Racial purity is a spook. Prove me wrong

Jow Forums is really spooked as shit, and when you tell them the truth they get angry because truth hurts.

I don't care about purity or some intangible ideology. I find actual niggers and gypsies 98% of the time revolting as actual people. I'm fine with getting rid of most of them.

Why is leftypol so obsessed with Stirner? Isn't he right-wing?

Humans have no say-so, in an area exclusively controlled by nature and biology. Racial purity happens innately when allowed

>leftypol
>right-wing

Attached: 1489966351312.jpg (771x1037, 110K)

You didn't explain anything

Stirner is the edgelord of philosophers
Even Marx and Engels ridiculed him because of his Anarchist ideas

Are you retarded?

He's neither. He's an egoist.

Everything is spooky therefore the discourse is around how spooked we can make ourselves be.

Merely saying racial purity is spook is a tautology; yet if you say it with a subtext of specifically acting in the accordance of the idea, or in this case acting opposite to the idea of "racial purity," you are filled with spooks yourself, buddy.

Check m8

Age of consent is a spook
Human rights is a spook
Ownership of the means of production is a spook
Dictatorship of the proletariat is a spook
Anarchism is a spook

Attached: 1515879106141.png (1136x896, 163K)

Attached: racemixingfallacies.png (1260x2168, 325K)

Nope. He's post-left. That's when you go so far left that it almost starts to loop back over to the farthest right. Trust me egoism was my last leftist viewpoint before bursting and immediately going full fash.

>no u are spooked

Attached: 1480012901670.gif (273x322, 1.14M)

Racial egalitarianism is a spook
Also this is just a brand of lazy nihilism kys

There's nothing wrong with spooks

>1488

Attached: 14199162792_ef45cbd1af_b.jpg (1024x683, 226K)

>1488
ahahahaha
but anyway
I would agree that "purity" is a poor word, yes.
"integrity" might be a better word. There needs to be a degree of racial integrity within a nation, because that is the DEFINITION of a nation.

>nation (n.)
>c. 1300, from Old French nacion "birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland" (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) "birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe," literally "that which has been born," from natus, past participle of nasci "be born" (Old Latin gnasci), from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

>Political sense has gradually predominated, but earliest English examples inclined toward the racial meaning "large group of people with common ancestry." Older sense preserved in application to North American Indian peoples (1640s). Nation-building first attested 1907 (implied in nation-builder).

Because it pleased his ego. Please read more Stirner before continuing on this thread.

>if racial purity is a spook that means racial egalitarianism can't be a spook
Damn dude you're spooked as shit.

Spooks are a spook.

It obviously means more than nothing.

Yes and your entire political philosophy in its entirety is a one single buzzword. I'd rather be spooked, things are indeed pretty spooky

That obviously depends on what you mean by racial purity. Race mixing is a negative thing. Is the opposite of that racial purity? If so, then you're wrong.

Absolutely zero sources, god, you guys are thoughtless drones

Everything is a spook. Your happiness? Hahaha, it's a random assortment electrochemical signals. Barely even matters to you, not at all to the universe at large.

Awe jeez it's getting pretty spooky in this place.

when you say spooks ... okay, which kinda spooks you talkin' bout Willis?

Attached: t davis.jpg (474x712, 130K)

This is the power of being spooked. Spooks are dangerous to feeble minds.

Ew. An egoist. Okay, I'll bite.

Study on the life expextancies of whites, blacks and mixed people in Brazil . The life expectancies at birth were as follows:

White Males: 71.1 years
Mixed Males: 71.08 years
Black Males: 70.11 years

White Females: 77.54 years
Mixed Females: 78.8 years
Black Females: 76.32 years

Okay, so on average mixed females live 1.26 years longer than white females. On average, in this study’s sample, mixed people lived 0.72 years longer. Of course the first problem is the indigenous admixture; what is the life expectancy of pure-blooded native Brazilians? If it’s longer, we would expect mixed people to live longer than white people without any “hybrid vigor” effects – just from the effects of native admixture.

The life expectancies of whites, blacks and mixed people in Brazil: pic related.

Attached: hWDwNML.png (726x868, 81K)

The concept of a spook is a spook.

The Ego is a spook

they ridiculed him because he essentially invalidated their entire project. Literally wrote more words trying to refute him than he wrote words total

Life expectancy at birth isn't a great metric for a lot of reasons. If you're looking for the differences in natural lifespan, look at life expectancy at 50 or 65. Life expectancy at birth factors in childhood death, differential rates of violence between various groups, etc. It's too messy a data set for this discussion.
If you only look at life expectancy of those who have survived the riskiest part of life (being young) then you get a better sense of any genetic differences that may be affecting lifespan.

>Literally wrote more words trying to refute him than he wrote words total
T. Retard

Isn't the point of this spook thing just that we form ideas about the world through narrative and not through direct perfect experience of reality? At that point what you call a spook is just something you don't like, and not a useful idea or distinction. In short, everything is a spook, but not the things I like: the argument.

Everything's a spook mister "everything proof shield" man, either pick some values to live by or fuck off and babble to yourself in the corner.

how are people so dumb?

the concept of spooks isn't that there is no truth or whatever bs you seem to be reading into it but rather that to pledge yourself to some cause such as racial solidarity is a spook because there is no such thing of race as such. Sure if you want to perpetuate white supremacy because it'd help you then go for it, but viewing white supremacy as a thing in itself as opposed to a hobby to please yourself or to advance your own interests is what a spook is

In his defense, you don't need to look at life expectancy at all, because who gives a fuck? Why don't you look at who created and maintains modern civilization, and who destroys it?

It's true though, he spent the whole time trolling Marx because his perfect utopian system of government falls apart when people act like individuals and pursue their own best interests.

Attached: stirner.jpg (613x771, 49K)

This. All of human consciousness arises out of narrative structures. It's why stories are so integral to us. We tell ourselves and each other stories about the smallest things in our lives. Everything is narrative.

See: Julian Jaynes

How about pledge yourself to white solidarity because niggers, spics and muzzies will kill your children and take your money? Is that a good enough cause?

How about IQ?

IQ is one of the best predictors of life outcomes, and is strongly associated with subjective perceptions of “intelligence” and the relation between IQ and perceived intelligence increases over time. Some people like to cry about IQ, and even though they’re wrong there is a large market of people who want to dismiss IQ.

Of the 10 admixture studies I found, 9 showed the racially mixed group intermediate between the two races they were a mix of. Even the Tizard study, which showed blacks outperforming whites, still had mulattoes scoring in between the two groups. 1 study from Elise Moore showed blacks outperforming mulattoes. One of the admixture studies was using NAEP data.

Of 5 analyses of Latin American admixture and standardized test scores for the country or district within a country, 3 of which I did, all five of them showed that the more European a population was, the higher they scored – with the most amerindian populations scoring the lowest, and the populations in between scoring, on average, in between.

I also found 4 skin color studies, and in all 4 of them people with intermediate skin color had intermediate IQ. (INB4 “I stopped reading when he mentioned skin color” as an excuse to dismiss data)

I also found from Audrey Shuey’s 1966 book “The Testing of Negro Intelligence” 6 studies that compared blacks of at least 3 levels of African admixture. Of those 6 studies, 4 showed intermediately African blacks scoring intermediate between the more African and less African, 1 showed the darker blacks scoring higher than the lighter blacks, and 1 had ambiguous results.

All of this points to an overwhelming case that mixed-race people score intermediate between the two races they are composed of on average; that there doesn’t appear to be any beneficial or detrimental effect of race-mixing on IQ beyond what you would expect from simple gene combination.

Topkek, but in fairness he had a nice objective example, of white, black and mixed groups in Brasil, he is just slicing the data in a way that doesnt shed much light.

wow dude really disproved me with those hot citations

it cites numerous studies...

Tautology.

Attached: 1501993589141.png (407x305, 38K)

On the contrary, I'm very sympathetic to your argument and I agree with just about everything you've just said. I just like to use Jow Forums to attack my own sort of ideas, because it makes me better at defending those ideas in turn, and finding out which ideas I hold might be wrong.
To continue my devils' advocate, if I was an anti-racist, I would say something like
>the more European a population was, the higher they scored
"Well that's just because the places with high European populations are more descended from the oppressive colonists who pillaged the natives. Their privilege and material and economic advantages have persisted from colonial to modern times, just like my oppressed pet negroes in USA. This just proves that more needs to be done to give reparations to native populations in South America"

But yes, that was a much better data set to present in this argument. You seem to enjoy splicing and analysing data, I'd be very interested to see if you can find data on life expectancy at 50-80 for intranational ethnic groups.

I honestly don't care about race at all because it's a spook, but yeah Stirner would say in theory you could choose to engage in white solidarity or whatever as a sort of way to advance your interests (which you'd see as your family and money presumably)

everything is a spook xD except playing video games and smoking phat blunts xD

I believe that the idea the races are fundamentally equal, in ability and intellect, isn't backed by science. Not that whites are superior to the other races, but that different races are more naturally attuned to different environments and activities, and that the right to voluntary association would be beneficial to the human race as a result.

It would take me too long to explain why race is in fact real, so I'll just link this article.
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/329/

>Needing sources for what is basics science knowledge for anyone who has attended uni.

The absolute state of mutts. Do you need a source for the Pythagorean theorem? KEK

Why don't you respond to this?
How come you only reply to the baitiest, laziest, most low-hanging-fruit of all posts?

>Stirner would say in theory you could choose to engage in white solidarity or whatever as a sort of way to advance your interests

But there are advantages to actually believing in your spooks, as opposed to viewing them cynically, especially at a group level. You can't decide to believe in something for cynical reasons and expect to accrue the same benefits that a true believer would. Imagine you were in a whole society of people who chose their beliefs for cynical reasons? You couldn't trust them at all.

>pick some values to live by

Attached: 1516557111813.png (500x446, 147K)

>race is a spook
Um...no. Thousands of people needed to exist for you to exist and your existence is to propagate more people. People aren't actually individuals. It's beneficial to act like individuals, but it's beneficial...for everyone, which is why it's considered a good thing. When someone who is not "your people" shows up, acting in self-interest is nearsighted.

>days without anti-sjw libertarian tricks
>0

you're not really addressing any of my points or stirner really so I'll ask you a question because I'm interested:

You say that "the right to voluntary association would be beneficial to the human race"
With that in mind, do you support open borders? Alternatively, I'm assuming you don't, what is required for association to be voluntary? At what level of unit are we talking? Can I enforce some weird personal space bubble and how large would that be? Is it instead at the municipal level, state level, national, etc? What percent of people have to vote for this association for it to be valid or how small a minority can reject it?

Would this have implications for who is currently legally in the USA or UK and who could stay?

I don't think we're capable of choosing to believe in anything. I think what we believe is the end-result of our thoughts and what we learn from the world, but we no more choose what we believe in than we choose to get ill. Sure, we can open ourselves to different beliefs by actively challenging the ones we hold, and trying to disprove ourselves, but this quickly turns into objective, scientificesque inquiry, not the kind of thing we mean by belief.
What we can choose is how to behave. We can choose whether or not to behave as our beliefs would dictate we ought to.

Thanks for confirming your desire to be smug and irrelevant.

it's a good thing that he was a radical individualist then and not a collectivist. You can try to impose your spooky authoritarianism on me because you find me untrustworthy but luckily my thoughts are still my own :)

Where's the bibliography?

you can't even argue my dude.
>your existence is to propagate more people
my existence is to have a good time in the way I think it is. You're not spooking me.
>considered a good thing
by whom? I can decide what's good on my own. What's good for me right now is voluntarily sharing my knowledge with you

First, with the establishment of a state and territorially defined state borders, “immigration” takes on an entirely new meaning. In a natural order, immigration is a person’s migration from one neighborhood-community into a different one (micro-migration). In contrast, under statist conditions immigration is immigration by “foreigners” from across state borders, and the decision whom to exclude or include, and under what conditions, rests not with a multitude of independent private property owners or neighborhoods of owners but with a single central (and centralizing) state-government as the ultimate sovereign of all domestic residents and their properties (macro-migration). If a domestic resident-owner invites a person and arranges for his access onto the resident-owner’s property but the government excludes this person from the state territory, it is a case of forced exclusion (a phenomenon that does not exist in a natural order). On the other hand, if the government admits a person while there is no domestic resident-owner who has invited this person onto his property, it is a case of forced integration (also nonexistent in a natural order, where all movement is invited).

Not that guy, but the national level seems to be the best trade-off, currently. Neither of the extremes (total open borders vs land-bonded serfdom) are optimal. This is my assertion, feel free to disagree. But following this, the optimal level of where to draw borders and enforce migratory laws is at the national level.
What is a nation then?

>nation (n.)
>c. 1300, from Old French nacion "birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland" (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) "birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe," literally "that which has been born," from natus, past participle of nasci "be born" (Old Latin gnasci), from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

>Political sense has gradually predominated, but earliest English examples inclined toward the racial meaning "large group of people with common ancestry." Older sense preserved in application to North American Indian peoples (1640s). Nation-building first attested 1907 (implied in nation-builder).

So what is fundamental to the concept of a nation? Racial integrity. Not necessarily "purity". A nation of people doesn't have to be "pure" in any sense of heritage from this population or that population, what matters is that they are all linked in some way that makes them a disparate group compared to their neighbours or the rest of humanity.

> 1488
> Racism is a spook
How many watch lists am I on? Seriously asking.

But to answer OP, scientific racism is de-facto unspooky...it's equalists who are spooked.

Attached: 1528840018728m.jpg (203x1024, 36K)

>break it down on basic ontological level why OP is full of shit
>trying simplify it into nou

What's there to say? Nations are spooks. IQ tests are also spooks. The other posts didn't really try to disagree with me.

I don't have to do anything to you. Living as a pure individual is punishment enough.

Why should I take up £a cause with the ancients? Why should I take up cause with "everyone". Unspook yourself property.

>The other posts didn't really try to disagree with me.
Did you even read this?
>the point of this spook thing just that we form ideas about the world through narrative and not through direct perfect experience of reality? At that point what you call a spook is just something you don't like, and not a useful idea or distinction. In short, everything is a spook, but not the things I like: the argument.

I mean I guess if you took a Wittgenstinian concept of naming for your nationality definition you could maybe theoretically make that semi-tenable albeit in an incredibly unrigorous way

But if we're assuming that, then what's to prevent a balkanization of most nations and even states? Why wouldn't California seced from the US. Why wouldn't Scotland, NI, Wales, Cornwall, Industrial NW, etc. classify as their own nations? If they did, then could they vote to allow as many immigrants in as they wanted? If they let those immigrants in couldn't you change what the "nation" is. When are these nations defined? I.E. how long do Jews have claims on Palestine. What about Germany on Alsace Lorraine?

Again, this is me humoring your definition and assuming it's workable

wasted digits on a 1 post by this ID

To be honest respect for the digits was the only reason I replied to this.

It seems like any empirical evidence that shows genetic variation in homo sapiens is a spook. Race is defined as a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities. Since the genetic variation exists, and is proven to be responsible for these qualities, how can race be a spook? Race is a word we coined to group these qualities based on region.

One popular argument used against the possibility of races in humans is that “humans are 99.9% the same”. This claim was first made by Craig Venter in 2000. However, in 2007, Venter did another analysis that showed that only around 99.5% of human chromosomal DNA is the same between two random individuals. Despite this, it is still a popular talking point among race deniers than “humans are 99.9% the same”.

Keep in mind that humans and chimpanzees, on this scale, are 98.7% the same and 98.4% the same as gorillas.

Michael Woodley 2009 – Is Homo Sapiens Polytypic compared the heterozygosity in humans to other species with wide ranges. Heterozygosity is simply the probably that, at any given gene location, two organisms of that species will have a different gene variant (allele) at that specific location. A gene is a series of SNPs, so even though the similarly is 99.5% SNP by SNP, at any given gene they can be different more often than not.

Of course this doesn’t measure the magnitude or consequence of that difference, merely whether there is in fact a difference, and so it is a rough measure.

you don't understand Stirner a lick if you think that's a coherent rebuttal in any sense.

Example of a spook, "Hey kid, don't you love your country? Well join the army to defend it"
A country doesn't exist in any physical sense but rather it is a shared idea across humanity. If you wanted to join the army because that sounds like fun to you, then Stirner would say go for it kid. But if you join because you've bought into some larger ideal overriding your own personal interest, then buddy, you've been spooked.

In other words /lit/ memed spook to such an extent nobody understands that anything that is not your self interest but rather an abstract concept that overrides it is a spook. Believe in nations believe in race believe in whatever you want, but believe in your self interest first and if it aligns with those concepts then it's not a spook

All my ego's own. Using the "spooks are a spook" argument does nothing but reinforce my own ego.

Attached: 1511686203558.png (1200x2802, 766K)

Yes, nations change over time, this is nothing new. If you read back, I haven't made an argument for nations being necessarily static, or that they ought to be. But when there is a nation, it ought to be sovereign to itself.
In regard to Scotland, NI, Wales, etc, these developed into sovereign nations from a collection of a patchwork of kingdoms, each of which would have contained many distinct subpopulations. But they gradually coalesced, and as people moved about, the entire population of the British Isles became a bit more like each other, even at the extremes, than like anyone else in the world. Some places will balkanise, sure, but others will coalesce. Remember balkanization happened because a huge, foreign imperial power of genetically and culturally different peoples had been forcing various ethnic, linguistic and cultural (ie racial subgroups) to co-exist. When the Ottoman Empire failed, they were destined to try and self-organise. Given time, they may coalesce.
The modern concept of a nation as an immutable, immortal concept which must be sustained as a static entity is actually the real spook here.

Organically arising dynamic equilibriums of genetic similarity/dissimilarity always have and always will be the way humans organise. But agree with 1PBTID OP that "purity" doesn't matter.

otoh Stirner was a brainlet dilettante.

>believe in your self interest first and if it aligns with those concepts then it's not a spook

But from there we encounter the problem of defining your interest, and we come to my second argument:

>But there are advantages to actually believing in your spooks, as opposed to viewing them cynically, especially at a group level. You can't decide to believe in something for cynical reasons and expect to accrue the same benefits that a true believer would. Imagine you were in a whole society of people who chose their beliefs for cynical reasons? You couldn't trust them at all.

In other words, actually believing your spooks, is potentially in your interest and that can't be faked.

You're having trouble with the concept that Stirner doesn't care about physical phenomenons.

Whether or not race "exists" is entirely irrelevant.

What's relevant is if you subsume your own self interest to advance the cause of race instead of your own selfish interests. If you're some weirdo that thinks proving black people are dumb or whatever then he'd say knock yourself out. But if you were doing this because you bought into some kooks who are seeking to advance that idea so they can rake in money from billionaire's seeking justification for cutting welfare and their own taxes, then I regret to inform you that you've been spooked.

kek has spoken

But "You" as an individual is just an abstract concept. You only exist because of your tribe, your society, the world that birthed you. You only survive because your tribe, your society also survives. You're entirely co-dependent with your society. The interests of your tribe, your society, ARE your interests.

What you are saying is
>Live in a society where others make sacrifice that benefit you, but if you ever sacrifice things for others, you've been spooked.
It's just being a selfish asshole, but being the worst kind: a selfish asshole who thinks he is morally justified in being a selfish asshole.

You don't exist in isolation, your "personal individual interests" are a spook. Pursuing your own happiness is the fastest way to unhappiness.

he's not trying to do some Socratic jiu-jiutsu on you wherein someone hurting himself is actually them seeking the good. Just figure whatever you think is your self interest and that's probably it.

He wouldn't say that you can't choose to "believe" in spooks for self interest. That's a fundamental misunderstanding. But
>Imagine you were in a whole society of people who chose their beliefs for cynical reasons? You couldn't trust them at all.
is where you have us thinking you're trying to sneak in some stealthy nationalism and racism or whatever your project is you dog.
>You can totally disavow your spooks, but maybe one or two should stay for your good
>I mean sure society benefits too but it's mostly for you. Have to trust me bro

someone hasn't read him.
"You" for him, is essentially what you have power over.
Cut my arm off? Well that is no longer me in a pretty real sense. My yard? Me in a pretty real sense too.

Lol no just because someone gave birth to me doesn't mean I owe them shit. Why do I owe my race anything? Or my nation? Stop trying to spook me collectivist

>It's just being a selfish asshole
(Partially) the point! Yes you should be selfish. Everything else is a spook. If you want to be an asshole that's up to you. I prefer to be mildly condescending to people that are arguing over thinkers they don't understand nor have they tried to read obviously

>You don't exist in isolation, your "personal individual interests" are a spook. Pursuing your own happiness is the fastest way to unhappiness.
Spoken like a true communist. You gonna try to socialize my property and hold all kids in common? Too bad I still have absolute power over my mind Stalin

>Just figure whatever you think is your self interest and that's probably it.

Let's reduce the world to four individuals, two of whom have a spook ("God") that binds them together in a fanatical way and two of whom act completely in their self interest. I could form an alliance with the other similarly minded radical individual against the spook-band, but our bond will never be as strong. I will be plagued with thoughts that he will turn on me. Thoughts that won't trouble them.

It would be -in our interest- if we had a spook that was -at least as strong- as theirs, wouldn't it? It would be in our interest if we believed in it as strongly as they did. This means that I might have to sacrifice my life for him, in accordance with our designated spook, something which isn't in my interest at all.

Where does the line between collective interest and self interest lay?

Philosophy in many instances is about edge cases
Descartes assumed that everything he thought he knew was a trick on him. Ultimately the only bedrock that he was left with was that a collection of thoughts occurring proved an existence of some self of some sort

But you're being absolutely obtuse trying to categorically apply a very personal philosophy to society writ large whether it's shrinking it down to 4 people or inflating the importance of national illusions that exist to a much lesser extent than you suppose

Stirner is in many ways the most personal of philosophers and as such attempting what you're attempting is absurd a priori. I'm sure if Stirner had a greater adherence such that nihilistic self interest affected significant amounts of society then exploring your scenarios could be worthwhile but until then carpe diem and avoid your spooks.

It's a fact that you only exist because of others and you only survive because of others. And no, I haven't read Stirner. I'm still working my way through Bertrand Russel's history of philosophy at the moment. But I can learn his ideas by having discussions like this with people like you who've read him, because if you understand what you read, then you're able to communicate those ideas to others. For what it's worth I feel like I've learned quite a lot from this thread. Your problem is that you are treating Stirner like an authority to be proven or disproven, rather than an opinion to be agreed or disagreed upon.

Taxation is theft, welfare is theft. That has nothing to do with race, simply the fact that force and coercion cannot be argumentatively justified. I don't advocate against welfare in the interests of billionaire bankers coddled by the government whom they purchase power from.

Welfare is not only funded through coercion, but also encourages dependency on the state through parasitism. Subsequently, by making people reliant on handouts, the state strengthen their stranglehold over the people.

I agree with somewhat agree with Max Stirner that self-interest as the foundation of morality. I disagree with Stirner regarding the existence of inalienable rights that do not require a monopoly on violence to enforce.