Can someone break down the mentality of Israel's left wing? I don't know where to start researching.
Can someone break down the mentality of Israel's left wing? I don't know where to start researching.
Other urls found in this thread:
Israel's left wing is just as self destructive as you'd think.
You only need to know four words:
Open borders for Israel
Thanks for the response but I do want to start. I understand America and Europe's left wings, even though I think they're retarded. I don't understand Israels. It makes no sense to me
Can someone explain why miscegenation is so bad it has to be criminalized and banned?
It seems strange because the "pure" races we're trying to preserve are themselves the result of genetic mixing. How do we know we've reached the optimal level of mixing and that no more is to be permitted?
Put another way, just for argument's sake: why shouldn't it be the other way, i.e., dating within your own race criminalized and banned? Not saying it should be, just asking for a logical explanation why.
>How do we know we've reached the optimal level of mixing and that no more is to be permitted?
>implying any mixing was optimal
israel is an ethnostate, ergo miscegnation = bad
Breaks down group identities.
I don't believe that headline
Well the weird thing is that I didn't post it. I was going to use this as the OP pic as it's more related to OP.
Don't know what happened
>implying any mixing was optimal
Clearly it was, since it resulted in the races we now strive to protect?
Otherwise we would still be pure nignog homo sapiens in Africa, neanderthals in Europe, etc. Or do you consider the loss of those to be a negative for the human race?
Of course, but the value of an ethnostate is what is under question here. Why is being an ethnostate better than a forced-mixing state?
Why is that bad?
More about this actually.
1. Is group identity itself something to be protected? Isn't the identity of an individual unique to that individual?
2. Does race-mixing even break down group identity? Race is not the only way to define a group. Suppose the royal family of England mixes with the royal family of Zimbabwe. Are they not part of the same group; that is, rulers of countries?
Or, if an Egyptian mathematician mixed with a Chinese physicist, are they not closer to the same group (IQ-wise, ambition-wise, interest-wise) than if they mixed with poor farmers of their own respective races?
Any historical mixing was dwarfed by what looms over us now. We didn't have the ability to transport millions of people across continents within the span of weeks in the past. Also, the object is not so much to find an "optimal" level of mixing as to ensure stability in a society. Mixing by definition destroyed the identities of past societies (even in the rare cases where mass killings, rape, and conquest weren't the cause), and the object of preventing further mixing is to protect what currently does exist.
> Is group identity itself something to be protected?
Yes. It can actually be maintained through time, whereas individual "identity", as it were, ends with death. It also maximizes individual well-being: psychologically, with our evolved sense of an 'in-group', and physically, since organizing along the common interest of the group multiplies the resources available to any single individual. This is much, much harder to do in an atomized society (think individual farmers litigating against Monsanto, except in this case, it's about the ability of an individual to be secure in their place in society)--and mind you, race is already a diluted concept that is more suited to the new world, where ethnicity in many cases has already been lost.
Aside from the myriad practical arguments for homogeneity, there is also the most basic precept that human groups have intrinsic value, just as we apply to the concept of "family", or to animal species threatened with extinction.
>Race is not the only way to define a group.
It's a far better one than your example--a "royal ethnostate", for one, is nonsensical (put mildly), since it would not be an integrated society. It's like proposing a corporation composed entirely of CEO's. For similar reasons, basing societies off of IQ is silly: everyone is busy trying to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity while they draw lots to see which bastards have the chalk supply duty.
Also how is their left wing different from any other? They are against injustice, discrimination and other imperialist shit.
Diversity makes an organism/sociaty more adaptable. It's one of the most basic natural rules.
Imperialism is great, Israel is a modern secular and productive nation while the surrounding countries are backwards and filled with dangerous religious extremists.If Israel were to annex the entire region, it would be for the best.
Nothing secular about discrimination against non Jews.
Begging for donations around the the world and playing politics against boycott movements doesn't sound too productive. And sure the economy doesn't do too badly but it's just given with the amounts of support they get. Pretty similar to South Korea and they thrive without shitting on their neighbours nor beg for donations.
>surrounding countries are backwards and filled with dangerous religious extremists.
As backwards as introducing laws that would make apartheid SA blush? Religious extremists are a minority anywhere.
>If Israel were to annex the entire region, it would be for the best.
Well, it'd stop Israel from murdering the people there without repercussions, maybe.
That just conveniently means "anything the leftists don't like". They're perfectly fine with putting a figurative (or literal) gun to people's heads if it suits their purpose.
>Diversity makes an organism/sociaty more adaptable. It's one of the most basic natural rules.
One of the main leftist "arguments" is that there is more genetic 'diversity' within races than across them. This is obvious on the face of it unless you're trying to be disingenuous; hence why isolated populations past a certain size (well under a million) do perfectly fine. Ethnically homogeneous societies, moreover, are advantageous on the most basic natural level. Pic related is the simplest you can get, and it's really quite intuitive--where resources are limited and trust is not a given, having an in-group allows for increased control and security in your situation.
To elaborate on the pic--it is a simulation using cellular automata (link is jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk
E - Ethnocentric (cell cooperates only with cells of same type)
H - Humanitarian (cell cooperates with all other cells, regardless of type)
S - Selfish (cell cooperates with nothing)
T - Traitorous (cell cooperates only with cells of other types)
>It can actually be maintained through time, whereas individual "identity", as it were, ends with death.
This could be construed to imply that individual identity is more important, not less. For example, radical environmentalists would argue that the Earth itself should be prioritized over the societies that it contains.
>It also maximizes individual well-being: psychologically, with our evolved sense of an 'in-group', and physically, since organizing along the common interest of the group multiplies the resources available to any single individual.
Do people not have other in-groups they belong to? They still have their families, their friends, their communities, their schools, their field of work, etc. What's special about race?
>there is also the most basic precept that human groups have intrinsic value, just as we apply to the concept of "family"
Both our examples (the royal family and the scientists) continue to exist as in-groups even though they become racially mixed, don't they?
>animal species threatened with extinction.
You seem to hold rather leftist viewpoints; an uncountable number of species have gone extinct in the past, so why should we be concerned with preserving this particular bunch?
Referring to the picture posted above, do the Japanese people have less intrinsic value than either the Yayoi or the Jomon? Do you consider it unfortunate that they mixed to create the people we know today?
>It's a far better one than your example--a "royal ethnostate", for one, is nonsensical (put mildly), since it would not be an integrated society.
It seems part of your definition of a "in-group" is "those you could form a viable ethnostate with." Why is that a necessary part of your definition?
As you yourself stated, integration of different groups is vital to society, even within a racial ethnostate.
So, you still have yet to explain why those different in-groups need to be racially homogeneous.
>having an in-group allows for increased control and security in your situation.
Sure, but why not have this in-group built on something relevant like values and muh culture.
>Ethnocentrism is the tendency to favor one's own group at the expense of other groups
The definition works for any cooperation inside society without going into muh ethnicity. Richfags tend to help other richfags for example.
>This could be construed to imply that individual identity is more important, not less. For example, radical environmentalists would argue that the Earth itself should be prioritized over the societies that it contains.
This came off confusing, so I want to clarify. The example of radical environmentalists is meant to illustrate the flaw in the view that worth is always correlated with longevity.
>So, you still have yet to explain why those different in-groups need to be racially homogeneous.
Because most Palestinians and other muslims are far, far more racist and religiously extremist than Israeli's, looking at the situation in Europe, I don't think many Palestinians would decide to assimilate into wider Israeli culture which is a western culture and many Israeli jews which are also orthodox and religious would not be accepting of them.
As long as there is a majority of orthodox jews and devout muslims in the region the 2 cultures are better of being separated.
Lets say that 50 years from now Israel becomes 80% Atheist/secular, and the Palestinians are no longer practicing muslims in this scenario there would be no issues between them anymore. But it will never happen so I maintain that I believe Israel should annex the surrounding regions solving the conflict.
>This could be construed to imply that individual identity is more important
>What's special about race?
Its scale. Individual, family, ethnicity, and race in order of magnitude are all inherent in-groups, which cannot be reliably 'faked'. Your "in-groups" are by definition transient, and are therefore toothless against things like infiltration. That doesn't mean they shouldn't exist, of course, but they are an entirely separate existence with their own set of priorities. Wihtout getting to philosophical, genetic in-groups are the most viable means of organization, since they ARE a state of being, rather than incidental to a facet of it (for example, a school simply concerns one area of your life, a career another).
>Both our examples (the royal family and the scientists) continue to exist as in-groups even though they become racially mixed
See above. You're using a much broader definition of 'in-group'--you can artificially create any number of groups with whatever arbitrary criteria you want, but that's irrelevant to structuring a society.
>You seem to hold rather leftist viewpoints
There's nothing 'leftist' about wanting to conserve animal species or the environment in general--it was the classical liberals, for example, who were on board with industrialization in the West centuries ago. Similarly, there's nothing 'rightist' about valuing group identity; the nationalist and 'liberal' revolutions in 19th century Europe being the main example.
For my part, I did start out as 'leftist' in the sense that I didn't pay much attention to the culture wars, although my primary concern was and remains the environment. It was only a matter of applying my thinking to human groups and breaking the associated taboo that led to my "conversion", if you will.
>so why should we be concerned with preserving this particular bunch?
Because we can now and they offer a fuckload of opportunities for studies. Consider how many designs are inspired by nature despite us only knowing a tiny bit about a tiny bit of available species. Being indifferent to shit dying out is very shortsighted.
>I don't think many Palestinians would decide to assimilate into wider Israeli culture
Due it being imposed on them by a regime that caused suffering for generations. It's like expecting natives to assimilate into wider Burger culture.
>Israel should annex the surrounding regions solving the conflict.
Would only work if Israel treated the population of annexed regions as normal citizens and not separate based on religion; and orthodox Jews are paranoid of getting outnumbered, so yeah.
Leftism is a mental disorder.
Don't try to understand the mentally disturbed, that way lies insanity.
>do the Japanese people have less intrinsic value than either the Yayoi or the Jomon?
Yes and no. I think I know where you're going with this--that if any group, regardless of admixture, has intrinsic worth, why would any worth be lost if a new 'group' is formed? I would say that the intrinsic value is the same *if and only if* you consider the groups in the abstract, but the loss of one is reprehensible as it is by definition lost with admixture. That is to say, the chaotic destruction is what I want to stave off--be it animal species or human ethnicities.
>It seems part of your definition of a "in-group" is "those you could form a viable ethnostate with." Why is that a necessary part of your definition?
The reasoning is backwards--the in-group tendencies in all of us are the foundations for an ethnostate. That's just the context in which I am using 'in-group', of course.
>As you yourself stated, integration of different groups is vital to society
Yes, and the only way you simultaneously maintain the existence of human ethnic groups, as well as well-functioning societies, is by endorsing homogeneity.
>you still have yet to explain why those different in-groups need to be racially homogeneous.
I already did--they are not acquired but inherent to individuals, and as such are durable in themselves. Looking at day-to-day politics, and the interests involved, is a good example of what I mean--people can and do organize around anything you can name, but these "groups" are only instruments towards an end--they are easily susceptible to collapse, infighting, infiltration, misdirection, and myriad other issues.
>but why not have this in-group built on something relevant like values and muh culture.
Both of these are derived and transient--that is, they're baseless as an in-group, as I said in my previous post. You can and do have societies shift rulers, religions, social structures, and so on, but they can be reversed. A human group, once lost, can never be recovered. While culture and values are undoubtedly important, they are issues that are continually addressed, and which can be corrected if they deviate or decline. It doesn't make sense to focus your efforts on protecting ephemeral "culture" when the group itself is threatened as well. The two aspects, the "hardware" of group and "software" of culture, are not at odds.
>The definition works for any cooperation inside society without going into muh ethnicity.
See above. This is incidental, and will generate unnecessary friction, especially if it is not countered by 'pull' factors like similarity of blood. With very few exceptions, a king had much greater legitimacy if he shared the blood and culture of the population--obviously the perception differed as the distance between groups increased. So it is with class separation in society--as you point out, these will often act as temporary groups of their own, and precisely because these aren't based on blood, it is going to amplify the resulting discontent without something like common identity to take the edge off.
I'd agree with the deep ecologist viewpoint--but that's not in the sense of worth. This is a simple question of logic; longevity isn't at issue, but reversibility is. You cannot recover something whose essence was destroyed, and as such it only makes sense to prioritize protecting the irreplaceable when you yourself have limited time and resources with which to influence the world around you.
Lastly, I'd like to thank you for keeping this civil and rational. I hope I did the same.
>Lastly, I'd like to thank you for keeping this civil and rational. I hope I did the same.
You did, thanks, and you made some good points I haven't seen before. Seems I have some new things to think about. I'll try to respond properly after I've had some time to digest it.
>Of course, but the value of an ethnostate is what is under question here. Why is being an ethnostate better than a forced-mixing state?
In Israel's case, it's a religious thing. From a cultural standpoint, Israel believes that maintaining a well-defined ancestry which people can claim as their own is important to social belonging. Rootless cosmopolitans are less likely to want to settle down or spend their life contributing to a specific country or society.
Jow Forums believes Israel is encouraging miscegenation among other countries in order to eventually create a culturally weakened global race of manservants.
Your race is your extended family. Like everyone in your race is never further than an 8th cousin. Each race has their advantages because we evolved independently for 40k-100k years depending on the race.
The idea is that you cannot survive alone in the world. Put a man naked in the wilderness, he'll life his life then die. The end. But give him a woman and he starts a family.
By that, you have a duty to serve your family. You also have a duty to serve your race. It's because you're not alone. This duty is so important that it has evolved into us. The idea of dying for a tribe, or like a soldier "dying for his nation". A man serving his family. The guilt we see when we see starving children.
At the same time, it's a cold universe and a big bad world out there. There are many things in the universe trying to kill us, eat us, or oppress us. We only have a limited amount of power to resist these forces and it's imperative that we choose how to use our willpower, strength, and consciousness to make the best outcome for humanity.
>Would you steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?
The answer is yes, because your family comes first.
Basically, resources are limited, plus survival of the fittest.
If survival was helped by mixing with a race, then we do. Now back to your question. Race mixing only become acceptable when it helps and not harms survival. It has historically, which is why we are such a massive genetic overlay. However in any given point in history, there is genetic diversity that is the playground for natural selection. Races are the current genetic playground. Something will replace it surely in the future, and it was different in the past.
The other part is what makes us special... each race has special traits that are lost in miscegenation. This can be solved eventually by advances in genetic engineering. But for now, it's incredibly destructive and always produces humans that are lower than the parents.
Do you have any recommended readings on these topics?
I'm flattered you ask, but on the question of values, no, I can't say I do. It's basically impossible to make any ground at all when you value fundamentally different things from someone else, but on a logical level you can at least recognize that the person facing you isn't "evil" or "unenlightened".
The two most important topics for you to explore, in my opinion, would be conservationism (deep ecology is particularly interesting if you can filter away the edginess) and the mechanics of public opinion. That's just my opinion, of course, and you can take a huge number of angles to tackle something as complex as the functioning of a whole society. I just feel these two address what *could* be valued as well as what has an interest in making sure it isn't.
I can't think of any specific titles for this, and any recommendations would also depend on what your primary interest is. If you're looking for ammunition to use in arguments, for example, you would skew heavily towards research on the one hand and how your opponents see things on the other. Whereas if you're just interested on a philosophical level, then you would be more concerned with the arguments of the idea's most charismatic or eloquent proponents.
tl;dr it depends, but I'm just an autistic user
Reminder that the only group of peoples who should be encouraged and or forced to outbreed are Ashkenazi Jews and certain muslim populations because they are tremendously inbred.
Thanks user. These things interest me I hope to have a decent level of understanding soon.
low level jew here, AMA
Are you of Ashkenazi ancestry? What industries is your family in?
i never bothered checking my ancestry. in my opinion changing your view depending on what side you started on, the part where you have no control over, is fucking stupid.
my mom is a cashier, sis a student, bro a filthy NEET leech, my dad manages phone records, but he's in the US
What does she study? What do you do? Do you visit your synagogue regularly?
getting a bit personal there
my sis wanted to be a psychologist, but gave up on that and learned to code
i'm also a student, i have no idea what i want to do for a job
everyone, including me, is an athiest. the exception being my sis, though she started caring less recently
They have no problem pushing nigger porn into the U.S and most of the west but they have a problem with arab-jewish porn being in their shithole of a country.
Hand rubbing intensifies
What do you study?
Shame on losing your faith, maybe your family could have gotten better career connections if you were active members of your jewish community. Do you have any traditional/communally active Jewish friends (presumably practicing)? What do they do?
>maybe your family could have gotten better career connections if you were active members of your jewish community