I think this is well understood so I don’t know why anyone would ask it. However: HERE IS THE CORRECT ANSWER The categorization of people into groups of ethnicities is as old as the written record. People are referred to by the color of their skin and the egyptians who were an advanced people for many centuries were diligent in their depiction of the races. Greeks and romans categorized groups of people by region and skin tone and temperament. And the romans identified that personality traits were driven by geography and climate. 16th century, the ‘shrinking of the world’ due to the Age of Sail led to civilizational and ethnic categorizations. By the mid 19th century (1800’s) with the advent of Darwin’s research in particular, people both recognized that most ethnic groups could be categorized by regions of the world. The study of evolution made it rather obvious that we developed regional characteristics just as did all other animals. The success of the early eugenics movement, but the retaliation against the nazi use of eugenics led to postwar suppression of research, and pseudoscientific denialism of racial differences. The development of genetic studies has led to the restoration of research and the data is updated monthly with new findings. The most recent work with the most accessible data came out this year (2018) although I don’t think is available in paperback form yet. (“Who we are and how we got here” by David Reich). He tries to soft pedal against the race deniers, but the data is pretty solid now. The race-deniers have produced popular pseudoscience and been proven false. Those include Stephen j Gould (The Mismeasure of Man), and Richard Lewontin (“racial groups are more different internally than externally”) which is also false – and hard to believe anyone would even say such a thing. It’s so false that the profession has a name for it: “Lewontin’s Fallacy”. However it is better to take away that each group produced excellences given their geography, climate, regional competitors, and degree of development. And that the primary difference between the races that cuases conflict (proximity creates hostility) is the vast difference in the size of the lower classes. IQ is the most accurate measure in psychology but when we average IQ we are really saying who has the smallest underclass and the biggers upper class? That’s what IQ by Race, Subrace, and Tribe means. So it is not so much that conflict is just racial, it’s that because the sizes of white, japanese, korean, and han underclasses are fairly small as a percentage of the population (and european jews have almost eliminated theirs), while the rest of the world tends to have much larger underclasses (from less hostile climates and less forced organized individual farms). So the problem is that our cultures are incompatible because cultures fill the needs of the median of the distribution – they must. If the eugenicists were successful and we did not have such a population explosion of the lower classes, then within a century the differences between the races would be merely trivial. But the fact that they are substantial because of the differences in the sizes of the underclasses and the political needs of those underclasses, the world remains a racially conflicted place. The east asians and indians are the most racist so far, with whites the least – which is just the opposite of what you’d think. Progressive Race, Inequality, and IQ Deniers vs Conservative Global Warming Deniers. Both deniers are trying to satisfy political ends. Truth is painful. Cheers
Source: Original Site Post
-
—“How did the concept of race begin?”–
I think this is well understood so I don’t know why anyone would ask it. However: HERE IS THE CORRECT ANSWER The categorization of people into groups of ethnicities is as old as the written record. People are referred to by the color of their skin and the egyptians who were an advanced people for many centuries were diligent in their depiction of the races. Greeks and romans categorized groups of people by region and skin tone and temperament. And the romans identified that personality traits were driven by geography and climate. 16th century, the ‘shrinking of the world’ due to the Age of Sail led to civilizational and ethnic categorizations. By the mid 19th century (1800’s) with the advent of Darwin’s research in particular, people both recognized that most ethnic groups could be categorized by regions of the world. The study of evolution made it rather obvious that we developed regional characteristics just as did all other animals. The success of the early eugenics movement, but the retaliation against the nazi use of eugenics led to postwar suppression of research, and pseudoscientific denialism of racial differences. The development of genetic studies has led to the restoration of research and the data is updated monthly with new findings. The most recent work with the most accessible data came out this year (2018) although I don’t think is available in paperback form yet. (“Who we are and how we got here” by David Reich). He tries to soft pedal against the race deniers, but the data is pretty solid now. The race-deniers have produced popular pseudoscience and been proven false. Those include Stephen j Gould (The Mismeasure of Man), and Richard Lewontin (“racial groups are more different internally than externally”) which is also false – and hard to believe anyone would even say such a thing. It’s so false that the profession has a name for it: “Lewontin’s Fallacy”. However it is better to take away that each group produced excellences given their geography, climate, regional competitors, and degree of development. And that the primary difference between the races that cuases conflict (proximity creates hostility) is the vast difference in the size of the lower classes. IQ is the most accurate measure in psychology but when we average IQ we are really saying who has the smallest underclass and the biggers upper class? That’s what IQ by Race, Subrace, and Tribe means. So it is not so much that conflict is just racial, it’s that because the sizes of white, japanese, korean, and han underclasses are fairly small as a percentage of the population (and european jews have almost eliminated theirs), while the rest of the world tends to have much larger underclasses (from less hostile climates and less forced organized individual farms). So the problem is that our cultures are incompatible because cultures fill the needs of the median of the distribution – they must. If the eugenicists were successful and we did not have such a population explosion of the lower classes, then within a century the differences between the races would be merely trivial. But the fact that they are substantial because of the differences in the sizes of the underclasses and the political needs of those underclasses, the world remains a racially conflicted place. The east asians and indians are the most racist so far, with whites the least – which is just the opposite of what you’d think. Progressive Race, Inequality, and IQ Deniers vs Conservative Global Warming Deniers. Both deniers are trying to satisfy political ends. Truth is painful. Cheers
-
Jewish (female) Coercion vs European (male) Coercion – Completing the Method by James Santagata
While we are talking about: FEMININE) – Abrahamic (Jewish > Abrahamic > Semitic) Critique (reputation destruction), Pilpul (Excuse making), and Bilbul (retreat to confusion) argument under threat of ostracization which constitute the feminine method of coercion; – as a counter to – MASCULINE) – European Logic, Science, History, and Reciprocity(law) under threat of violence, which constitute the male method of coercion; We must recognize that we have OUR OWN TRAITORS against reciprocity as well: DEFECTORS) – Abrahamic theology > Socratic Criticism (Critique) > Platonic Justification (Pilpul) > German continental philosophy et al > French enlightenment Philosophy > French Postmodern Philosophy > Anglo female Defectors. So while we have Feminine antagonists, we also have our own beta-defector/traitors, as competing with our Masculine practitioners of truth, duty, reciprocity, and markets (meritocracy). This means that we are outnumbered, and that to preserve western excellence and our own genes we must rule out of self defense, if not out of profitable offense. SANTAGATA’S COMPLETION OF THE JEWISH METHOD By James Santagata —“3 Phases Attack / Debate Strategy by Jewish Left* (You’ll notice Jewish right engages using fact, logic, etc. as a default, the left not) Phase 1: Pilpul – (Hebrew for pepper) tiring contortions to exhaust opponent while trying to mock and create the illusion of superior intellect (and morals). Phase 2: Bilbul – (Hebrew for confusion). If the opponent calls out and crushes the Pilpul, it moves to Bilbul which is to confuse and create habit. Phase 3 – Bulbul – (Hebrew for “penis” or “dick”, child taunt / usage among Israelis), if one makes it past Pilpul and Bilbul the phase moves to Bulbul, name calling and pure ad hominems. Phase 1-3 are predictive and simple patterns and techniques to quickly deflect, side step or crush Pilpul, Bilbul and finally Bulbul. There is a fourth phase but I am still searching for Hebrew or even Yiddish word that would convey that while satisfying the rhyming / semi-alliterative pattern of Pilpul, Bilbul & Bulbul.”— I’ll tweak (or extend) james’ rather brilliant insight here by saying that the jewish RIGHT does not abandon appeal to reasonableness and complete the adoption of western reciprocity of costs as decidability. So they only argue facts of convenience. James’ other insight is that the Jews are also pursuing the feminine strategy of “sh-t testing”. In other words, they are creating demand for dominance and we are failing both them and our women. This last insight of James’, I think, completes the description of jewish behavior as cognitively feminine. It also completes the analysis that they are engaged in conspiracy rather than simply demonstrating the female reproductive instinct that is the product of female evolutionary cognitive bias. It also explains why jews maintained maternal households, and only adopted monogamy in the late middle ages, prior to practicing polygenic reproduction.
-
Jewish (female) Coercion vs European (male) Coercion – Completing the Method by James Santagata
While we are talking about: FEMININE) – Abrahamic (Jewish > Abrahamic > Semitic) Critique (reputation destruction), Pilpul (Excuse making), and Bilbul (retreat to confusion) argument under threat of ostracization which constitute the feminine method of coercion; – as a counter to – MASCULINE) – European Logic, Science, History, and Reciprocity(law) under threat of violence, which constitute the male method of coercion; We must recognize that we have OUR OWN TRAITORS against reciprocity as well: DEFECTORS) – Abrahamic theology > Socratic Criticism (Critique) > Platonic Justification (Pilpul) > German continental philosophy et al > French enlightenment Philosophy > French Postmodern Philosophy > Anglo female Defectors. So while we have Feminine antagonists, we also have our own beta-defector/traitors, as competing with our Masculine practitioners of truth, duty, reciprocity, and markets (meritocracy). This means that we are outnumbered, and that to preserve western excellence and our own genes we must rule out of self defense, if not out of profitable offense. SANTAGATA’S COMPLETION OF THE JEWISH METHOD By James Santagata —“3 Phases Attack / Debate Strategy by Jewish Left* (You’ll notice Jewish right engages using fact, logic, etc. as a default, the left not) Phase 1: Pilpul – (Hebrew for pepper) tiring contortions to exhaust opponent while trying to mock and create the illusion of superior intellect (and morals). Phase 2: Bilbul – (Hebrew for confusion). If the opponent calls out and crushes the Pilpul, it moves to Bilbul which is to confuse and create habit. Phase 3 – Bulbul – (Hebrew for “penis” or “dick”, child taunt / usage among Israelis), if one makes it past Pilpul and Bilbul the phase moves to Bulbul, name calling and pure ad hominems. Phase 1-3 are predictive and simple patterns and techniques to quickly deflect, side step or crush Pilpul, Bilbul and finally Bulbul. There is a fourth phase but I am still searching for Hebrew or even Yiddish word that would convey that while satisfying the rhyming / semi-alliterative pattern of Pilpul, Bilbul & Bulbul.”— I’ll tweak (or extend) james’ rather brilliant insight here by saying that the jewish RIGHT does not abandon appeal to reasonableness and complete the adoption of western reciprocity of costs as decidability. So they only argue facts of convenience. James’ other insight is that the Jews are also pursuing the feminine strategy of “sh-t testing”. In other words, they are creating demand for dominance and we are failing both them and our women. This last insight of James’, I think, completes the description of jewish behavior as cognitively feminine. It also completes the analysis that they are engaged in conspiracy rather than simply demonstrating the female reproductive instinct that is the product of female evolutionary cognitive bias. It also explains why jews maintained maternal households, and only adopted monogamy in the late middle ages, prior to practicing polygenic reproduction.
-
The 90% Percent of The Ancient World that Was Pagan Did Not Welcome the Destruction by The Christians
It’s not that the majority pagan peoples of the ancient world, enjoyed the destruction of their letters, arts, architecture, and monuments by gleeful underclass animals bringing ruination then as the radical islamists and jewish activists bring ruination now. They felt as we felt. The difference is that they couldn’t imagine that they’d get an emperor that would betray them as a means of defeating the western roman empire and turning her own underclass people against her – as is being done to us today via immigration of hostile underclasses.
-
The 90% Percent of The Ancient World that Was Pagan Did Not Welcome the Destruction by The Christians
It’s not that the majority pagan peoples of the ancient world, enjoyed the destruction of their letters, arts, architecture, and monuments by gleeful underclass animals bringing ruination then as the radical islamists and jewish activists bring ruination now. They felt as we felt. The difference is that they couldn’t imagine that they’d get an emperor that would betray them as a means of defeating the western roman empire and turning her own underclass people against her – as is being done to us today via immigration of hostile underclasses.
-
The Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Destruction of The Ancient World
Only 7% of people in the empire were christian. The Christians ran around destroying books, arts, temples, architecture, like the french destroyed the aristocracy, and like the Jews destroy our arts, literature, and architecture,and academy, and the muslims are, in this world, destroying ancient monuments. Just as their ‘converts’ to postmodernism and marxism are destroying our monuments. The entire religious systems of the ancient world were destroyed, the great civilizations of the ancient world were destroyed, the great works of art were destroyed, the millions of books were destroyed. trade was destroyed. and we faced a dark age that only the northern europeans rescued us from.
-
The Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Destruction of The Ancient World
Only 7% of people in the empire were christian. The Christians ran around destroying books, arts, temples, architecture, like the french destroyed the aristocracy, and like the Jews destroy our arts, literature, and architecture,and academy, and the muslims are, in this world, destroying ancient monuments. Just as their ‘converts’ to postmodernism and marxism are destroying our monuments. The entire religious systems of the ancient world were destroyed, the great civilizations of the ancient world were destroyed, the great works of art were destroyed, the millions of books were destroyed. trade was destroyed. and we faced a dark age that only the northern europeans rescued us from.
-
Example of J-Critique
Note that (a) I am defending Einstein. (b) he doesn’t understand that I am but is having a feminine reaction to criticism of one of her children, (c) claims expertise but only demonstrates the use of gossip (praise) rather than addressing any of the criticisms of Einstein (that are false). Once you realize their women, and you know how women cognate, then they are very simple. What I am most fascinated by, is the fact that when a pseudo-male uses feminine argument, we respond differently than if a females uses feminine argument. It demonstrates that we in fact do not take women seriously, and we take men who argue in the feminine (pilpul and critique) less seriously despite the fact that their WORDS INFLUENCE WOMEN MORE THAN OURS. WOMEN ARE OUR WEAKNESS.
-
Example of J-Critique
Note that (a) I am defending Einstein. (b) he doesn’t understand that I am but is having a feminine reaction to criticism of one of her children, (c) claims expertise but only demonstrates the use of gossip (praise) rather than addressing any of the criticisms of Einstein (that are false). Once you realize their women, and you know how women cognate, then they are very simple. What I am most fascinated by, is the fact that when a pseudo-male uses feminine argument, we respond differently than if a females uses feminine argument. It demonstrates that we in fact do not take women seriously, and we take men who argue in the feminine (pilpul and critique) less seriously despite the fact that their WORDS INFLUENCE WOMEN MORE THAN OURS. WOMEN ARE OUR WEAKNESS.
