No matter how small our divisions of people get (country, race, region, town, neighborhood, etc) there's ALWAYS someone that's hated. Even in 100% homogeneous communities, people divide themselves along lines of literally anything. I think this is just a constant in humans.
>Oi fuck those Poles, this is our island innit!
>Glad the Poles are gone, now we need to boot out the Irish
>Glad the Irish are gone, now we need to boot out the Scots
>Glad the Scots are gone, time to boot out the Northerners
It never ends.
Never-ending hatred of "Out Groups"
Nathaniel Thomas
Angel Parker
Shut up cunt
Nathaniel Miller
All I'm saying is that it never ends and we should care more about individuals than """"group identities"""".
>Rabi
I'm 100% European you schizos.
Owen Russell
It's an individualism vs. collectivism issue.
If you are an individualist, you are happy to be around high quality people because you know there is more to life than survival.
When you are a collectivist, the most important thing is that the people you are around won't attack/rob/kill you. It's a culture of fear and survival.
Of course there is a thing where collectivists mob up on individuals and rob them "just to be safe" so if you have absolute no value as a human being collectivism is very tempting. Hence the success of gommunism and nationalism, the epitomes of out-group hate.
Dylan Morales
You suck paki dick, you mad faggot
Aaron Perez
>If you are an individualist, you are happy to be around high quality people
>if you have absolute no value as a human being collectivism is very tempting
Good post. Very true, memeflag.
I suppose this is what the pirate was talking about
Benjamin Lee
Organisms evolve with respect to environment.
The people around you, as a collective, are your environment.
People have a right to dissociate from environments they are maladapted to.
People, be they individuals or groups, have no right to pursue them without mutual consent.
>We should care more about individuals
This is actually collectivism lel.
>We
as opposed to
>I
You are requiring that others, irrespective of their consent, conform to your way of thinking.
What happens if we take neoindividualism to it's inevitable conclusion?
>You are not allowed to exclude strangers from your home on the basis of them being strangers, only on the basis of individual faults
What happens if there are thousands of people trying to gain access to your home every day?
Do they all have a right to enter until you can find faults on an individual level?
How long does it take to individually audit thousands of people?
tens of thousands?
millions?
If enough people come such that you no longer have the time or the resources, do you forfeit your right to your property?
Liam Jackson
>If you are an individualist, you are happy to be around high quality people
>if you have absolute no value as a human being collectivism is very tempting
This is still collectivism as you defined it above though.
You are creating a definition of "quality", then forming groups with people who meet it and excluding those who don't.
There are still ingroups and outgroups, the only difference is that you got to choose them, which is something everyone here is in favour of.
People who don't want to be around whatever kinds randomniggers they don't want to be around have the right to dissociate from those people as much as you have the right to dissociate from those that don't meet your definition of "quality".
Dylan Rogers
people hate eachother because of different sports teams and hair colors - people will hate each other for any reason imaginable. i still think niggers are subhumans who should go back to africa though
Thomas Cook
because obviously, some hatreds have more legitimacy than others.
Hunter Martin
>Division becomes more fine grained
You're actually objecting to evolution.
The process you are describing is no different from how wolves, hyenas, bears, seals, etc split from a common canine ancestor, after canines themselves split from some even more primitive common ancestor.
Cultures also evolve via natural selection, and they speciate in exactly the same manner as biological organisms.
Kevin Gutierrez
>What happens if we take neoindividualism to it's inevitable conclusion?
Firstly, why do we have to go to the extreme? Can one not choose to value individual characteristics over perceived group characteristics? I do not see how having thousands of strangers coming into your home has anything to do with this.
>People who don't want to be around whatever kinds randomniggers they don't want to be around have the right to dissociate from those people as much as you have the right to dissociate from those that don't meet your definition of "quality".
What I'm saying is that defining "quality" based on race is kind of a sloppy system that won't get you to the end result you think it will. Are you suggesting that you'd prefer to be surrounded by 75iq White British soccer hooligans than Nigerian PhDs because you share a common skin colour? Unless you define "quality" as being White, that is.
>You're actually objecting to evolution.
Not wanting to see brown people in your neighborhood is not an act of championing evolution. Biologically speaking, humans are one species:
>Species: the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
>Cultures also evolve via natural selection
I don't think this is true. Can you please expand on this?
Easton Cruz
Yes, I agree, human beings are social and can't stop forming groups, even ad-hoc (temporary) ones.
Although you are conflating the choice of association (something which we would unnecessarily limit if we were to define) with the choice of dissociation, the latter is a very important topic that should be researched.
Adrian Hall
100% redpilled
Joshua Price
if it's natural, why can't you accept it as part of human existence? Are you defective, or brainwashed in rejecting part of yourself?
What set of underlying ideas make you think it's wrong?
Eli Bailey
same USA. Remove blacks, spanish, chinese.
White race now = italiano, Spain, Dutch, Irish.
Xavier Lee
you may not like your cousins but they're still your family, you'll hate them less than you would an absolutely stranger.
it's really not that hard to understand. it's human nature.
it's precisely why groups most similar to you have an easier time and faster time completely assimilating.
in America and much of the West this process is absolutely hindered by the racial rewards program. giving certain groups automatic special rights and special advantages in hiring is going to create even more tension. all this does is breed animosity.
sorry but multiculturalism doesn't work
Cameron Miller
>Are you suggesting that you'd prefer to be surrounded by 75iq White British soccer hooligans than Nigerian PhDs because you share a common skin colour?
I, for example, come from a country where physicians and PhD candidates are selected based on submissiveness and adherence to fictional history invented in the last century. The overwhelming majority of ex-communist countries are like that. So I would indeed choose the 75iq White British football hooligans as they are predictable, passionate about something (football), and won't kill be on a suspicion of white devilness.
>Biologically speaking, humans are one species
Then why do you want to destroy that species instead of bettering it (or at least leaving it to find its own way)? Unfortunately there are many ways to better it, so many that people get lost in the confusion. In contrast, there are only a few ways to destroy it, so people interested in such a thing can focus much more easily (see globalism, immigration, breaking oaths, betrayal).
You can't really compare tight kinship (family) with lax kinship (race). If you try, you will get paradoxical results which will be used to destroy both by applying the conclusion that is convenient at the moment.
Charles Powell
there actually is a peaceful solution but one that will never be allow.
>treat everybody equally, make things merit based not race based.
>severely limit immigration from places that are culturally and ethnically dissimilar from your own country. any real immigration should be between countries that are similar ethnically and culturally.
>just allow natural assimilation to occur.
you do that and the problem is gone within 3-4 generations. you're already seeing it with hispanics and asians. around 1/3 of every hispanic and asian baby born has a white parent.
asian, hapa, finngolian, white
mestizo, castizo, white
indio, mestizo, castizo, white
negro, mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, hexadecaroon, white
but the heart of it is kinship, all human society has its root in kith and kin, ie family and those known. most people have a strong bias toward their own race or ethnic group. people subconsciously favor who look have similar features as they do. it's the reason why people self segregate in the communities they choose to live. however whites aren't allowed to do this, unless they're wealthy. it's not like you see their neighborhood ruined by affordable housing.
the entire process of assimilation is essentially absorbing a group into your family, not having the group overrun your family and dictating what they can do in their own house, this breed animosity or even hostility.
Jaxon Cox
>if it's natural, why can't you accept it as part of human existence?
We don't need to accept everything that comes bundled in with our biology. We actively reject things that "come naturally", like rape or murder. I believe that we as a species can be better and better.
>Are you defective, or brainwashed in rejecting part of yourself?
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't act with any logic or restraint, instead submitting to any and every primal urge? I don't want to live in a world like that.
>What set of underlying ideas make you think it's wrong?
It's a bad system for determining an individual's worth. If you hate all Asians (for example), you'll miss out on so many good people that you would have otherwise enjoyed the presence of in your life.
Exactly. To us, it's a given that Dutch and Irish people are white; to suggest otherwise is completely insane. However Americans of the past would have fought tooth and nail against this, which demonstrates how arbitrary racial differentiation really is. If you judge someone's value on their race, you're unknowingly depriving yourself of their company.
>both like X
>both dislike Y
>both agree on z, q, and q
>cool i'll be friends with this person
>ah damn, he's black. NEXT!
It's really illogical.
>I, for example, come from a country where physicians and PhD candidates are selected based on submissiveness and adherence to fictional history invented in the last century
This seems very paranoid and anti-intellectual. Can you define what you mean when you say they are selected based on their submissiveness to history???
>Then why do you want to destroy that species
I never said that I did. I don't think being friends with people that look different than you is contributing to the downfall of humanity. The opposite, actually. It's a bit of a meme, but I bet we'd be a lot less xenophobic about other humans if we encountered other sentient life.
Zachary Phillips
oops
Elijah Mitchell
>but the heart of it is kinship
Yes man, but there is a very wide desert between family kinship and race. You can't take/treat them together unless you want to drown in a sea of uncharted problems and unintended consequences. I would propose we focus on voluntary associations based on what we like and dislike, as family is a private matter and race something we should not do anything about (from my observations, obsession about race is mainly a characteristic of asians, middle easterners and africans)... if you like beauty, you like decent healthy white folk, it's as easy as that.
On your other points, I totally agree: if white people could be left to do what they want, they would be the most generous and graceful people ever (and the USA was founded on that principle too).
>This seems very paranoid and anti-intellectual. Can you define what you mean when you say they are selected based on their submissiveness to history???
Yes, they are paranoid and anti-intellectual. Why? I don't care. It would be a waste of time to try to analyze the arguments and motivations of hungry communists who take champagne baths every day (because they heard that that is stylish in Paris).
As for the second part of the question, those were two separate issues, although I guess they can be taken together.
Nicholas Fisher
Hi user. You have described scapegoating, the foundation of human culture. Look up Rene Girard and his theory of mimetic desire, and how it leads to scapegoating and religious behavior.
Kevin Lee
>mimetic desire
Nice euphemism for "mindless envy"
Carter James
>Firstly, why do we have to go to the extreme?
I saw it as being implied by the premise.
>Never ending
My interpretation was that your individualism was the limiting case out outgroup exclusion, where groups divide and divide until the only groups remaining contain a single person.
>a common skin colour?
This isn't what we mean by race.
Skin colour is a trait.
IQ is a trait.
High IQ people tend to partner with high IQ people.
Low IQ people tend to partner with low IQ people.
The effect of this over time is biological divergence.
Imagine a world where there are two races, one white with 100 IQ average and one black with 80 IQ average.
Now imagine a different world with two races, one light beige with 130 IQ average, and one dark beige with 50 IQ average.
Which world is more racially divided?
>Not wanting to see brown people in your neighborhood is not an act of championing evolution. Biologically speaking, humans are one species:
Human biodiversity and divergent evolution occurs even within traditional races.
High functioning autism is more heritable than hair and eye colour in whites, and autists tend to chose partners with similar traits.
Where yesterday there were whites, today were are in a transitory period where diagnoses are exploding, and tomorrow, once the autists have diverged completely, there will be two new subraces of whites.
The beige horizon isn't just wrong, it's maximally wrong.
Humanity /started/ as one race, just as apes share a common ancestor, just as mammals share a common ancestor.
Evolution is fundamentally divergent due to entropy and the combinatorics of binary trees.
This is why we have a tree of life as opposed to a funnel of life or a web of life.
The beige horizon prophecy implicitly assumes that time runs in reverse.
The conclusion of the beige horizon, were it to be realized, would be to send us back millions of years..
This is somewhat ironic given how its proponents tend to view themselves as champions of progress.
Anthony Scott
I've noticed that the lower the average IQ of any group is, the more collectivist they tend to be.
William Sanchez
>mimetic desire
>"Girard has pointed out that the problem is not that desires are mimetic, but that in clinging to the mirage of our own originality we become prone to blaming others rather than recognize our complicity in mimetic rivalries."
>"What began as a personal battle may escalate into a Hobbesian battle of all against all, threatening the cohesion and peace of an entire community. One way of solving this problem is to find someone to blame for the conflict that all the rival coalitions can unite against. This unfortunate person may or may not be guilty. All that’s required for the scapegoating solution to work is that his guilt is universally agreed upon and that when he is punished or expelled from the community, he will not be able to retaliate."
Oh God....
Ayden Allen
Ah yes op at last I truly see, how could I have been so blind we should just open our borders exclusively to south american, african, asian and middle eastern countries.
What a convincing point, so well formulated. You truly are one of the greatest geniuses of our time.
Henry Thomas
Life is about war and competition which the jews are winning.
Forcing their white competitors to live around and subsidize brown and chink trash while using them to run the economy
Whites are complete slaves to the out groups right now except I guess the white cucks in the military
Lincoln Ramirez
I see what you're saying, but why would it not be objectively better for Whites to then pair up with the highest IQ partners available? Is this the fabled Hapa master race that Yas Forums so frequently speaks of? What's more, would it not be better for us to then pluck out the highest IQ people from other races too (ie: Nigerian doctors)? What you're placing value on isn't race then, it's IQ. This is something I could even support.
But East Asian countries consistently score the highest on IQ measurements....
Leo Diaz
probably the best way to stop this kind of inward bias is to eat a bunch of shrooms. Made some of my more conservative friends say that borders are made up and we are all the same people. They returned to their original believes when their everyday lives caught up with them, but I think psychedelics really can help in that regard.
Christian Flores
>We don't need to accept everything that comes bundled in with our biology. We actively reject things that "come naturally", like rape or murder.
What is and isn't "natural" depends on space and time scales.
On the most base level, anything that exists is natural.
This is a lowest order view and only considers the immediate here and now.
Any arbitrary arrangement of atoms, subatomic particles, etc is "natural" irrespective of how chemically or physically unfeasible, as we are effectively assuming time is paused.
There is no distinction made between unstable arrangements that will immediately decay the instant time is unpaused, and stable arrangements that will continue to exist from now until the end of time.
They are both equally "natural" when we are only considering the here and now.
Once we look beyond existence in the here and now, and tighten our requirement to sustained existence over some interval of time, the majority of things that were natural at the lowest order are revealed to be unnatural at higher orders.
This is why random configurations of atoms typically don't form stable molecules.
This is why business strategies that don't make money typically don't remain in business.
This is why species that aren't adapted to their environment typically don't survive.
These emergent effects are as much a manifestation of nature as instantaneous existence, but more importantly, due to being de-localized in time, it is these higher order manifestations of nature that are the dominant forces shaping our future.
Jose White
The smallest minority on earth is the individual.
Easton Robinson
Yeah people are tribal. This will never change. Even if Sweden would be 100% Swedish it would still be devided. Class, politics, big city/small city etc. Growing up we even had a class divition in our neibourhood. One one side of the train station we had nice villas and on the other side where appartments. We all went to the same school and most didn't play accros class lines.
Henry Gonzalez
>hurr durr op says accept rapist gangs!
Poor reading and information extraction skills.
Read: and Mate what the hell does this even mean? How is this relevant?
Logan Sanders
>Gets caught stealing the pretzel from the child
>Doesn't want to admit he stole the pretzel from the child
>???
>Ends up holocausting 90% of humanity
Gommunism in a nutshell
Easton Cook
I was just implying that psychedelics can help against the natural impulse of division and gave some anecdotal evidence for it.
Hudson Kelly
Oh your image threw me off, I didn't think you were being serious. It seems that I too have poor reading and information extraction skills. I've heard that experiencing an ego death can fundamentally change people. Never tried it though.