has a very retarded definition of it that takes no account of the contrasting cultures across the world.

It's annoying how philosophers seem to pretty much ignore biological determinism and how it contributes to behavior. Or ignore any sexual/racial differences at all. Modern philosophy basically assumes that if there is a difference of achievement among groups, it must be due to oppression of some kind. They love to say that all behaviors and preferences are culturally based and sociologically influenced.

Philosophy has honestly become a joke, they think too much about systems, and not enough about people. At this point it feels like they are actually hurting scientific advancement and our understanding of human differences and genetics.

>why do so many contemporary philosophers not fall for a spook

maybe because they actually studied philosophy?

>Marx was a jew. To understand what he was trying to accomplish and why he is so revered in academia today, you have to understand that he was advancing the tribal interests of jews


I thought this was a serious discussion...not ad hominem nonsense.

one minute /pol/ will highlight marx's distaste for the jews....next minute they decide he is a jew with a seekret ambition to destroy the "white race". make your mind up chantard.

Just because we can't define it to any exact degree doesn't mean that we can't have a rough approximation of it through an examination of the similarities between distinct cultures. For example, religious belief is so ubiquitous that it's probably a part of our inherent psychological makeup. As is a lust for power and status.

The notion that humans brains aren't evolved organs with inherent preferences is the biggest spook of all

I'm going to fix your analogy to make my point: red ants build different kinds of mounds than black ants, and that's the idea here. The mound varies based on which type of ant built it, and is a reflection of them. What we're dealing with here is this: black ants bulit a mound, foreign red ants took over it and changed it and are using it to manipulate the black ants, and the less aware black ants are blaming the mound instead of the red ants, because the red ants have indoctrinated them into believing that pointing out that red ants are running their mound is racist.

I read that post and his first post again. Well, point taken lol

I've never posted in pol and you have made no argument. You are whining. Please stay out of the conversation if realities about human difference scare you and if you are unable to engage in adult-level discourse.

I agree with you. Most philosophers know nothing about genetics, evolution or neuropsychology. So how could they possibly know anything about how people really act?

Hmm. I don't know. I have to be honest, the "why would a caveman do this" is my go to first question when faced with a problem, and it's served me... unfathomably well. If it's a question of avoiding the whole race problem, then that's sort of dishonest, and unnecessary, anyway. I know race factors into behavior so far as that race and geography often overlap and geography is an indicator of nurture, but as far as nature goes, I haven't found an impressive difference in my ideas.

I mean, I'm not a famous contemporary philosopher, and I never even studied it, but my conclusions have always been coherent and rational as far as I can tell. I like to think that, at least.

If human nature isn't concrete then it is better focused on how to change. If we say "Humans are as they will ever be" then there is not much to study, is there? There is nothing left but genocide. It is problematic because the implication is that people are born without any means to improve. society is doomed without eugenics.

The same goes for any science really. We pour time and money into researching how to fix things, not tell us what can't be changed. What good does it do to give up on humanity as a whole, to raise our hands in defeat collectively and say "It's human nature" of course we will continue to eliminate everything we can until we've found every way that we can make society better.

>, and view biological explanations as politically and ideologically problematic.

If that's true then it's totally fucking retarded. I wish most people could view these things more objectively

The problem with that is assuming genetics, evolution, and neuropsychology are perfect and have never changed through interdisciplinary discourse.

We have changed those fields forever because of criticism from the outside. To say that science is infallible defeats science itself.

Because they are communists.

There are significant differences in how religious belief, power and status operate in different societies. You can't leave out all the nuance and take human nature as something that doesn't drastically differ with environment (although less so now with globalization and the internet). Some things will never change, but to think that environment has little impact on the extent to which people act out their "nature" is myopic and retarded.

There are potential social and political problems when perceiving human societies through a purely biological lens, but there are just as many problems when viewing human behavior with the assumption that people are blank slates. In the latter view, Utopian fantasies of equality rapidly change the demographics of a country, and create a culture that can't even manage to replace itself because its female half is too busy working. Also, you're arguing from a perspective of utility as opposed to truth, which I submit is dishonest.

because human nature is a spook

>this thread
>implying brains exist
>implying biological organisms exist
>implying time and space exist
>implying evolution could exist without being sure about the existence of time and organisms

topetti kekketi

I'm sorry, but no one is fucking arguing that culture plays no role in the formation of human psychology. We're simply arguing that biology plays a major role as well, and that ignoring it for ideological reasons is intellectually dishonest.

It is convenient for the system to exploit those differences rather than go full niggerdeath. diversity consultants are a multimillion dollar industry for a reason. The system needs to justify itself and present itself as moral. The system is always on the lookout for new methods of management and control.

have you actually read what Marx had to say about species-being and human nature? he was far from a strawman pomo social constructivist sjw. Your notion of human nature is ahistorical and equivocates capital with nature and throws in a bunch of confused protestant theological ideas (muh invisible hand,venerate muh enterpreneur). Capital has entered runaway, effectively becoming autonomous. Automation has given rise to a growing surplus population managed through means other than labor.

> the species-being is always determined in a specific social and historical formation, with some aspects being biological.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_human_nature

The post structuralists broke with Marxism for good. Foucault even proclaimed himself a fan of Hayek later in life, while Baudrillard went full nihilist.

A spook is also a spook, denying that human nature even exist because of the concept of spooks.

>adult-level discourse

you're on 4chin bruv.

neck yourself

But you assume so much in that little bit of text.

We are really the only proven creatures that think beyond our lifespans or know that we will die. It could well be that we are like all creatures who fear death and cope with it by creating or following a path to living forever.

Our lust for power and status can very well tie into that. We want to extend our lives and secure our futures. Collectivism tends to counter that well which is why I believe asian cultures are predominantly lacking in that sort of drive. Working for a good company is sought more than being the creator of a company.

Who ignores this to the extent you are suggesting? Give me an actual example besides just being one of the many retards saying "MUH EVO PSYCH/BIOLOGY" like you have any fucking point at all.

Because they are leftists and some leftists defend the thesis that human inequalities are due to situational factors rather than inherent qualities.

Well, imagine that people DID give a lot more credence to these natural differences between certain groups. What impact do you think that would have? Any at all? In what way?

Foucault specifically wrote in a way so that he didn't have to talk about transcendental properties/registers/etc inherent to men, but to allow ideas and their evolution in men to be communicated in a way that shows something of a 'nature' but doesn't make any absolute qualifications. His delineations of power without a subject follow from the discovery that past political philosophers wrote 'subjects' which were just the qualities necessary to defend the particular power structures at the time (that is, they covered up the truth of the matter). In his debate with Chomsky, he merely states that calling something 'human nature' leads into a number of problematic questions which could be evaded by not bringing up the concept in the first place (An example being whether that nature has existed and will exist for all time, the answer to which requires an unattainable amount of evidence). This is actually an argument against Marx, who claims that humans have epicurean desires which are unfulfilled by capitalism (and thus capitalism will eventually collapse).

>"why do so many deny the role of [something i think is important]"?

because they want to give trolls like you, monsieur, the opportunity to make dunces of the earnest idiots on this board

>Also, you're arguing from a perspective of utility as opposed to truth, which I submit is dishonest.

No, because the core of the topic is "Why do so many contemporary philosophers deny the role that human nature plays in much of what people do?" Which I explained is because of the utility of continuing to study as opposed to assuming human nature and closing the case.

You are being quite dishonest in suggesting otherwise.

The only cultures having problems repopulating now are ironically specific to commonly xenophobic Asian regions. Most cultures and races are growing at different rates and the rate of growth have always slowed with social progress. You're creating a nonexistent problem.

>Also, you're arguing from a perspective of utility as opposed to truth, which I submit is dishonest.

aren't you too? nature is supremely indifferent. Nature doesn't care about 'white genocide'. If 'whites' go extinct due to race mixing it is their fault for being unable to adapt to the changing nature of capital. And wouldn't it be 'biologically rational' for elite whites to racemix with elite jews and asians? a fully 'rational' technics based society would lead to the destruction of everything that is recognisably human. technics annihilates meaning. If you want to 'save the white race' i would suggest you embraced esoteric hitlerism instead of spouting pseudo positivist fetishistic invocations of 'science' and 'nature'.

Do I honestly have to give examples? Nearly all pop psychology books and blogs attempt to tell people that a change in behavior will result in a dramatic shift in desire and ability. Modern feminism and critical race theory are predicated on the notion that the achievement gap between groups are the result of the dominant group keeping itself in power by creating a power structure that specifically precludes other people and keeps them from succeeding.

I'm not arguing for or against white extinction. I'm not white, and I don't really care. But the only reason European societies are growing is because of immigration from non-white societies. Nearly every European country is having children well below replacement, and their welfare systems necessitate that a certain percentage of people are paying in. So countries like Germany and Sweden had to destabilize their entire societies by importing its labor force from third world countries.

>Most cultures and races are growing at different rates
Some are growing, some are contracting. The problem with the blank slate view of human nature is that it assumes that, because everyone is equal, that high-IQ populations contracting isn't a problem because other populations are growing and can easily replace them.

well they do, thats more or less psychoanalytics.

Alternatively, there is always a degree of subjectivity to the objectivity of a situation or set of circumstances in a person's life

Okay so you can't list a single example of what you find "intellectually dishonest". I get that you think you're being smart by mouthing off popular talking points but you clearly haven't even bothered to read what you're apparently so critical off so I suggest you stick to low-level mouthbreathing retard shit like getting likes on anti-SJW youtube videos.

I'm not white. I don't care about the skin color of my descendants. What I care about is that we continue to progress as a species, and part of that progression would necessitate the propagation of high-IQ genes. Societies have crumbled before (think the fall of Babylon, the Greek dark ages, the European middle ages), and I don't want our civilization to backslide just because we lied to people about the importance of the genes of a society when it comes to determining that society's success.

have you even seen the inside of your body?

thats what i thought; check mate

>achievement
what is 'achievement' anyways? success in the marketplace? This is why critical race theory and feminism will never be more than reformist in nature. They complain about the game being 'rigged', but yet insist everyone should play it. hence they become just another instrument for the societies of control. They construct the illusory representation of unity that conceals the fact of universal separation. muh independent women in STEM is a manufactured role, much like the ideal housewife of 50s advertising.

The american 'right wingers' on here display a similar form of naivety, they believe in 'capitalism' as a protestant god-figure that rewards temperance and hard work. 'classical Liberalism' and nu atheist scientism are dead ends, no wonder so many 'libertarians' end up turning into fascists.

Laurie Penny, who's influential among young women, says that woman act the way they do because they're socialized to, not because of a different inherent psychology. There's your one example.

By the way, the number of unfair assumptions in your post make it seem like you're attempting to save face by attacking my as opposed to addressing my views directly.

>tfw you're very ugly and you hear people say that genes aren't important
Like to see those people walk a day in my shoes

>I'm not white
That's no surprise if you think the low IQ mud people European countries are importing are going to magically become economically productive replacements instead of the net negative welfare rent seekers they are and will continue to be until they are removed.

The myth that white countries need to import brown people so they can keep growing because constant growth is somehow necessary or good needs to die.

Did you read the post you're replying to? I agree.

Yeah. Doesn't...

>their welfare systems necessitate that a certain percentage of people are paying in.

... imply the Arabs and Africans Europe is importing will be paying in more than they will be taking out?

did u see the nytimes squeeling today when the poles votes to throw out the communist judges who were trying to force a german style immigration plan on poland? within the last couple hundred years the poles had their country broken up, invaded, yoked under communism, etc. they aren't trying to let the germans flood them with invaders yet again, hell mother fucking no. long live poland, fuck dying old europe.

Is not believing in 'Human Nature' called anti-humanism?

I just can't really figure out what anithumanism even means

When white people retire and there's an upside-down imbalance of retirement benefits and taxes being payed, then you need to have a proper workforce. You can't have that when a single 25 year old has to pay for the social security benefits of three 70 year olds. The three options are: the society shrinks into oblivion, the society brings in third worlders to replace it, or the society starts to actually replace itself. Option one is suicide, and option three isn't occurring.

Laurie Penny is not taken seriously, most people in socialist circles consider her a liberal poser.

If you want to talk about niggers being dumb, then go ahead, nobody is stopping you. but why insist on dragging marx, foucault and a bunch of philosophers you obviously haven't read into it? ethnonationalism is ultimately a cultural phenomenon, complaints about muh IQ and muh objective science are just an attempt to rationalise cultural alienation and the sense there is no future. You always end up falling back into subjective nonscientific concepts like 'progress' or the glory of european civilisation. So why even pretend you are actually an objective tru liberal? being an objective tru liberal amounts to talking constantly about how 'rational' you are. That's Sam Harris whole spiel. and did you hear about the liberal march for science? fetishising ones own rationality is the cheapest of tactics. The market tends to destroy all culture, yet your main complaint about muh naggers is their supposedly low market value. Notice how liberals talk about immigrants like they were hot commodities compared to the tired, old boring native working classes and petty bourgeois?

>critical race theory are predicated on the notion that the achievement gap between groups are the result of the dominant group keeping itself in power by creating a power structure that specifically precludes other people and keeps them from succeeding.


that's just the jews projecting

option 4: abolish the capitalist mode of production. worldwide communism is probably the only way to stop mass immigration by this point

>they're socialized to, not because of a different inherent psychology

If you think this isn't true to some degree, you're just being difficult. You don't have to go in on the whole leftist dreamworld of no biological determination of abilities in order to also acknowledge that there are some social structures that keep the dominant group in power.

This argument isn't anything like new, and the answer remains the same as it always has been. Tabula Rasa we are not, but we're also not born determined.

Early (birth to two) experience, for example, is well known to be a time in which trauma can essentially guarantee you will never function normally in society.

We, on a societal level, must admit that genetic intelligence is real and disavow leftist fantasies of complete factual equality. But what is the conclusion from this fact? Genocide? If you're not willing to indulge in fascism and state controlled eugenics, what? I certainly don't see a future in racial separatism. It requires more magical thinking than I can stomach. Whites have no will to do so. Their morals are more important than their race.

So, if we're stuck in this cosmopolitan conception of "the west" (dragged kicking and screaming) what are we to do? We can only hope that genetic factors are a smaller component of intelligence than seems apparent now. It's certainly possible that within poor, (not just black) communities, there's generational violence and neglect which traps generations on end in a dismal spiral. There's no ignoring the problem of black communities in America. I don't see deriding them and reviling their behavior as being the solution to anything at all. All rightwing positions on the questions of Blacks in America are fantastical (genocide, return to Africa) or just plugging their ears and covering their eyes from a whites-only town in Montana.

While I fear the white liberal's suicidal conception of reality, where all are equal in fact (not just law), there is a kernel of truth to the left position. You need money to make money, you need to have been raised humanely to raise a human yourself. We can and should dismantle these negative structures to the extent they exist in order to allow the best and brightest of every race to succeed. The left, of course, will never admit a need to "uplift" in the first place. But that is indeed the only course. Active and aggressive intervention, a kind of reparations. The extent to which we prosecute this goal is the only question.

So many fucking assumptions in this post. I don't care about black people, nor am I making any sort of claim about the inherent superiority of European culture. All I care about the continued influence and prosperity of my country, and they depends on a population that can manage to keep it running smoothly. My problem is that our immigration policy doesn't take that into consideration.

It's petit bourgeois, and calm down, please.

>contemporary philosopher
>Laurie Penny
You want me to take you seriously when your example of a philosopher is a fucking blog poster who studied english.
I mean, the statement you listed is basically the nurture side of the nature-nurture debate. I'd be willing to bet that you're exaggerating her belief in the nurture side of things but if she believes that nature has no effect then she's just wrong. Either way, Laurie Penny isn't a philosopher by any standards.

Foucault was all for "human nature" that benefits the human.

You're working under the false assumption that the people who implanted this opinion in your head have the long-term interest of Europe in mind. They don't.

These countries are already in massive debt, the financial system doesn't care about the balance sheets. There's nothing wrong with the population shrinking and the populations of these countries are at all time highs, but incentives can be made to increase birthrates anyway. Bringing in mud people with sub 80 IQs and thinking they are going to magically become productive Europeans is delusional. They have already become a massive economic burden and will continue to be because that's the point. Constant growth can also be achieved without increased production if you're forcing governments to take out more loans to pay for the people who are going to spend the money in the short-term and destroy your enemy in the long-run. That's the point here. The jews running the EU and its central bank are imploding European countries, not trying make them better because these are the same people who were promoting overpopulation in the 70s.

People are telling you that we need constant growth so their fake system won't come crashing down on them. But it's not real, and it's foolish to destroy the demographics of your nation for short term economic growth anyway.

I'd be willing to bet she believes whatever's most convenient in a given conversation. Nature completely if you're talking about gender or sexuality (except for aggressive male sexuality, which is social). Nurture completely in any racial sense.

I want people here to consider this more than just contemptuously, in passing. I worry that people here, reading Moldbug and Land are too divorced from society to understand the DEEP UTILITY of this belief system. SJW belief is sweetly descriptive of the most perfect possible version of our reality. We're only a few social conditions away from utopia.

Of course, it's ridiculously wrong, but please try and see the appeal, the genuine good intentions behind these thoughts. You need to, if you have any interest in converting the people around you.

The assumption that any sort of critique of radical cultural determinism is necessarily a promotion of radical biological determinism is a dumb strawman. Obviously our behavior are the result of our genetics being filtered through a particular environment. And the discussion isn't whether or not impediments to success exist, but to what extent group disparities are the result of those impediments, and whether those impediments apply nearly equally to all groups. My concern is that we promote a culture that assumes that every disparity is the result of biases and prejudices, which creates an environment where unsuccessful people feel oppressed, and where the children of people who belong to successful groups are unfairly discriminated against in order to correct an imbalance in achievement that's likely the result of a disparities in ability.

I don't see how this view leads to genocide. Disparities between people will exist in every single society, whether it be looks or intelligence. All you need to do is create a culture that has a place for people of all abilities, which would necessitate a sort-of class system.

What makes you think that these population trends are temporary? All you need is a few generations of sub-replacement birthrate levels and your society is dead. If European society is currently contracting, what will stop it from contracting into oblivion?

>jews are purposefully ruining everything

Antisemitism will never be interesting. Maybe you're right, I don't know. If god came down and asked if I thought 9/11 was an inside job, I'd say I think it's a strong possibility. But is holding that view ever going to be

1. Interesting to talk about
2. Useful to my life

The answer is clearly no. If you're invested in a conspiracy theory, even one that's true, everything you say is inaccessible to those of us who don't agree. It's just frustrating to me because I'm interested in talking to people attempting to talk rationally about the world around them. But so often on here, they're indulging the Jews Run The World! meme.

I understand all the evidence and I also understand there's no way to prove anything. Jews winning again by dividing the right, I suppose.

Why does it necessitate a class system? Are you saying people would be born into a class without the means to escape it?

Birthrates can be fixed with ease through incentives. The problem here is that isn't being done because the leaders of Europe don't want it to be done. They want to infuse homogeneous European nations with foreigners because jews run institutions like the EU central bank and are afraid of Europeans banding together and removing them from power. Do you know what the Kalergi Plan is? That's the basis of the EU. Do you know why there are 12 stars on the EU flag? You're taking the things you've heard at face value. It's a lot more complicated than that.

You can move up or down the caste system, but having a system where inherently unequal people are vying and competing for the same lifestyles is going to create a form of extreme alienation. At least if you're born to a particular caste you have a group to belong to that doesn't constantly make you feel inferior, or create an environment where you have to constantly compete.

If you think you can get Europeans to have more children, then more power to you.

I mean, this is all about you being uninformed about jewish behavior and influence -- don't blame me for you not understanding. Are you white? If so, there's no excuse for you not being educated about the jewish question.

>If you're invested in a conspiracy theory, even one that's true, everything you say is inaccessible to those of us who don't agree.

how is it that when someone says white people are all in on some conspiracy to turn blacks into violent thugs or whatever you believe it, or that there is a male conspiracy to make women study majors that don't pay well etc. but if someone suggests the jews do the same thing people go nuts and start shrieking about conspiracy theories

It's happening in places like Hungary because Hungary is run by Hungarians who want what is best for their people. Germany did the same thing after WWI and their population boomed. It's a matter of will and who is in charge.

>Kalergi Plan

after skimming his wiki page for less than 30 seconds he seems pretty redpilled t b h

> According to the elder Coudenhove-Kalergi, Jewish religious bigotry provoked opposition from the relatively tolerant Greco-Roman polytheists, eliciting their anti-Judaic reaction.

>you believe it

but I don't, user

I'm very skeptical of exactly those things. I'm fairly rightwing. I just have too much doubt about the ability of large group of people to secretly coordinate large scale manipulation over long periods of time.

The EU flag having 12 stars, like, there's no way that's some overt jewish gesture we're all just missing. No jews stepped out to brag about that?

it's not that they are "secretly coordinating" anything, but they act in their own interests, like freud charging goy publishers to reproduce his work but allowing jewish publisher to publish it for free, despite being an "atheist" etc.

>My concern is that we promote a culture that assumes that every disparity is the result of biases and prejudices,which creates an environment where unsuccessful people feel oppressed, and where the children of people who belong to successful groups are unfairly discriminated against in order to correct an imbalance in achievement that's likely the result of a disparities in ability

this is the ideology of american liberal managerialism. originated with for profit diversity consultants like Peggy McIntosh rather than with Marx or the Frankfurt School. The game is absurd, it's not question of adjusting the rules, we need to stop playing. modern capitalism is all about representation, human cattle management and the accumulation of social capital. The tech industry is one giant bubble, a simulacrum of a nonexistent boom. makes sense they would be so obsessed with 'representation' on their boardrooms as well.

youtube.com/watch?v=e-BY9UEewHw

It's the opposite of redpilled. Kalergi was a mongrel who proposed Europe be turned into a mixed race land controlled by jews.

Rich people who are part of a group known as "the tribe" that has overwhelming influence over institutions like media and banking and are all 4th cousins of one another are going to "conspire" ... okay? And they have told people like yourself to call people who notice their influence "conspiracy theorists" so that you go after the people pointing out their influence instead of them.

All of the information is out there; it's only a matter of you looking at it, which I obviously recommend you do.

Because at the later stages ( today) the lines between Marxism and capitalism start blurring.

>The EU flag having 12 stars, like, there's no way that's some overt jewish gesture we're all just missing.

well the original flag was going to have 15 stars representing the 15 member nations, but then some jewish guy got control of it and changed it to 12, which is a way to undermine the acknowledgement of the individual nationalities, again it's not some secret message or something, but it does advance jewish interests of weakening white nationalism, if every jew does their part ... we end up where we are today.

also, do you know how many wealthy jews go to things like "jew camp" where they learn hebrew and "krav maga" and get taught a bunch of propaganda for israel and the six gorillion, etc. there is no equivalent for that among whites, and if there were the souther poverty law center or someone else would be calling the out to allow blacks and mexicans to join in etc.

honestly if the jews get their way and german just becomes an extension of turkey would that be so bad? fuck the turks but i think over the course of european history the germans have done more damage than good

How do individual people distinguish themselves in a society that doesn't allow for disparities? If you were born with bad genes, how do you compete in a society where accruing martial wealth isn't allowed?

Because you haven't heard of the ones that don't. We live in a society that denies race so hard that even the differences in dog breeds are starting to be taboo.
Admitting individual differences is a scary slippery slope for modern intellectuals. Once you admit generic difference between individuals, it leads to the idea that they are inherited, and when you accept inheritance of mental characteristics it leads to the idea that separate populations inherit different characteristics, which leads to THE HOLOCAUST NOW STOP THINKING ABOUT IT WHAT ARE YOU A NAZI?

Holy shit you're a retard. Just read any recent undergrad psychology textbook and then come back to the discussion. Anthropology the way it is taught today isn't any better.
You are either way too old to talk about our contemporary academic culture or way too young to post here, I can't tell which.

Marx was opposed to the liberal idea of 'equality'. he saw it as a projection of the commodity form on to humans. remember: 'from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs'. Of course humans aren't interexchangable commodities competing with each other in a free market. I think a world organic community, no longer based on production or the market, is the only way for humanity to survive in the mid to long term. Ot's not about 'equality' but about the full realisation of the species-being.

because it's a meaningless bourgeois term

> bourgeois

*sigh*

What is existentialism?
Who is nietzsche?
What are theorists of socialization?
Who is Pierre Bourdieu?
The list could keep going forever.

There are enough empirical studies on this matter to dump all the retarded...
But what about muh human biodiversity?
What about all those categories that have been around like forever (sex,gender,race, even social evolutive shit about the survival of the fittest), those must be natural