jump to navigation

An Alt-Right Take: Transhumanism as Jewish Conspiracy September 24, 2016

Posted by Summerspeaker in Transhumanism.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

screenshot-38

I guess it’s fitting folks in the alt-right recognize transhumanism as their enemy.

H+ Anarchism vs. White Nationalism Debate (TL;DR Warning) September 20, 2016

Posted by Summerspeaker in Anarchism, Transhumanism.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

h-wn-debate

Hi folks! I’ve decided to reproduce a debate I’m having with a white nationalist in a YouTube comment thread. I’ve spent a bit of time trying to convert white nationalists lately. Being queer/trans perhaps means most white nationalists react with visceral revulsion and ignore my arguments, but on the plus side I have a similar cultural background as a structurally white geek.

The debate defies summarization. Notably, the white nationalist who responds to me in depth claims to have previously been a libertarian socialist. I find this drift from anarchism and related radical scenes to white nationalism thoroughly disturbing. We’ve got to do better.

What follows is the comment thread with only minor formatting edits. It contains all sorts of oppressive language.

Summerspeaker 4 days ago
LOL. White people are better appears to be the only logic at play here. Anything bad that happens in white-majority country gets blamed on Jews, who are somehow evil despite doing well on IQ tests. All of this flies in the face of how genetic difference actually works. As far as bribes go, I suspect part of the difference is that they’re more institutionalized in many Western country. Here in the United States I don’t have to bribe low-level officials, but I have to pay all sorts of bullshit fees. As far personal corruption and manipulation go, I’ve seen white people do it all.

ginny thwaite 3 days ago
you do well in IQ tests??? “Jews are somehow evil”??!!! Blood Libel?? Jewish “supremacy”, the holocaust (quite evil , accusing a whole nation of murdering 6 mil, then taxing anyone else in Europe “who didn’t do enough to stop the “nazis”, Bolshevik Communism, Synagogue of Satan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lybia geopolitical threats to greater Israel, all taken down by the Shabbas Goy American Military Industrial Complex, 9/11, 7/7… No, you guys are just high IQ, harmless.

4orce Majeure 3 days ago
Thats because your mother has corrupted the community. She has poisoned the well of decency. Try going to the neighbouring community, you will find no such activity.

Goy 3 days ago
What the fuck does IQ testing have to do with virtue (good or evil)?

Summerspeaker 3 days ago (edited)
I’m amused that white nationalist go on and on about the importance of high IQ but at the same time make Ashkenazi Jews into high-IQ monsters threatening the white race (whatever that is).

Look, there’s lots of evidence that Holocaust happened and of violence against the Jewish community in Europe long before that. Let’s not get into Holocaust denial.

Spoiler: People of all backgrounds engage in corruption and try to get ahead by any means necessary. Sure, some oppressive rich folks are Jewish. Sure, the state of Israel, like other states, commits horrors and pursues its own interests with little regard for who that hurts.

TheLastStraw 3 days ago
“Anything bad that happens in white-majority country gets blamed on Jews”

No, it’s pointing out when Jews, when they sit in positions of influence, speak as whites and go on about such things as white privilege or how whites should die off. For examples see Tim Wise, Noel Ignatiev, Susan Sontag, George Lipsitz, Rachel Maddow, Sally Kohn, Barbara Specter, etc.

“All of this flies in the face of how genetic difference actually works.”

Really? Do tell.

“As far as bribes go, I suspect part of the difference is that they’re more institutionalized in many Western country.”

Great Assumption! I lived in China for a year. Have you ever heard of the Iron Rice Bowl culture?

“Here in the United States I don’t have to bribe low-level officials, but I have to pay all sorts of bullshit fees.”

Indeed. But at least you know what those fees are in advance. And if you hate them so much, then start voting for less big government.

“As far personal corruption and manipulation go, I’ve seen white people do it all.”

Sure, I’ve seen white people do bad things too. But anecdotes are really useless here.

“I’m amused that white nationalist go on and on about the importance of high IQ but at the same time make Ashkenazi Jews into high-IQ monsters threatening the white race (whatever that is).”

No. What we go on about is recognizing differences in IQ as it relates to race.

“Look, there’s lots of evidence that Holocaust happened and of violence against the Jewish community in Europe long before that. Let’s not get into Holocaust denial.”

Then why did you bring it up? Also, have you ever heard of the Holodomor? Or how about how communism was the most bloodthristy ideology of the 20th century? Why was the leadership of the Bolshevik Revolution made up almost entirely of Jews?

“Spoiler: People of all backgrounds engage in corruption and try to get ahead by any means necessary. Sure, some oppressive rich folks are Jewish. Sure, the state of Israel, like other states, commits horrors and pursues its own interests with little regard for who that hurts.”

And many people are tribal. When you travel to the third world that culture of tribalism and collectivism is quite high. Only whites and Western culture is plagued with the hammer of individuality to the point where asserting any form of ingroup preference is looked down upon. But, I guess you know all about then since you’re a transhumanist anarch. From reading your bio, Cultural Marxism has done quite a number on you. I used to be a libertarian socialist. Now, I’m glad to be free of that drek.

4orce Majeure 3 days ago
+TheLastStraw Also on your whore marxist mother for being such a leftist cunt.

TheLastStraw 3 days ago
+4orce Majeure
I’m not a leftist – not anymore.

4orce Majeure 3 days ago
+TheLastStraw now the deeper philosophical question is, does your mother receive payment for sexual encounters from leftists. If the answer is yes then by proxy you’re a leftist. If no you’re still a leftist because I’m a massive TROLL.

TheLastStraw 3 days ago
+4orce Majeure
ok ttyl then

Summerspeaker2 days ago
“No, it’s pointing out when Jews, when they sit in positions of influence, speak as whites and go on about such things as white privilege or how whites should die off. For examples see Tim Wise, Noel Ignatiev, Susan Sontag, George Lipsitz, Rachel Maddow, Sally Kohn, Barbara Specter, etc.”

Frank Raymond blamed Jews for high-level corruption (bank bailouts, etc.) in the United States. That’s what I was responding to. I’m familiar with Wise, Ignatiev, and Lipsitz. They make lots of great points. Abolishing whiteness doesn’t involve any harm to those of us currently classified as white.

“Really? Do tell.”

Genetic variation is a thing. “Race” is a marvelously muddy way to think and talk about it.

“Indeed. But at least you know what those fees are in advance.”

I practice I often don’t, though in some cases I could look that up.

“And if you hate them so much, then start voting for less big government.”

I’m an anarchist and I don’t have any faith in voting. I don’t believe in representative democracy (or any democracy, really). I’m for freedom.

“Sure, I’ve seen white people do bad things too. But anecdotes are really useless here.”

Did you not watch (well, listen to) the video? Raymond gave almost nothing but anecdotes.

“Then why did you bring it up?”

The first person to reply to comment brought it up.

“Also, have you ever heard of the Holodomor? Or how about how communism was the most bloodthristy ideology of the 20th century?”

Yeah, as mentioned above, I’m an anarchist. I know about the horrors of state communism.

“Only whites and Western culture is plagued with the hammer of individuality to the point where asserting any form of ingroup preference is looked down upon.”

This is an exaggeration. Folks socially identified as white assert various forms of in-group preference with little or no sanction. For example, who complains about German or Irish cultural organizations? These are common and completely accepted from what I’ve seen. I’ve yet to get called a racist for having an interest in historical European martial arts and military history. Etc.

The issue with white identity is that it’s based on entirely or primarily on European colonialism and a legally privileged status in U.S. and other colonial law. It’s not based on shared language or much in the way of shared culture, except the shared culture of having structural power over those deemed not white. That’s a messed up thing to base collective struggle on and why folks understandably have a problem with white nationalism and so on.

(Of course, as an anarchist, I’m suspicious of all nationalism and in-group preference.)

“But, I guess you know all about then since you’re a transhumanist anarch. From reading your bio, Cultural Marxism has done quite a number on you. I used to be a libertarian socialist. Now, I’m glad to be free of that drek.”

Feel free to come back. The coming decades of technological innovation will make white nationalism look even more and more out of touch. Folks will alter their biology in all sorts of ways (tails, fur, better/faster/stronger, you name it).

TheLastStraw 2 days ago
“Frank Raymond blamed Jews for high-level corruption (bank bailouts, etc.) in the United States. That’s what I was responding to. I’m familiar with Wise, Ignatiev, and Lipsitz. They make lots of great points. Abolishing whiteness doesn’t involve any harm to those of us currently classified as white.”

Well, he is correct. Jews are highly overrepresented in the banking industry – just like media. One of the primary banks involved in the 2008 financial crisis was (((Lehman))) Brothers.

Abolishing whiteness doesn’t involve harm? Then why isn’t Blackness being abolished? Why isn’t Latino Identity being abolished? Why isn’t Jewness being abolished? Why is that only whites are the target of this overt academic led campaign of racism? You, like many other doublethink leftists, seem quite ok with White Genocide.

“Genetic variation is a thing. “Race” is a marvelously muddy way to think and talk about it.”

I understand that genetic variation happens but that doesn’t mean race is not an important factor. I always loved how in my cultural anthropology classes we would be told that race is social construct. But then when I went to physical anthropology classes, they would talk about how genetic traits were common to certain races and genetic groups. The only thing that seems to muddying the issue is you with your snot nosed generalizing academic drivel.

“I’m an anarchist and I don’t have any faith in voting. I don’t believe in representative democracy (or any democracy, really). I’m for freedom.”

You’re also for oxymorons. But don’t let that stop you. I’m almost afraid to ask but what form of socio-economic and political system would you prefer?

“Did you not watch (well, listen to) the video? Raymond gave almost nothing but anecdotes.”

Fair enough. However, I can see why he approached it in that light in order to get more whites to begin talking about it.

“Yeah, as mentioned above, I’m an anarchist. I know about the horrors of state communism.”

And after banging my head on libertarian socialism for 10 years, I finally admitted to myself that state communism is where it will always eventually lead.

“This is an exaggeration. Folks socially identified as white assert various forms of in-group preference with little or no sanction. For example, who complains about German or Irish cultural organizations? These are common and completely accepted from what I’ve seen. I’ve yet to get called a racist for having an interest in historical European martial arts and military history. Etc.”

But those aren’t strictly pro racial groups. For the last 50 years when whites join or participate in groups like the KKK, they have been shamed. What we don’t see is the majority of blacks condemning their own for such displays of racism when it favors their own ingroup – just like LaRaza with the Latinos.

“The issue with white identity is that it’s based on entirely or primarily on European colonialism”

I disagree as the video has pointed out. The only reason why this myth is trotted out is because Jewish led academia has been beating it over our heads since the 50s and 60s.

“…and a legally privileged status in U.S. and other colonial law.”

It doesn’t currently work this way here in most white nations – with the exception of Russia and some eastern European countries. However, that is how it should work. If you go to any other country outside the west, each ethnic majority will control the laws and give themselves preferential treatment. This is it how it should be.

“It’s not based on shared language or much in the way of shared culture”

Somewhat true but not entirely correct. Usually amongst differing white ethnicities there are overlaps of shared values and compatible ways of living. Just like when you go to Asia, you will find that Chinese and Koreans have different languages and different cultures but there are commonalities (strong sense of family honor, respect for elders, social mechanisms of conformity, etc.) which make them more compatible.

“That’s a messed up thing to base collective struggle on and why folks understandably have a
problem with white nationalism and so on.”

There is nothing messed up with it. I would expect the domination of black identity if I lived in Kenya or Ethiopia. And when minorities come immigrate to western white countries they should expect it too.

“(Of course, as an anarchist, I’m suspicious of all nationalism and in-group preference.)”

Of course you are. I used to think that way as well. I still do to some degree. However, I’ve also noticed how when some collective tribal groups are using the abolition of whiteness to further the ends of their own tribal identities without condemning or chastising their own for such behavior. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If globalist Leftards like yourself want to abolish whiteness, then they better start abolishing the other racial identities as well.

“Feel free to come back.”

Sure thing.

“The coming decades of technological innovation will make white nationalism look even more and more out of touch. Folks will alter their biology in all sorts of ways (tails, fur, better/faster/stronger, you name it).”

Your gross transhumanist utopian fantasies will only lead to nihilism and the destruction of all civilizations.

Summerspeaker 2 days ago
“Well, he is correct. Jews are highly overrepresented in the banking industry – just like media. One of the primary banks involved in the 2008 financial crisis was (((Lehman))) Brothers.”

Overrepresentation doesn’t mean you can blame it all on supposed Jewish racial difference or some Jewish conspiracy. You still have lots of non-Jewish Euro-Americans involved, folks with ancestry from Northern and Central Europe.

“Abolishing whiteness doesn’t involve harm? Then why isn’t Blackness being abolished? Why isn’t Latino Identity being abolished? Why isn’t Jewness being abolished?”

As wrote above, because of the meaning of whiteness. It’s only through the process of colonialism that European peoples came to this imagined community of being white. (Christendom was a European imagined community before that.) Whiteness primarily means domination be those classified as white. Blackness has the opposition connotation in this historical context. It’s about standing up to and fighting back against domination. (Blackness can still of course fall into the various traps of collective identity and nationalism.)

“Why is that only whites are the target of this overt academic led campaign of racism? You, like many other doublethink leftists, seem quite ok with White Genocide.”

Whiteness doesn’t mean much of anything beyond the privileged status coming out of European colonialism. Destroying whiteness as a social category doesn’t change any individual’s ancestry. (Mine apparently goes back to Wales, England, Scotland, the Palatinate, France, and maybe Spain.) What do you like so much about white identity? I don’t get it. Individualism, science, skepticism, and so on are the best parts of the broad European intellectual tradition.

“I understand that genetic variation happens but that doesn’t mean race is not an important factor.”

Race, if it maps to biology at all, is nothing but an collection of genetic differences in an isolated population. If you want to talk isolated populations and shared genetics, it gets a lot more specific than the iconic major races. Identifying somebody as black or white, for example, tells you jack shit about their genes.

“I’m almost afraid to ask but what form of socio-economic and political system would you prefer?”

I prefer prefer communist anarchism for the short term: individuals act for the common good based on the principle that giving everyone access to nice things best facilitates liberty and genuinely consensual interpersonal relationships. As technological innovation accelerates, the idea of the individual will become less and less coherent as we’ll have linked mind, hiveminds, and so on. Still, as far as I can, maximizing agency and pleasure while minimizing suffering will be the goal.

“And after banging my head on libertarian socialism for 10 years, I finally admitted to myself that state communism is where it will always eventually lead.”

I doubt that. Individuals can choose to share. If anarchism needs some markets, that’s okay too. In any case, as inefficient as it is today, the industrial economy makes so much stuff that the dream of having everyone live decently isn’t far off.

“But those aren’t strictly pro racial groups.
For the last 50 years when whites join or participate in groups like the KKK, they have been shamed. What we don’t see is the majority of blacks condemning their own for such displays of racism when it favors their own ingroup – just like LaRaza with the Latinos.”

Again, that’s because it’s a different history. Also note that, in terms of ancestry, whiteness functions fundamentally differently from other racial identities, at least in the United States. Most people socially recognized as black in the United States have at least some European ancestry. Latin@s have ancestry from various continents. It’s only in the case of whiteness that ancestry from what’s considered another group functions to exclude.

Thus, in a lot of ways, black and Raza/Latin@/Chican@ groups function more like German or Irish ancestry/cultural organizations. They’re not defined by absence of the other in the way that white identity is.

Thinking about ancestry additionally highlights the absurdity of white-nationalist fears about miscegenation. Ancestry is ancestry. If people with ancestral ties to Europe keep breeding, there will perpetually be people with ancestral ties to Europe. Ancestry never goes away.

“I disagree as the video has pointed out.”

Europeans have been fiercely divided for all of recorded European history until the aftermath of WWII. As with any other imagined community, whiteness or pan-European identity requires an other, an outgroup. That happened to some extent through the idea of Christendom and of crusades, but that shared identity wasn’t based so much on ancestry or appearance. The racial thinking that white nationalists today use developed during the nineteenth century and even into the twentieth century. In the United States, it took a while for Southern and Eastern European immigrants to be folded definitively into the category of whiteness. Anglo-Saxon supremacy was huge circa 1900. Anglo elites in the United States frequently dismissed working-class Southern and Eastern European as degenerates, as unfit for inclusion in the country.

That’s an example of how race is socially constructed. I mean, why do Greeks count as white but not Turks? Or do Turks? What about Syrians? Iranians? Etc. The lines shift for political and social reasons.

“It doesn’t currently work this way here in most white nations”

In the United States it did until recently. As white nationalist lament, legal segregation ended less than a century ago.

“If you go to any other country outside the west, each ethnic majority will control the laws and give themselves preferential treatment. This is it how it should be.”

We obviously disagree on how things should be. As far as how things are today, Latin America as general rule follows the citizenship and assimilation model. Citizens get preferential treatment, but ancestry doesn’t so much matter. (This is current U.S. legal model, which it took the country a while to reach.) The United States ain’t the only nation of immigrants in the Americas. Now, Latin America arguably counts as part of the West, though it’s not usually referred to as such.

“There is nothing messed up with it.”

European powers have tried to conquer the world and remake it in their image since roughly 1500. That’s what white identity means globally. Black identity globally comes out of resist that domination. That’s a big difference.

If, as hypothetical, the Chinese had conquered Europe starting in 1500, and made white identity in the mark of slavery and denigration, then white nationalist would be an oppositional nationalism and be at least tolerable as an emergency measure. That’s not the world we live in.

“I would expect the domination of black identity if I lived in Kenya or Ethiopia.”

I image it’d be a specifically Kenyan or Ethiopian domination rather than some generic black domination, whatever that means. I don’t know enough about either country to really say.

“Your gross transhumanist utopian fantasies will only lead to nihilism and the destruction of all civilizations.”

That seems unlikely. The biggest problem with transhumanism is how it’s dominated by elites.

TheLastStraw 1 day ago (edited)
“Overrepresentation doesn’t mean you can blame it all on supposed Jewish racial difference or some Jewish conspiracy. You still have lots of non-Jewish Euro-Americans involved, folks with ancestry from Northern and Central Europe.”

I’m not blaming all Jews. It’s not a conspiracy. Their behavior and IQ are merely the result of conditions which their genetics have gone through for more or less the last 1800 years. Yes, you have whites in
those industries which look slightly underrepresented when compared with population percentages – as would be expected. What those whites don’t have is a tribal identity like that of the Jews which is framed around the narrative of the Holocaust.

“As wrote above, because of the meaning of whiteness. It’s only through the process of colonialism that European peoples came to this imagined community of being white. (Christendom was a European imagined community before that.) Whiteness primarily means domination be those classified as white. Blackness has the opposition connotation in this historical context. It’s about standing up to and fighting back against domination. (Blackness can still of course fall into the various traps of collective identity and nationalism.)”

The same can be done with Jewishness: a group of people with similar genetics but separated overtime but who now identify with their own broad in group over others. While they don’t have the unifier of colonialism, the greatest unifier of their identity is Zionism (less so now) and the Holocaust. Asians also have some idea of their orientalism. I’ll demonstrate it with a Taiwanese joke:

Wen God was making mankind, he formed the first human from clay and put him in the oven. The man came out black. God said “I left him in there far too long.” God then put the second one in and he came out a pale color. God said “No, that’s not long enough.” The third time God put the man in the oven and he came out a golden color. God smiled and said “I have made the perfect one and he came out just right.”

The primary difference with Asians is that they usually separate themselves firstly based upon being north Asians vs. ones from the south. However, a Korean can still usually differentiate Koreans from Japanese and Chinese – something whites (especially in the Americas) can barely do anymore.

Lastly, this idea of colonialism being the glue of white identity and privilege is absurd. It’s the exact kind of nonsense that has come to infest academia. Whiteness didn’t arise from colonialism; it arose from the American melting pot. Whites who came to the USA were expected to discard their European identities in order to assimilate and become full Americans. This is in contrast to Canada where those of British decent still separated themselves from those of French decent. Of course since then Canada has become more
Americanized. And even though this assimilation was expected, Italians and Irish still held on to their identities more than other groups. But, now whiteness is something offensive because Jewish based critical theory has seized control of academia.

As for the idea privilege stemming from colonialism, brainwashed academics like yourself tend to speak of this happening like some divine being descended from the clouds and just gave it to Europeans. Tell me, who were the oppressors and the oppressed in the 12th century? At that time Europe was considered a backwater by much of the world. It is why the Mongolians focused on seizing the jewel of China. Colonialism arose as response to the oppressors (Ottomans) blocking off ancient trade routes to China. It was in response to this that the Europeans had the courage to strike out, explore, and find a different route. Therefore, it’s not privilege, it was earned through the blood and sweat of my ancestors. And since you’re of European stock, you spit upon that.

“What do you like so much about white identity? I don’t get it. Individualism, science, skepticism, and so on are the best parts of the broad European intellectual tradition.”

Because I want to see it preserved in some form before it is destroyed by nihilistic Cultural Marxists such as yourself.

“Race, if it maps to biology at all, is nothing but an collection of genetic differences in an isolated population. If you want to talk isolated populations and shared genetics, it gets a lot more specific than
the iconic major races. Identifying somebody as black or white, for example, tells you jack shit about their genes.”

And yet, blacks broadly speaking blacks are known for their bone structures being conducive to them becoming great athletes, and Asians for the most part are lactose intolerant. All this garbage you just wrote above is useless. It is the academic equivalent of putting blinders on and saying “We don’t see race! We don’t see race!” Has it ever occurred to you that the science behind investigating race was not discarded because it was disproven but because of the tremendous emotional weight of a little event known as WWII?

“I prefer prefer communist anarchism for the short term: individuals act for the common good based on the principle that giving everyone access to nice things best facilitates liberty and genuinely consensual interpersonal relationships.”

>Ignores human nature.

You’re going to have to genetically modify everyone into becoming robotic automatons for this to work.

“As technological innovation accelerates, the idea of the individual will become less and less coherent as we’ll have linked mind, hiveminds, and so on.”

Oh, I see you’re already aware of that.

“Still, as far as I can, maximizing agency and pleasure while minimizing suffering will be the goal.”

Suffering is how we learn and improve. It is the stimuli which forces people to get off their asses and do something. All you’re going to do is create a watered down dystopia, where everything is forced into being
equal, no one has any cares or real desires, and where everything is not worth doing.

“I doubt that. Individuals can choose to share. If anarchism needs some markets, that’s okay too. In any case, as inefficient as it is today, the industrial economy makes so much stuff that the dream of having
everyone live decently isn’t far off.”

>goes on about individuality and how this will create harmony and how whiteness is bad (even though whites tend to display the highest level of individuality) while ignoring the collectivist nature of nations outside the West.

Yeah, I already got the memo about the post scarcity society form those Zeitgeist nutters, thanks.

“Thinking about ancestry additionally highlights the absurdity of white-nationalist fears about miscegenation.”

I guess you don’t believe in average IQ differences. What happens when you take one group that has an average high IQ of 100 and then you interbreed that group with others that have IQ averages between 70 and 85?

“That’s an example of how race is socially constructed. I mean, why do Greeks count as white but not Turks? Or do Turks? What about Syrians? Iranians? Etc. The lines shift for political and social reasons.”

But, it’s not totally a social construct. It’s not about basing everything on race and biology. Culture and society play an important role as well. However, when identifying in group and out group preferences,
culture nor biology are exclusive factors. Turks, Syrians, and Iranians are excluded because of they are from vastly different cultures and ones that are mostly incompatible. There would be exceptions. For instance, Zoroastrians could be compatible.

Also, there is this: Google “Is Homo sapiens polytypic?” by Micheal A. Woodley

“We obviously disagree on how things should be. As far as how things are today, Latin America as general rule follows the citizenship and assimilation model. Citizens get preferential treatment, but ancestry doesn’t
so much matter. (This is current U.S. legal model, which it took the country a while to reach.) The United States ain’t the only nation of immigrants in the Americas. Now, Latin America arguably counts as part of the West, though it’s not usually referred to as such.”

This simply isn’t true. You can see this how when people in Latin American countries divide themselves on degrees based upon European ancestry. For instance, in Chile a survey was conducted in 2011 where respondents classified themselves as white, mestizo, or indigenous.

“European powers have tried to conquer the world and remake it in their image since roughly 1500.”

And before that, it was the Mongolians, so what?

Black identity globally comes out of resist that domination. That’s a big difference.”

Well if the whites aren’t screwing them over then the Arabs are. And meanwhile blacks are constantly screwing themselves over regardless of any narrative about the oppressor and the oppressed. But I guess it help blacks in SA to legitimize their persecution of poor whites who still live there – because
you know, they’re fighting the good fight against evil whitey.

“That seems unlikely. The biggest problem with transhumanism is how it’s dominated by elites.”

It’s very likely. Try reading some Evola instead of Cultural Marxist and Tranhumanist horse shit for
once.

Summerspeaker 1 day ago
“What those whites don’t have is a tribal identity like that of the Jews which is framed around the narrative of the Holocaust.”

To the extent that elite Jews have a strong tribal identification, it’s an example of how such tribalism doesn’t necessarily help a lot of people in the group. I know various Jewish folks struggling to survive. Rich Jews don’t seem to help them much, including sometimes members of their own family. That’s how imagined communities typically work. Those at the top may talk about group solidarity but plenty of folks in the ingroup still get screwed. That’s one of the many reasons I’m going after white nationalism. Poor and working-class white people need to understand that they’re not likely to gain much because it’ll be elites that dominate. Class struggle makes overwhelmingly more sense. (I additionally consider white nationalism unethical even if it managed ingroup egalitarianism, which seems far-fetched.)

“The same can be done with Jewishness: a group of people with similar genetics but separated overtime but who now identify with their own broad in group over others.”

Yep, though the difference is that Jewish identity comes out of a minority position and has somewhat more shared culture and language than white people as a whole have (at least for Ashkenazi Jews). Ashkenazi Jewish identity is complicated because of the minority status and historical and present discrimination combined with considerable wealth and power as a group. And of course the state of Israel and all its horrors against the Palestinians.

“Asians also have some idea of their orientalism.”

This varies. You have numerous stories of people coming from places in Asia and only realizing they occupy the broad category of Asian in the United States. Zeus Leonardo has such a story, coming from the Philippines and being misrecognized as Chinese. That’s how he learned he was in this Asian category. It’s an awfully big group.

Circa 1900, various Southern and Eastern European also had to learn their place in the U.S. racial system.

“Whiteness didn’t arise from colonialism; it arose from the American melting pot.”

Colonialism and African slavery (and its legacy) defined the fundamental conditions for white identity in the United States.

“Whites who came to the USA were expected to discard their European identities in order to assimilate and become full Americans.”

To an extent, yes, though keeping elements of European national and local identity were and are accepted in mainstream U.S. culture. But the key part of this assimilation process was excluding and ending doing violence against those deemed not white. That’s how groups like Southern and Eastern Europeans became fully included in whiteness in the United States. You saw this explicitly in various strikes where, say, Greek workers got inclusion in unions only by agreeing to the exclusion of their Japanese coworkers.

“But, now whiteness is something offensive because Jewish based critical theory has seized control of academia.”

Because whiteness in the United States has meant privilege (formerly formal privilege under the law) based on the exclusion of the the nonwhite. The idea of whiteness as defined by privilege and exclusion has ample support in history.

“As for the idea privilege stemming from colonialism, brainwashed academics like yourself tend to speak of this happening like some divine being descended from the clouds and just gave it to Europeans.”

I don’t know about other academics, but I’m thoroughly familiar with process of European colonialism.

“Tell me, who were the oppressors and the oppressed in the 12th century?”

There were lots of them, as there are today.

“Colonialism arose as response to the oppressors (Ottomans) blocking off ancient trade routes to China. It was in response to this that the Europeans had the courage to strike out, explore, and find a different route. Therefore, it’s not privilege, it was earned through the blood and sweat of my ancestors.”

I would characterize as the contest between various European powers and the Ottomans as a fight between imperial powers rather than put it oppressor-liberator terms. European powers were smaller, as were the their armies, but they often had superior equipment (especially armor, before the 17th century when armor quality declined and armor mostly faded away).

As I mention before, there’s nothing magical about European dominance and the social formations it has created. It comes out of history. I don’t know exactly where to assign causality and that doesn’t necessarily matter. The point is working as best we can within the current system.

“And since you’re of European stock, you spit upon that.”

Yeah, I spit upon all oppression and domination, whether conducted by my ancestors or not.

“Race, if it maps to biology at all, is nothing but an collection of genetic differences in an isolated population. If you want to talk isolated populations and shared genetics, it gets a lot more specific than
the iconic major races. Identifying somebody as black or white, for example, tells you jack shit about their genes.”

“And yet, blacks broadly speaking blacks are known for their bone structures being conducive to them becoming great athletes,”

I think it’s much more specific than that. The best sprinters, for instance, apparently have West African ancestry.

“All this garbage you just wrote above is useless.”

Only if you ignore how genetics actually work.

“Has it ever occurred to you that the science behind investigating race was not discarded because it was disproven but because of the tremendous emotional weight of a little event known as WWII?”

We’re starting to understand genetics. Why settle for muddy generalizations when you can map an individual’s genes?

“Ignores human nature.”

We don’t know of the limits of human nature just yet.

“You’re going to have to genetically modify everyone into becoming robotic automatons for this to work.”

Nah, we’ll leave the mindless labor to mindless robots.

“Suffering is how we learn and improve. It is the stimuli which forces people to get off their asses and do something.”

I’m not a fan. If suffering proves absolutely necessarily for conscious and intelligence, then at that point I’d conclude it’s best to just wipe out life entirely. (I’d share this insight and commit suicide.) I doubt that’s the case. We can engineer superior motivational structures.

“All you’re going to do is create a watered down dystopia, where everything is forced into being
equal, no one has any cares or real desires, and where everything is not worth doing.”

Transhumanist anarchist equality comes by giving every thinking being the means of self-improvement, not by enforcing mediocrity.

“goes on about individuality and how this will create harmony and how whiteness is bad (even though whites tend to display the highest level of individuality) while ignoring the collectivist nature of nations outside the West.”

I live in the United States. Anarchists oppose dominant nationalisms wherever they live.

“I guess you don’t believe in average IQ differences.”

I believe the published results of IQ and the correlations by (socially recognized) race. I don’t know exactly how much IQ maps to intelligence. I don’t know exactly how much of that is genetic. Based on the current literature, I’d guess average IQ differences by race aren’t primarily genetic. (For example, consider James Flynn’s work: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/12/17/none-of-the-above.)

“What happens when you take one group that has an average high IQ of 100 and then you interbreed that group with others that have IQ averages between 70 and 85?”

Average IQ drops if its genetic. If it’s more environmental, then it depends on the physical and social conditions. But I don’t consider lower average IQ the end of the world. To be honest, reproduction strikes me unethical to begin with. What if the being you create doesn’t enjoy life, doesn’t want to life? That’s a heavy thing to do.

I can’t encourage any form of reproduction. Now obviously some folks are going to breed. I’m most interested in making the world as nice as possible for everybody regardless of IQ or whatever. I consider technological innovation and social progress far more important than natural selection at this point.

A pure eugenicist would encourage (or force, if they’re really mean) the reproduction of the people with the desired trait(s), regardless of race.

“Turks, Syrians, and Iranians are excluded because of they are from vastly different cultures and ones that are mostly incompatible. There would be exceptions. For instance, Zoroastrians could be compatible.”

I grew up Bahá’í and thus around lots of Iranians. There’s enough phenotypic overlap that folks sometimes thought I was half-Persian (the communities I grew up in used that term more than Iranian). The Iranian-American Bahá’ís I knew were mostly professional class and utterly compatible with the U.S. mainstream. (I’ve since moved away from the Bahá’í Faith because of its authoritarian and supernatural elements.) Of course, you probably couldn’t tolerate Bahá’ís because the unity of mankind is one of their central principles. Bahá’ís adore marriage across racial lines and so on.

“This simply isn’t true. You can see this how when people in Latin American countries divide themselves on degrees based upon European ancestry. For instance, in Chile a survey was conducted in 2011 where respondents classified themselves as white, mestizo, or indigenous.”

Citizenship isn’t based on such categories. For example, consider the Japanese-descent former president of Peru, Alberto Fujimori. Most Latin American nations are multicultural, like the United States and most/all European nations these days. Liberalism and neoliberalism are dynamics that stretch across the Western influenced world.

“And before that, it was the Mongolians, so what?”

We don’t live in a Mongol-dominated world today. Various Mongol groups were horrible oppressors back in the day, you bet.

“And meanwhile blacks are constantly screwing themselves over regardless of any narrative about the oppressor and the oppressed.”

Sure, that’s how all ingroups work. That’s why anarchism struggles against all oppression and domination.

“But I guess it help blacks in SA to legitimize their persecution of poor whites who still live there – because
you know, they’re fighting the good fight against evil whitey.”

Whites in South Africa are less likely to experience violence from the numbers I’ve seen, but certainly South Africa is an example of how oppositional nationalism can lead to problems.

“That seems unlikely. The biggest problem with transhumanism is how it’s dominated by elites.”

“It’s very likely. Try reading some Evola instead of Cultural Marxist and Tranhumanist horse shit for
once.”

Julius Evola? I haven’t read any. It doesn’t look like my cup of tea. Spirituality and mysticism don’t do much for me.

TheLastStraw 11 hours ago
+Summerspeaker
“I know various Jewish folks struggling to survive. Rich Jews don’t seem to help them much, including sometimes members of their own family.”

Another anecdote …and into the trash it goes.

“That’s one of the many reasons I’m going after white nationalism. Poor and working-class white people need to understand that they’re not likely to gain much because it’ll be elites that dominate. Class struggle makes overwhelmingly more sense.”

I am a WN, come for me Gmork!

Great! Meanwhile you’ll ignore the fact that whites only make up about 7% of the global population with declining birth rates (which globally speaking puts them in the minority position). All your efforts will be directed at the wrong target while ignoring the (((elites))). You think you are fighting against the oppressor when in fact you’re doing their work.

“Yep, though the difference is that Jewish identity comes out of a minority position and has somewhat more shared culture and language than white people as a whole have (at least for Ashkenazi Jews). Ashkenazi Jewish identity is complicated because of the minority status and historical and present discrimination combined with considerable wealth and power as a group. And of course the state of Israel and all its horrors against the Palestinians.”

So let me get this straight. Jews are a global minority yet weld great influence over the world through various networking, wealth, domination of media, and the originators of much of the ideology you’re shoveling here. So regardless of all that, they are still not considered the oppressor to you? It only matters to you when it is in terms of population numbers? Yet when taking into account global demographics, Chinese and Asians make up the number one majority accompanied by rising power and influence. After all this, Whites are still your number one target? So at what point will you recognize the nationalism of other groups as a greater threat? If Blacks, Latinos, Jews, and Asians can have their own homelands, why can’t Whites? Why is it that multiculturalism must be forced upon only White Western countries?

The real reason your target is WN is because it is low hanging fruit. White western nations have given you the opportunity and freedom to attack it. If you and your kind have finally destroy WN, the nationalism of other groups and nations simply won’t put up with your shit and will simply have you executed. Good job Asshole!

“Zeus Leonardo has such a story, coming from the Philippines and being misrecognized as Chinese. That’s how he learned he was in this Asian category.”

Pretty much another anecdote, and another for the trash.
“Colonialism and African slavery (and its legacy) defined the fundamental conditions for white identity in the United States.”

>Muh Colonialism

I just demonstrated how it’s not. Come up with a better argument or fuck off with your brainwashed drivel. I don’t give a shit what your (((Critical Theory))) text books tell you.

“Because whiteness in the United States has meant privilege (formerly formal privilege under the law) based on the exclusion of the the nonwhite.”

Which hasn’t been in existence since the 1960s. Yet here we still are with idiots like yourself thinking you’re fighting the good fight. You and your ilk are just mindless hammers forged in the halls of academia that need to be purged before you kill us all.

“The idea of whiteness as defined by privilege and exclusion has ample support in history.”

Hey guys! Look at me guys! Tim Wise and other cretins like him told me so! Sure is nice having tools like yourself that yammer on about White privilege and exclusion while ignoring the other groups that do it. This hypocrisy is why you will inevitably fail.

“I don’t know about other academics, but I’m thoroughly familiar with process of European colonialism.”

From the looks of it, I don’t think you are.

“I would characterize as the contest between various European powers and the Ottomans as a fight between imperial powers rather than put it oppressor-liberator terms.”

I like how you move the goal post when it suits your needs. I also like how you argue that Whiteness with its exclusion and privilege is based in Colonialism. But when it comes to the antecedents of Colonialism you ignore them or dismiss them to fit your narrative. This is why you’re brainwashed and have blinded yourself to the truth.

“European powers were smaller, as were the their armies, but they often had superior equipment (especially armor, before the 17th century when armor quality declined and armor mostly faded away).”

Yeah and the Muslims tended to have better cavalry and archers. This your problem. You look at everything in terms of oppressor and the oppressed as defined by (((them))) – except when it doesn’t fit neatly into your world view, then you minimize it or disregard it. Throughout much of Medieval history, Europe was poorer than other empires and nations. And with few exceptions it was under assault from more powerful invaders and with greater numbers. In your model Blacks in Africa are the oppressed. Yet when Europe was the underdog for hundreds of years, it just doesn’t quite make the cut. I guess White Europeans will always be the villain in your story book no matter what.

“Yeah, I spit upon all oppression and domination, whether conducted by my ancestors or not.”

Especially when it’s your ancestors. Great equal opportunity you’re demonstrating here pal.

“We’re starting to understand genetics. Why settle for muddy generalizations when you can map an individual’s genes?”

Because your focus is on individual genes while ignoring greater patterns to fit a narrative is blind sighted. It’s just more mud.

“We don’t know of the limits of human nature just yet.”

And when it fails to fit your religion, you’ll just hammer it into place.

“Nah, we’ll leave the mindless labor to mindless robots.”

That wasn’t what I was talking about but good job in ignoring the point.

“I’m not a fan. If suffering proves absolutely necessarily for conscious and intelligence, then at that point I’d conclude it’s best to just wipe out life entirely. (I’d share this insight and commit suicide.)”

Suffering is what makes life worth living. It the necessary ingredient which God lamentably added to the mix.

“I doubt that’s the case. We can engineer superior motivational structures.”

Kek, oh do tell.

“Transhumanist anarchist equality comes by giving every thinking being the means of self-improvement, not by enforcing mediocrity.”

I know what your intention is, but that won’t be the result.

“I live in the United States. Anarchists oppose dominant nationalisms wherever they live.”

Especially when its allowed. You’re the dog that bites the hand that feeds it. Try practicing your anarchism anywhere outside the West and see how far you get. You and your kind are the reason why we can’t have nice things. Please deport yourself to Canada or some other Libtard country where you can perform your social engineering experiment without forcing it on the rest of us.

“I don’t know exactly how much of that is genetic. Based on the current literature, I’d guess average IQ differences by race aren’t primarily genetic. For example, consider James Flynn’s work”

I wouldn’t go so far as yet to say with certainty it is primarily genetic either. However, I think genetic and biological factors play a larger role than what academia has been willing to accept due to political correctness. And, in the long run, it could very well prove to be primarily genetic. And if science proves this (which it is beginning to look like) then it will have to be accepted regardless of whatever egalitarian principles you want to cling to.

As for the Flynn Effect and it has some problems. Search “A possible explanation for the Flynn effect” at majorityrightsdotcom

And as for the Black American GI’s in Germany proving that genetics has nothing to do with IQ (discussed in the article) search: “Race and IQ Mixed Populations Part 1” at The Alternative Hypothesis (scroll down to the Eyferth Study)

Btw, I have already provided you a citation on how racial categories are still useful when discussing genetics. Ignore the citations I give again, and from here forth, I will ignore whatever you link.

Note: I’m not giving you direct links because youtube will sometimes hide replies automatically for reasons of spam.

“But I don’t consider lower average IQ the end of the world …I’m most interested in making the world as nice as possible for everybody regardless of IQ or whatever.”

That’s nice. But what if IQ and race correlates to the amount of crime? Go to the Wikipedia page on Murder, scroll down to incidences, and look at that blue map of the world. Then ask yourself what majority racial groups live in those countries colored with darker blue colors. Of course your answer will be poverty and environment is the determiner. If that is the case, then why is it that poor whites in Appalachian counties aren’t committing as much crime? Oh wait I know, it has something to do with white privilege right?

“Of course, you probably couldn’t tolerate Bahá’ís because the unity of mankind is one of their central principles. Bahá’ís adore marriage across racial lines and so on.”

Yeah, best to keep that nonsense to yourselves.

“Citizenship isn’t based on such categories. For example, consider the Japanese-descent former president of Peru, Alberto Fujimori. Most Latin American nations are multicultural, like the United States and most/all European nations these days. Liberalism and neoliberalism are dynamics that stretch across the Western influenced world.”

No one is denying citizenship to minorities here in the USA either. Also, this isn’t very good evidence for saying that racial discrimination doesn’t exist on the same levels as in the USA. A mere google search for Racism in Latin America will show you that. Also, if you want to make the argument that racial discrimination in the USA higher due to Whiteness or some BS, then see “Map shows world’s ‘most racist’ countries” at Daily Mail.

“Sure, that’s how all ingroups work. That’s why anarchism struggles against all oppression and domination.”

Namely against white nations. Keep it up I guess. You go, resistance fighter against the evil white capitalist patriarchy! You show those evil white nationalist who just want to be left alone without having multiculturalism forced on them! Fight those evil Nazis! My (((education))) told me so!

“Julius Evola? I haven’t read any. It doesn’t look like my cup of tea. Spirituality and mysticism don’t do much for me.”

He touched on spirituality and mysticism. However, he was primarily a philosopher. And of course, you won’t look at him. That’s because you’re brainwashed like I once was. Maybe there is hope for you. But then maybe R/K Selection Theory is more relevant here.

Summerspeaker 34 seconds ago
“Another anecdote …and into the trash it goes.”

What part do you think is an outlier? Studies show that a significant number of Jewish folks in the United States (and elsewhere) are poor and working-class: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2.209/study-claims-jewish-poverty-rate-in-the-u-s-is-higher-than-in-israel-1.233403. If Jews are such a close-knit group, why are so many Jews struggling financially when others are so rich?

“I am a WN, come for me Gmork!”

Hence this extended debate.

“Great! Meanwhile you’ll ignore the fact that whites only make up about 7% of the global population with declining birth rates (which globally speaking puts them in the minority position).”

That’s partially because the category “white” is defined by absence or near absence of nonwhite ancestry. A higher percentage of the world’s population has European ancestry. And I’m not sure 7% is correct in any case. That’s what, 518 million? You have around 200 million non-Hispanic whites in the United States according to census numbers. That leaves 318 million. Europe’s population is about 739 million (including Russia). For the 7% to be true, Europe would have to be less than 50% white, which I doubt.

But yeah, the people socially defined as white are minority globally. On average they’re wealthier than most other recognized racial groups, and still have vast political, economic, and social power.

“All your efforts will be directed at the wrong target while ignoring the (((elites))).”

Anarchism goes after all elites, including Jewish ones (but not because their Jewish).

“So let me get this straight. Jews are a global minority yet weld great influence over the world through various networking, wealth, domination of media, and the originators of much of the ideology you’re shoveling here.”

Like any other group, Jews have different interests, politics, and ideologies. The broad humanities and social justice rhetoric I assume you’re referring to differs notably from, say, Zionism.

“So regardless of all that, they are still not considered the oppressor to you?”

The rich Jewish folks are structural oppressors by virtue of being rich, as are various Jewish folks involved in various governments, militaries, and so on.

“It only matters to you when it is in terms of population numbers?”

That’s only one factor among many. Elite oppressors are of course a minority by definition (the 1% or whatever).

“Yet when taking into account global demographics, Chinese and Asians make up the number one majority accompanied by rising power and influence.”

The Chinese government on the whole is a nightmare, are are all governments to some extent or another.

“After all this, Whites are still your number one target?”

I consider white nationalism perhaps the most pernicious political current in U.S. politics right now. Y’all are all frisky because of Trump’s campaign. I don’t want my friends and community members to get deported. (The struggle against deportation goes on regardless of the president, of course.)

I’m not targeting the people structurally positioned as white as people. I don’t wish them/us any harm. It’s the system of identification and structural power I oppose. Transhumanist anarchism will do far more to fulfill the desires of those currently classified as white than will white nationalism.

“So at what point will you recognize the nationalism of other groups as a greater threat? If Blacks, Latinos, Jews, and Asians can have their own homelands, why can’t Whites? Why is it that multiculturalism must be forced upon only White Western countries?”

Again, multiculturalism is a reality in various places and I’m not a fan of any nationalism in the dominant model of deportations, policing, capitalism, etc. Anarchists (and humanities scholars, for that matter) respect (or at least tolerate) oppositional nationalisms but call them out oppressive tendencies within them. Some version of black and Chicano nationalism were/are anti-queer, patriarchal, and so on. This doesn’t get a pass in radical circle, though other oppressive tendencies within oppositional nationalism arguably do. Still, anarchists are working on it.

“If you and your kind have finally destroy WN, the nationalism of other groups and nations simply won’t put up with your shit and will simply have you executed. Good job Asshole!”

That’s a possibility, sure. Globally, anarchists have to struggle together against all authoritarians and dominant-model nationalists.

“Pretty much another anecdote, and another for the trash.”

There’s lots of evidence for it. Do you really Filipinos focus on their “Asian” identity in the Philippines? Perhaps in some contexts, but such broad identifications only make sense in specific circumstances.

“I just demonstrated how it’s not. Come up with a better argument or fuck off with your brainwashed drivel. I don’t give a shit what your (((Critical Theory))) text books tell you.”

I don’t give a shit how brilliant you think you are. You didn’t demonstrate anything to that effect. History is history. Everything’s open to interpretation to some extent, but my assertion about the importance of colonialism and African slavery in U.S. history approaches being objectively true. European immigrants circa 1900 became accepted as white in U.S. society exactly by excluding those identified as definitely not white (at the time, Japanese and Chinese among other groups).

“Which hasn’t been in existence since the 1960s.”

Things don’t change so quickly. Vast wealth gaps, for example, persist between whites and blacks as well as Hispanics as blacks (using census categories). Anti-black and anti-Hispanic sentiments and practices are widespread among U.S. whites and U.S. institutions. That’s not a myth or conspiracy, but social reality.

“You and your ilk are just mindless hammers forged in the halls of academia that need to be purged before you kill us all.”

This neatly illustrates the logical of nationalism and ingroup preference. I’m superficially part of the ingroup for white nationalism by ancestry, but because of I abhor white nationalism ideologically I’d get purged if white nationalists took power. It’s almost like ancestry doesn’t matter for jack shit compared with politics and ideology, huh? White nationalism doesn’t help those of us currently classified as white, only ones who obey and play the game – and even only those at the top. Do you think you’d be at the top in some hypothetical ethno-state future?

“Hey guys! Look at me guys! Tim Wise and other cretins like him told me so!”

I study the turn of the twentieth century. I’ve read countless primary documents. I know how worried lots of Anglo-Saxon supremacists were about Southern and Eastern European immigration to the United States. I’m intimately familiar with the racial thinking of that era.

Tim Wise perhaps provides useful education to white liberals but strikes me as largely a profiteer/professional.

“Sure is nice having tools like yourself that yammer on about White privilege and exclusion while ignoring the other groups that do it.”

The double-standard line as a glimmer of legitimacy but on the whole fails to grasp the historical context.

“I like how you move the goal post when it suits your needs. I also like how you argue that Whiteness with its exclusion and privilege is based in Colonialism. But when it comes to the antecedents of Colonialism you ignore them or dismiss them to fit your narrative. This is why you’re brainwashed and have blinded yourself to the truth.”

I don’t see what you’re grasping at here. How does a history of struggle between oppressive powers (European kingdoms, the Ottoman empire, and others) preclude some of these oppressive powers eventually emerging as dominant?

“Yeah and the Muslims tended to have better cavalry and archers.”

Maybe. On this particular question I’ve also read some primary documents, albeit in English translation. The Burgundian Bertrandon de la Broquière addressed exactly the question of Western Europe armies against the Turkish army, based on his 1432-1433 travels to the Middle East. He expressed respect for Turkish archery but assign certain advantages to European (I guess especially Anglo-Burgundian) archery. He wrote that European arrows were more robust and thus better-suited to piercing armor and that European archers shot from farther off. The latter claim seems bizarre as we now know Turkish bows are more efficient than English-style bows at any given draw weight and arrow weight, and that the Turkish archers who practiced flight shooting shot amazing distances. I suspect at the least the Turkish archers de la Broquière encountered didn’t shoot at extreme range. Short-range and medium-range shooting may well have been the standard Turkish practice. And we do know that Turkish archers did typically use light arrows, more or less confirming de la Broquière’s assessment.

De la Broquière thought Turkish discipline the chief reason for Ottoman military success. Now, he was perhaps being chauvinistic in his evaluation, and explicitly trying to rally Europeans to crusade against the Turks. Over a hundred years later, near the end of the sixteenth century, François de la Noue wrote on the same question and likewise assigned certain advantages to Western European forces. Again, maybe it was chauvinism, but in practice European armies performed at least decently against Ottoman armies. European losses came, as de la Broquière wrote, from poor tactics, as at Nicopolis 1396.

“This your problem. You look at everything in terms of oppressor and the oppressed as defined by (((them))) – except when it doesn’t fit neatly into your world view, then you minimize it or disregard it.”

When it comes to European history, I don’t do this. European powers certainly had no dominant position in relation to the Ottomans and other powers to the east before the eighteenth century at the earliest. White identity and European colonialism come out of a sequence of events that started circa 1500, but it was a long, violent, and uncertain process.

“Throughout much of Medieval history, Europe was poorer than other empires and nations. And with few exceptions it was under assault from more powerful invaders and with greater numbers. In your model Blacks in Africa are the oppressed. Yet when Europe was the underdog for hundreds of years, it just doesn’t quite make the cut. I guess White Europeans will always be the villain in your story book no matter what.”

See above. I’m an anarchist. I see oppression and dominant at every level, starting in the family. It’s not just a matter of oppressed nations and regions, especially historically. I could say with some confidence that the Romans were oppressors and committed horrors against various other European ethnic groups. They were the model for the domination for centuries to come, including for the Ottomans.

“Because your focus is on individual genes while ignoring greater patterns to fit a narrative is blind sighted. It’s just more mud.”

There are populations with shared genes to some extent but these populations don’t map neatly to iconic ideas about race. It’s more of continuum of regional difference.

“And when it fails to fit your religion, you’ll just hammer it into place.”

Yeah, that’s the great thing about transhumanism. As the xenofeminists say, “If nature is unjust, change nature!”

“Suffering is what makes life worth living. It the necessary ingredient which God lamentably added to the mix.”

Wait, God? You really are turning your back on the best parts of the European intellectual tradition. But what sort of God is this? Some curious tribalist interpretation of Christianity?

“Kek, oh do tell.”

You can read some David Pearce on the subject of paradise engineering.

“Especially when its allowed. You’re the dog that bites the hand that feeds it. Try practicing your anarchism anywhere outside the West and see how far you get.”

Putting anarchist values fully into practice under any state requires mad skillz or quickly ends in capture, imprisonment, torture, and possibly death. Bourgeois free speech comes out the recognition that it’s cheaper and easier to only punish people for materially contesting properly relations. What do elite care if I blog or argue on YouTube? They’ll only intervene when it becomes a material challenge. (Some exception apply, of course, but that’s the standard model.)

“Please deport yourself to Canada or some other Libtard country where you can perform your social engineering experiment without forcing it on the rest of us.”

I ain’t exactly in the financial position to move. Also, Canada is cold and still capitalist.

“And, in the long run, it could very well prove to be primarily genetic. And if science proves this (which it is beginning to look like) then it will have to be accepted regardless of whatever egalitarian principles you want to cling to.”

Agreed, though we might differ on want counts as proof. In any case, while definitive proof of different average IQ scores based on genetic difference that maps to the standard major racial groups would complicate things a bit, it wouldn’t transform my world view or anything. We already know that genetic difference plays a role in determining IQ scores and that IQ scores correlate somewhat with normatively defined success. That’s already something my worldview has to deal with. I don’t believe that folks who score lower on IQ tests should have less access to nice things. Hell, I don’t even know my know my own IQ score; I might be one of the undesirables myself.

“And as for the Black American GI’s in Germany proving that genetics has nothing to do with IQ (discussed in the article) search”

I don’t think anybody says the Eyferth study proves genetics don’t matter. Instead, it points in that direction. More research would be required to draw any remotely firm conclusions.

“Of course your answer will be poverty and environment is the determiner. If that is the case, then why is it that poor whites in Appalachian counties aren’t committing as much crime? Oh wait I know, it has something to do with white privilege right?”

Environmental factors go well beyond poverty. Violence happens for specific historical, social, and cultural reasons. Places like Chicago that have high murder rates have networks of violence and rivalry. White people can be awfully violent too, judging both by history and recent experience. The German murder rate (ignoring military deaths) approached 100 per 100,000 at times during the medieval period.

And of course European killed each other in massive numbers as recently as WWII. Back in the sixteenth century, you had European pikers (soldiers armed with 16-18ft spears) practicing mutually assured destruction by engaging their opposing peers. In a hard fight, the front rank or ranks on both sides of pike confrontation have 90+% killed in action (according to Robert III de La Marck).

It doesn’t get more violent than that, yet the same populations today (in Germany, Switzerland, etc.) hardly ever kill each other. It’s almost like violence depends on complex environmental factors rather than genetics. Huh. Who’d have thunk it? (Genetics of course matter, but for any given arrangement of genes would can probably create an environment that leads to little or no violence.)

“No one is denying citizenship to minorities here in the USA either. Also, this isn’t very good evidence for saying that racial discrimination doesn’t exist on the same levels as in the USA. A mere google search for Racism in Latin America will show you that.”

Latin America as racist as hell, no question. (European ancestry and cultural norms occupy the place of privilege typically.) We got into this section because you claimed most or all countries grant legally privileged status to dominant ethnic group. I argued that wasn’t true for Latin America, at least not generally. I argued that instead Latin America countries have the multicultural citizenship model.

“You show those evil white nationalist who just want to be left alone without having multiculturalism forced on them!”

The principles of liberty and free association may entail tolerate for some level of white self-segregation. In a world where everybody had what they need to live decently, having some people pursuing white separatism would seem more kooky than dangerous. Even that might ultimately prove intolerable, depending on the details. (Would folks in the community be able to leave? What about the children indoctrinated into that mindset? Etc.)

However, we don’t live in such an egalitarian world. Nation states and border walls viscerally conflict with freedom. Historically, the Americas ain’t no white homeland and many European countries had colonies across the globe. It’s far too late for Europeans to just be left alone.

“And of course, you won’t look at him.”

Oh, I might get there. I want to learn y’all’s way as to more persuasively argue my case against white nationalism.

Thinking Safety after the Orlando Massacre June 12, 2016

Posted by Summerspeaker in Anarchism, Anti-imperialism, Decolonization, Feminism, Queer politics, Technology, Transhumanism.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

“Freedom is never very safe.”

Shevek says this toward the end of Ursula Le Guin’s The Dispossessed. Tyranny isn’t safe either. In the wake of today’s deadly shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, we need to remember these principles.

Reactions to this atrocity follow predictable lines. Many progressives and leftists are warning about Islamophobia. Most liberals, along with some progressives and leftists, are blaming the National Rifle Association and encouraging state gun control. Some radicals are promoting armed self-defense for queers. Most conservatives and some liberals are blaming Muslims and beating the drums of war. Some antiqueer bigots are hailing the attack as God’s work, divine retribution.

Without question, the massacre highlights the horror of antiqueer bigotry. As with any mass killing, it stands out as a human tragedy, a site of spectacularly intense pain and loss. Because of this, the impulse toward mourning feels intuitive.

That’s not the approach I take here. Instead of prayers, I offer analysis.

While recognizing the appropriateness of mourning, I challenge it as an imperative. None of us can meaningfully mourn all of the death and suffering that happens in the world each day. Various valid responses exist, including reflection, looking at the big picture. It doesn’t necessarily make any sense that massacres like this attract more outrage than the structural violence that kills people more slowly, spread out across time and space. It doesn’t necessarily make sense that we mourn the massacres that the media tells us to and not others.

My reaction as a queer transhumanist anarchist adheres to its own predictable line: opposition to authoritarian security measures enforced through violence, whether controls on Muslim immigrants or on firearms. I likewise advocate criticism of Islam and other Abrahamic religions as part of the project of smashing straightness.

As I’ve previously written, state gun control has a racist history and enhances the power of elites. Moreover, as William Gillis argues, state regulation based on safety fundamentally conflicts with technological innovation. I don’t completely agree with Gillis, but find the broad sweep of the argument compelling.

First the state bans assault rifles; next it bans all 3D printers that could conceivably produce assault rifles. (How do they enforce these bans? With assault rifles, of course.) The logic of banning guns, of safety via state violence, tends toward totalitarian dystopia. It’s the logic of the cop wearing a pistol and body armor who’ll shoot you for possessing a knife. Perhaps enlightened progressives could somehow strike the right balance and allow for technological transformation while still reducing the odds of individuals going on murderous rampages.

I doubt it. That’s a risk I’m not willing to take. State gun control is manifestly hypocritical, unethical, and corrosive to freedom. The long-term dangers are overwhelming.

I do support nonstate efforts to reduce risks that come from the means of destruction, including firearms. Safety stands out as a hard problem for transhumanism. I plan to cover this in more detail in the future. For now, suffice it to say that I don’t want a nuclear bomb in every pot.

Banning guns is misguided. Further restricting Muslim immigration and targeting Muslims with increased security-based harassment stand out as far worse, nightmarishly oppressive prospects. Such prejudice and control run wholly counter to the principle of freedom.

With that said, despite how homonationalists tell me to join ISIS when I denounce the United States, I don’t buy into the mainstream narrative around Islamophobia. Islam, like other Abrahamic religions, contains endless oppressive elements. I don’t think there’s enough positive there to be worth salvaging, although I hold limited sympathy for Muslims/Christians/Jews/etc. who cultivate the best aspects of their religions.

I oppose prejudice against Muslims because region and culture determine religious identity more than adherence to dogma, and because anti-Muslim sentiment in the West primarily comes from imperialists, racists, and xenophobes. We should criticize and fight back those who preach oppression based on any religion or any other basis. This includes Islam.

Ultimately, I’m on the side of the apostates and blasphemers. Death to all domination!

Homonationalism Means Bashing Queers June 9, 2016

Posted by Summerspeaker in Anarchism, Anti-imperialism, Decolonization, Feminism, Queer politics, Transhumanism.
Tags: , , , , ,
4 comments

I just got back from Albuquerque’s Trans March to the Pride Candlelight Vigil. As I yelled “Death to the United States!” and “Death to imperialism!” during the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance and National Anthem, two homonationalists put their hands on me, threatened to beat me up, grabbed my sign, and temporarily pulled it off its handle. This neatly illustrates what inclusion entails for normative LGBT subjects: bashing queers.

Pride 2016 Signs (1)

Earlier, during the Trans March, I engaged violent insurrectionist propaganda of the deed by following the lead of a few other folks and walking into the lane of traffic we were supposed to leave open. Security, safety, or whatever-the-hell people in reflective vests told me to know my place and get back in line. At first I ignored them. At a stop, when I don’t believe I was actually even blocking traffic, my presence out of the assigned area created a scene. One reflective person put their hands on me. Others endeavored to persuade me to conform. They said I was risking arrest. Somebody in the crowd said I needed to be peaceful.

“Death to peace!” I shouted. “There is no peace!”

When the march began moving again, I joined the main flow but on the outer edge, partially in the forbidden zone. When a person who identifies as an anarchist came to whip me into shape, I lost it and rushed through the crowd to the sidewalk. I the left the march at that point, as far I was concerned. I followed along as a bystander or perhaps heckler, not as a participant.

The security folks were doing what they thought was right, I’m sure. While I intentionally pushed the envelope, I suspect I would have gone with crowd after that pause if the peace police had simply let me stand there instead giving me a hard time.

leiafingers

Some attempts at control prove counterproductive.

Taking the whole street would have been safer and more fun. It’s fully appropriate, given the importance of trans lives and trans visibility.

Because of this debacle, I arrived at the vigil already enraged. The event announcer, Tony Carson, told us to get patriotic. “Death to patriotism!” I responded. Carson said something about taking that Saudi Arabia. I continued yelling through the ensuing U.S. nationalist ceremonies. I wasn’t in any mood to hold back.

Carson was the first homonationalist to confront me. Ey demanded that I leave, threatened to hurt me, and got up in my personal space. I alternated between yelling anti-U.S. slogans for everyone to hear and arguing with em. Ey grabbed my sign and we struggled over it. Another homonationalist came up and said ey would knock me out. Ey identified as a veteran. I said was condemning the United States as a political entity, not the individuals in the military. This second homonationalist also grabbed my sign, albeit with less vigor than the first.

A prominent LGBTQ organizer intervened with a liberal narrative of tolerance and free speech. The homonationalists had assaulted me and threatened me with bodily harm, but whatever. We’re all equal; it’s all good. Homonationalists who immediately turn to threats and physical attacks are the same as loud but technically peaceful queer anarchists as far as the big-tent LGBTQ movement is concerned, right? We just need to learn to get along. What’s a little domination, hierarchy, and oppression between family?

Nah, y’all ain’t my family.

Eventually a few folks with (un)Occupy Albuquerque approached and engaged. It felt like they had my back in the moment.

Although the homonationalists didn’t deliver the bashing they talked about, their repeated threats and physical aggression show how homonationalism functions. Becoming a respectable LGBT subject means disavowing radical queers who pose a danger to the nation. It means bashing those radical queers if they criticize the nation and won’t shut up.

After all, violence against the enemy and against the traitor is what nationalism is all about. It’s not surprising that these folks want to hurt me for insulting the United States, but it does tell you everything you need to know about the mainstream LGBT movement.

Homonationalists are another group of queer bashers. Their norms ain’t quite the same as your stereotypical straight homophobic man’s are, but they enforce them in the same fashion.

Albuquerque Pride condones and enables homonationalist queer bashing.

Queer anarchists struggle against all such policing. I wish had a queer transhumanist anarchist crew. (Ideally, each of these identifications implies the other two.) However, this is Albuquerque. Furthermore, queer transhumanist anarchist values hardly lend themselves to community.

Pride 2016 Signs (2)

While I respect certain oppositional nationalisms under present conditions, I consider U.S. nationalism utterly pernicious. Emma Goldman’s analysis of nationalism from the early twentieth century remains essentially correct. Nationalism and militarism stand in direct conflict with the core principles of freedom and justice, as well as with those of innovation, science, and technology. Sure, nationalism and militarism fuel technoscientific development at times, but much of this is wasted effort. Ultimately, free flow of information and of people does the most to advance science and technology, to make transhumanist dreams reality. Borders, militaries, and governments cause vast human suffering and hinder progress.

Death to the United States!

cbs_oakland_protest_120130a-615x345

A New Tendency February 29, 2016

Posted by Summerspeaker in Anarchism, Transhumanism.
Tags: , ,
2 comments

Conservative Anarchist Transhumanism (CAT) – At least something still makes sense!

Conservative Anarchist Transhumanism (CAT) – Say no to pleasureshaming!

Conservative Anarchist Transhumanism (CAT) – Preserve your pattern from the hivemind!

Tired of William Gillis lecturing you on the cosmic mission to convert the universe into computronium? Find the conceit of persistent personal identity deeply reassuring? Love technology and rationality but also your own arbitrary desires? Dislike the taste of bullets? Join CAT today!

holodeck2holodeck1borg1

borg2

Public Service Announcement November 15, 2015

Posted by Summerspeaker in Anarchism, Anti-imperialism, Despair, Transhumanism.
add a comment

Though a staple of geek culture, using the verb “nuke” to express opposition to something isn’t half as cute as you think it is. “Nuke organic farms.” “Nuke New Zealand.” Etc. Nuclear weapons have a specific history, one that to date has no revolutionary associations whatsoever. Massacres and dynamites have better records. On the whole I’m skeptical of violent and militaristic language, though I remain fond of wishing death to nonliving things: “Death to empire! Death to oppression! Death to domination! Death to hierarchy!” Etc. The verb “nuke” has nothing worthwhile to recommend it. This usage impresses those who appreciate hyperbole and geek culture but otherwise alienates and horrifies.

Why Anarchist Transhumanism? October 29, 2015

Posted by Summerspeaker in Anarchism, Transhumanism.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

William Gillis tells you why here. As much as I enjoy the appeal, I don’t completely agree with this piece. It’s not accurate to describe laptops as grenades because they can’t easily be used as such. I likewise suspect design space exists for making technologies less dangerous and intelligent beings more resilient. Simply throwing our hands up and saying it’s cool to have the ability to unleash engineered plagues strikes me as unwise. I don’t necessarily care myself, but that’s a dubious foundation for enduring social and political systems. Of course state control is worse, but individual and community measures to reduce risk seem better. While the history of technological change to date suggest a trend toward increasing risk and ease of attack – guns, explosives, etc. – that trend need not necessarily continue. Intelligent beings can make choices to reduce risk and increase safety. More freedom and intelligence potentially allows more successful striving toward lower-risk systems. At a certain point, weighed alongside potential benefits, doing things that greatly increase risk of harm to other beings is bad and should be avoided. Examples for me include the existence of nuclear weapons – at least under present conditions – and engineered plagues (depending to some extent on the details). I propose persuasion via reason as the primary way to spread this position. In some cases force strikes me as potentially appropriate, such as if somebody said they nuclear weapon or engineered plague on standby and were planning to push the trigger. I plan to write more about this when I make the time.

William Gillis also recently released a piece criticizing primitivism, but I doubt anybody reading this blog really needs that.

William Gillis Finally Finished “Science as Radicalism” August 19, 2015

Posted by Summerspeaker in Anarchism, Epistemology, Technology, Transhumanism.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

Science graphic.

You can read it here. The piece provides a useful intervention. I’ll provide further commentary when I get the chance. Check out the anarchistnews.org version if you’re brave.

The March of Automation August 2, 2015

Posted by Summerspeaker in Anarchism, Technology, Transhumanism.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

It’s an old story, going back to the start of the so-called industrial revolution. However, now the prospect of near-complete automation is beginning to seem more credible. This piece recounts how a factory in Dongguan City in China has recently replaced 90% of its workers with robots and seen 162.5% increase in production with a considerably lower defect rate. Various other Chinese factories plan to follow suit.

In an economy that ran for the common good – and perhaps in a genuinely free market – this sort of thing would be awesome. More efficient production could in theory make us all better off. In actually existing practice it’s more complicated. Workers lose jobs and primarily the bosses on the top benefit. As the linked article mentions, the increasing automation of Chinese factories comes at the same time as the Made in China 2025 initiative, which delightfully includes a focus on strengthening intellectual property rights.

Vastly complex technological systems of production and distribution sustain the current world economy. This article provides a fascinating look at the shipping industry. Here as with Chinese factories we see movement toward replace human labor with its robotic equivalent. Author Tim Maughan notes that “ports like Rotterdam in the Netherlands have already moved to fully automated systems, with driverless trucks and robotic cranes.”

Chinese factories, Danish-run shipping lines, and so on supply the basic necessities/luxuries that so many of us rely on on a daily basis for our comfort and survival. At the same time, these systems involve incredible exploitation and suffering. Automation seems like an ideal solution to drudgery but I doubt it will such as such by itself. It’s no answer to the questions of contamination, displacement, and distribution that continually haunt the modern economy.

The solution, of course, is revolution, but not a revolution simply destroys the industrial economy – at least not without putting up something superior in its place. When reading Maughan’s piece, disrupting supply lines seems awfully easy. It’s almost amazing the folks who want to accelerate the supposedly inevitable collapse of civilization haven’t had more successful.

Update July 26, 2015

Posted by Summerspeaker in Despair, Epistemology, Transhumanism.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

I’ve been reclusive lately, focused on academics, an interpersonal relationship or two, and distracting myself. My career in the Imperial Academy goes well enough, I guess, while the human connections have been a disaster. I’ve enjoyed drowning my sorrows in cardstock (MTG, specifically EDH) and will continue to do so, but over the last couple weeks my health has taken a downturn that makes indulging in distraction more difficult. At the moment I can hardly breath because of allergies, so I’m not good for much – even when taking the allergy meds they use to cook meth.

My main engagement with transhumanism this year has been via William Gillis’s thought. Between Gillis and Meera Nanda, I’m reassessing the value of criticizing versus supporting science and rationality. I plan to continue doing both, of course, and in many cases criticizing examples of actually existing science as a social practice supports science as a set of principles and methods. With that said, in retrospect I feel I’ve at times given excessive weight to critiques of science and rationality coming from humanities scholarship, both because I found them more convincing than I should have and because I considered these critiques important for an audience I assumed had an unshakably positive view of science. I still regard critiques of science useful, but Gillis and Nanda make a powerful case for the dangers of any move away from science and rationality.

At base I remain fond of old-school skepticism and of relativism; the former amounts to an intellectual game while the later has more meaningful implications. Regarding skepticism, I see no absolutely stable grounds for knowledge, as our senses could be deceiving us and/or our reasoning may be misguided. The edifice of science rests on foundations that haven’t been and probably can’t be definitely proven. However, these foundations are overwhelmingly plausible. The scientific worldview based on empirical evidence, logic, and modeling strikes me as far more likely and practical than any alternative. Regarding relativism, we have zero evidence by the scientific worldview that the universe gives a shit about anything. Values comes from humans and other sentient beings. As such, no universal guide for what should be exists. Our senses and reasoning presumably give us access, albeit mediated access, to objective reality. but what we make of this access only matters to the minds involved. Apart from us, nobody cares. The scientific worldview by all indications provides a closer model of objective reality and this becomes valuable insofar as sentient beings decide it is. I consider this exceedingly valuable as do many other people, but I shouldn’t beguile myself into believing there’s some higher purpose beyond my interests and those of other humans. By universe’s lights, a mind wrapped up in its own subjective reality is every bit as good as one striving toward objective reality: both simply are.

As such, I support science and rationality because I believe they align with my interests and, at least in the long term, with the interests of the vast majority of other currently existing minds (especially human minds). Objective material reality has quite a hold on most of us. Humans tend to suffer when we can’t manage basics like food, water, shelter, and healthcare. Improving the quantity and quality of these basics benefits lots of folks regardless of their position on science and rationality, regardless of whatever subjective realities they’re pursuing. Excessive criticism of science can prove dangerous if it obscures the profound importance of improving shared material conditions and/or if it presents alternatives to science as credible. Playing with subjective realities comes much recommended, but objective material reality stands out as the primary basis for political struggle.