/lit/ - Literature

>>14827927
>Then why would you dress up like a "Druid"
I'm not the based Druid anon.

>There was no concept of white identity in the age of the druids.
We have genetic evidence that proves the white race is a real thing. We also have Evola's writing that further elaborate the context of race in Tradition.

>>13600353
Genes in the circle. It can get fuzzy at the margins but that doesn't invalidate the existence of the distinction

>>10437101
organized by an unsupervised learning machine.

>>9245605
>while white people are limited to knowing other white ethnicities and at worst, other caucasoid races (arabs), for a limited time in the east (mongoloids) they don't align
>when white ethnicities go to new places in the world that have radically different races they began to confederate into a pan-identity that '''''coincidentally''''' grows from degrees of genetic relation between previously divided white ethnic groups
>throughout history and the world every race/ethnicity does this, from the amhara and tigray in ethiopia with their semitic-chauvinist 'red' race to the east asian high races
>it's all one giant capitalist plot

really makes u think

>>8932791

>>7895630
but that's an extremely modest claim.

you can also divide people by whether they possess blood type O or blood type AB, and infact that is often a USEFUL thing to do because that distinction has SIGNFICANCE.

So a difference or a division can be either useful and significant or useless and not significant.

You can't just use a useless example like possession of moles on the face and so imply that the differences one finds between races are also insignificant.

Race for example often makes a big difference in medicine because some races are much more likely to possess certain genetic diseases meaning that a set of symptoms should be interpreted in a different way and different treatement administered in light of the information of a person's race.

So it is not a useless nor insignificant difference.

As for the distinction being arbitrary, i.e. at what ethnic group do you consider someone caucasoid, this is also not a very important complaint, because genetic distance measures can be divised which robustly show which of two populations is closest genetically to a 3rd population. So the process would be: take data from populations over the world , use almost any unsupervised learning algrothm like K nearest neighbours under the genetic distance norm, obtain the normal racial classifications of caucasoid , negroid and mongoloid which were first observed simply looking at faces, along with admixed populations like say turkic people inbetween caucasoid and mongoloid, and isolated populations like pacific islanders.

so then you obtain these robust, obvious clusters and you ask "well how do we decide whether ugyurs are white or not?"
and sure, that is arbitrary, but it is arbitrary in the way that "largeness" of a natural number is arbitrary. Some may say that 100 is a large natural number, and some may say, not it isn't, 2000 is a large natural number, and that is arbitrary, but what is not arbitrary is that 2000 is definitely larger than 100, and just like no one can deny that greeks are genetically closer to franks than ugyurs are.

So saying "races don't exist" is very vague. when you ask specific questions about human ethnic groups and populations, you find they exist robustly, are useful and significant, and are only arbitrary in a limited sense.

>>5831551
The existence of race is an objective fact.

Please explain who you mean by 'us', and what you exactly you mean by 'help'.