European New Right

[Anonymous No.6854293]

The Egalitarian rhetoricians are not so contradictory. to affirm, in fact, that races do not exist and, at the same time, to plead for a multiracial society makes one wonder, and what is the least one can say!

[Anonymous No.6854379]

>>6854293

The idea is that race is only skin deep and that we should have a society where we have as many different looking people as possible. People with different worldviews that might be difficult to assimilate into mass culture, however, have to go.

[Anonymous No.6854386]

>>6854293
Who is ever claiming race doesn't exist? That's pretty offensive to claim that and it is far from "egalitarian"

[twinshia No.6854399]

>>6854386
Political Correctness has no concrete terms.
Racialism is and is not politically correct.
It all depends upon the context:
Knowing History and Mode and using non sequitur in a way in which you can get away with it even though it is completely contradictory.

When people talk, they are not being scientifically or philosophically profound.
People talk in cliches. Stop talking to people or deal with it.

[Anonymous No.6854412]

>>6854399
>people talk in cliches
An exemplary post indeed

[Anonymous No.6854422]

>>6854293
>that races do not exist and, at the same time, to plead for a multiracial society makes one wonder, and what is the least one can say!
It's more like that inequal access to rights on the basis of ones race is abhorrent and anti-democratic. Nobody actually pretends there are not different races, that's a strawman.

[Anonymous No.6854430]

>>6854293
Why do people keep making these threads?

Are they aware of /pol/?

[twinshia No.6854440]

>>6854412
You do realise I expect this type of sarcasm every time I post here?
Continue with the incessant one liners. I can not stop you any way.

[Anonymous No.6854447]

>>6854422

The idea "Races are social constructs" is pretty common to the social sciences. To most it means that "race does'nt exist" in the strict sense.

>>6854430

Because this is a literature board and the European New Right has literature for us to talk about. It's no different than someone making a thread of the Frankfurt School and their works.

[Anonymous No.6854526]

>>6854379
Mixing everything together is going to create a unified race that looks the same and has no memory of any culture other than mass consumerism.

[Anonymous No.6854536]

>>6854379
Race isn't skin deep, there are many differences between races and skin color is the least major one.

[Anonymous No.6854548]

>>6854447
>The idea "Races are social constructs" is pretty common to the social sciences. To most it means that "race does'nt exist" in the strict sense
Nope, this is a standard /pol/ fallacy. Other 'social constructs' include governments, armies, and basketball. Being socially constructed =/= not existing.

[Anonymous No.6854556]

>>6854548
But it's not a social construct in that sense either, it's a biological fact and not just skin deep.

[Anonymous No.6854563]

>>6854526
>unified race that looks the same
Nah, recessive genes carry over and can be expressed further down the line. It's why mullatoes can have children with darker or lighter features than either parent.

Europeans are often thought of as a single race, even though they have a great diversity of hair color, eye color, skin tone, and other traits.

Basically, think mutts. You can't pin down a universal look on them.

[Anonymous No.6854568]

>>6854556
How many races do you believe exist?

[Anonymous No.6854574]

>politics

>>>/r9k/

[Anonymous No.6854589]

>>6854556
It's the most nebulous category in filogeny.

Which in on itself, is more flexible field than most realize. Nowadays, dogs and wolves are the same specie. Birds are closer to dinosaurs than lizards. Camels and Llamas can create fertile offspring, Female mules can reproduce.

It's a science that tries to "box in" the mess that is the plethora of life.

It makes sense applied to insular gene pools. So, yeah maybe groups like abos can fit neatly in the definition. But consider brazilians. Assigning a race to them is as pointless as assigning a race to a mutt.

[Anonymous No.6854601]

>>6854563
Everyone will look vaguely brown, diversity will turn from diverse cultures to just randomly looking brown people with no clear heritage or culture.

[Anonymous No.6854612]

>>6854601
That's just the culture of late capitalism, m8

[Anonymous No.6854618]

>>6854589
It's easier to compare extreme differences (and then take the average person from those vastly distances areas).

They have clear differences in skull and bone structure, adaption to local climate, muscles, etc.

I don't know if there's a certain amount of races.

[Anonymous No.6854632]

>>6854618
If you have to take averages to identify them and can't even say how many races exist, how are they a 'biological fact' and not a product of systems of classification?

[Anonymous No.6854645]

>>6854632
Becuase it's not just random vague grouping, but based on peoples geographical location and ancestry within it.

[Anonymous No.6854684]

>>6854645
>ancestry
Ah, right. So are the Angles a race, then?

[Anonymous No.6854699]

>>6854684
Define the Angles

[Anonymous No.6854705]

>>6854699
So, you are saying it's a vague grouping?

[Anonymous No.6854706]

>>6854699
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles

[Anonymous No.6854727]

Stop talking only about politics or race, that belongs to /pol/.

Talk about books.

Pic related should be compulsory reading for any of you jackasses.
Your pseudo-reactionnary attitude will lead to nothing if you only read the stuff that's on your iron-pill chart.

[Anonymous No.6854729]

>>6854705
I understand the point you're trying to make with your snarky attitude.

Neither of us is well learned on biology or anthropology, but it's pretty clear people who live in one place for many generations have common traits with others in those areas, that are vastly different from common traits in another. This isn't immediately transferable in a matter of a few generations.

Whether you want to call it race or not doesn't change a thing, it's just play with semantics.

[Anonymous No.6854730]

>>6854548

But race as what people traditionally thought of it as, a biological fact, is not real on this viewpoint. Which is why I said in the strict sense. There is no race outside of the subjectivity of the group that says that race exists, that is what they are going for.

>>6854526
Exactly, all identity markers ontologically prior to involvement to the state, the market, and involvement in mass society, are the enemy of bourgois leftist social engineering. Things like sex, race, ethnicity and religion are all points of resistance to mass culture. They use fantasies about "oppression" in order to homogenize people and cut them off from these ontologically prior identity points.

>>6854536
I know that, I was explaining what the bourgeois ideology claims.

Anyone curious about the reality of race should look up A.W.F Edwards paper on the subject, he proves that race is a valid taxonomic distinction.

[Anonymous No.6854759]

>>6854727
This book is non-fiction

[Anonymous No.6854769]

>>6854729
I wasn't actually the one who mentioned anglos. I just thought it was a quick quip that score me 4chin points.

[Anonymous No.6854784]

>>6854730
link to papers

[Anonymous No.6854809]

>>6854729
>but it's pretty clear people who live in one place for many generations have common traits with others in those areas
No doubt. The traits are real, because DNA is real. But race is an extrapolation from a whole load of different traits, some of which are common between members of races, some of which are common across races, some of which can be common to groups smaller than races. Which is why I'm saying races are a product of systems of classification. They're not a 'biological fact' on the level of, say, 'I have a nose'.

>Whether you want to call it race or not doesn't change a thing, it's just play with semantics
Nah. 'Races' are a limited number of huge human populations. If I identify (say) two thousand smaller, more local groups of people on genetic grounds, would you say the difference is semantic?

[Anonymous No.6854836]

>>6854447
>The idea "Races are social constructs" is pretty common to the social sciences. To most it means that "race does'nt exist" in the strict sense.
Race is a social construct, but it isn't exclusively a social construct. I don't really think anyone who is being intellectually honest can read that conclusion.

[Anonymous No.6855426]

>>6854784

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.174.698&rep=rep1&type=pdf

>>6854836

As someone who spent 3 years in a Sociology program, they certainly can. I agree that there are social factors involved in some of how race is classified. But there are real biological distinctions between different populations, that leads to a difference in outcomes and creates a genuine inequality. Nordic people and Somalians are very explicitly biologically distinct on a level that is far than cosmetic or merely social, and it cannot be "fixed" by some social programs.

[Anonymous No.6857307]

>>6854727
Don't get it, this book doesn't say anything against iron pill shit?