since this is the most racist social media platform in the history of racism, I wanted to ask if you've read race based books like these?
what did I think of it?
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Books on races
since this is the most racist social media platform in the history of racism, I wanted to ask if you've read race based books like these?
what did I think of it?
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
|
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
>Ruth Benedict
For the millionth time I will recommend “On Airs, Waters and Places.” It is probably the oldest race science book in the world. If you can find one from before 400 BC.
does it even have all the races?
the writer had no idea about americans existing
It’s an incredible read. Scythians/ Europeans are both overly warlike and also they’re all trannies.
but I want to know how many races there are and what they're specialized in so that they can fit into the same system
I will give you a rundown of Hippocrates’ race theories
>Scythians - have trannies among them. Men who can’t orgasm during love making become trannies. These people are violent and warlike because they need to hunt for their food and only the strongest survive
>Asians/ Near easterners/ anatolians- these people are very friendly and meek. They lack courage, bravery and aggression because their climate is so mild and food is given to them from the trees and oxen. They don’t need to really hunt to survive
>Africans (Macrocephaly) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrocephali - these barbarians used to bind their children’s heads into odd shapes but this practice was stamped out after the tribe had interbred with more advanced civilizations which put an end to it
>men from Phasis (city in Georgia) - the men here are large of stature and tawny enough they loook like they have jaundice. They have rough voices because of the humid air in the climate
>other Europeans (unspecified but likely Germans)- EXTREMELY violent because of the terrible climate they endure. See part on scythians
Scythians had goats and sheep they didn't need to hunt to survive.
And he forgot to mention his own race
In comparison to the mild climate of Greece with which he was familiar, Scythia (Ukraine and Southern Poland) is extremely difficult and cold. In a different essay on Prognostics he lists Scythia as an example of a frozen climate, Libya an example of a desert climate and the island of Delos as an example of a “perfect” climate.
what about the Greek race
He doesn’t go into a discussion about his own race. See
He thought Greeks were the “normal” standard by which others were measured. The perfect people. Delos was his example of a perfect climate.
Here is a link to the full book. He starts discussing the races of Asia and Europe at part 12, right here:
http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/airwatpl.12.12.html
Here is the rest-
http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/airwatpl.html
I like that even in Hippocrates’ time it was known that Eurotards are violent apes. He blames the harsh climate.
The main takeaway it seems was that he believed the warmer the climate the milder the temperament of the people and the colder the more savage and vicious.
>(unspecified but likely Germans)
He was probably talking about Italians, Thracians, and Illyrians, maybe Gauls at best.
Unlikely because he was talking about the inhospitable parts of Europe which suffer from cold and the like. I will give you Thracians and Gallics.
>Gamer bros...
As many as you'd like since race is made up.
Is the American living rent free in your head right now?
He is talking about injuns, dumbass.
Based autist.
You have a narrow window for general works in the fast and loose 19th-century fashion.
De Gobineau is always good to start with, although he can be quite disagreeable at times.
No one as of yet has actually made a fully complete WoW/fantasy style compilation of races and typologies to suit all our autistic needs as far as I am aware though.
Maybe if you'll do it if you commit enough.
is there an opportunity to write about races
It's not illegal. Just frowned upon.
Suuuurreee…right.
>Whiteness was associated with femininity. Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazeusae 191-192 has Euripides criticising Agathon as λευκος (white), γυναικοφωνος (woman-voiced), and ‘απαλος (soft). His Ecclesiazeusae 428 similarly has a young man described as λευκος proposing that women should rule the city. Xenophon’s Hellenica 3.4.19 records Spartan soldiers, on seeing that their enemies are λευκος, deciding that fighting against them would be ει γυναιξι δεοι μαχεσθαι (like having to fight women). Euripides’ Bacchae 457 has Pentheus describe Dionysus as λευκος, and also ουκ αμορφος […] ‘ως ες γυναικας (not ill-formed […] as unto women, 453-4). The association is quite consistent.
> Meanwhile, Aristotle’s Politics makes a ‘golden mean’ argument about geography and ethnicity, if not precisely skin colour, claiming that Europeans and people living in cold places are θυμοῦ μέν ἐστι πλήρη, διανοίας δὲ ἐνδεέστερα καὶ τέχνης (‘full of courage but lacking in intelligence and skill’), and thus are too disorganised to conquer their neighbours, whilst Asians are διανοητικὰ μὲν καὶ τεχνικὰ τὴν ψυχήν, ἄθυμα δέ (‘intelligent and skilful, but without courage’, Politics 7, 1327b), and that Greeks occupy the perfect mean between the two and thus have intelligence, skill, and courage. Pale-skinned northern Europeans, then, he represents as inferior.
> As with Ancient Egyptians, Mycenaean Greeks and Minoans generally depicted women with pale or white skin and men with dark brown or tanned skin. As a result, men with pale or light skin, leukochrōs (λευκόχρως, "white-skinned") could be considered weak and effeminate by Ancient Greek writers such as Plato and Aristotle.
> White skin was so strongly associated with women that Aristotle felt compelled to offer a biological explanation: women lose so much blood during menstruation, that it makes them pale.
> The examples given in LSJ indicate that leukos, meaning "white-skinned" (entries II.b and c), is "a sign of youth and beauty" (II.b) when applied to women, but means "weakly, womanish" (II.c) when applied to men.
> Furthermore, Agathon's effeminate good looks feature white skin (leukos, 191). Stehle notes that "His mask was probably white, the standard type for an effete male in Aristophanes"
> In Xenophon pale skin comes to signify 'physical debilitation,'
> Aristophanes’s schema is simple and essentialist: white skin = woman, tan skin = man, and suggesting the opposite = comedy.
Hippo literally talks about the trannies of Scythia in On Airs, Waters and Places. He also says they are a matriarchy where women are in charge
Repeat it 10 more times you illiterate ape.
have a nice day troony homosexual
Learn to learn troony Black person.
He is a poo-lak angry that his forefathers were trannies.
Look it's easy to debunk all this race theory. Race theorists can't explain a very simple fact: any woman in the world can get pregnant form any man in the world
If races were real, this would not be possible.
I’ll bite. Are horses and donkeys the same animal?
to white women? yes
Fren. The children of horses and donkeys are sterile. The children between Black folk and wiggers are not sterile.
Dog breeds is a better comparison. Pitbulls are volatile morons and a golden retriever would never hurt anybody and is easily trainable, but if you breed the two together the puppies won't be sterile.
Multiple different species of all kinds can breed together. That doesn't really mean anything. The "humans are 98% or 99% genetically identical to each other" argument doesn't hold up either. There are multiple species whose genetic difference from each other is just as "small", such as Wolves and Coyotes, but they're still considered different species with very different behaviours. "They're different because of environment" doesn't work either. Asian and white children from shitty poor families still routinely outperform black children from rich families, and well-off blacks still perform more crimes than poorly-off non-blacks. Really, the differences are biggest when comparing blacks to any other race. They're a world away from everybody else, genetically. Its no wonder their state is what it is.
The 98% to 99% statistic is not accurate. It's more like >99.9%. Which is a big difference because, as you said, Wolves and Coyotes share around that much (and dogs share around 84% of their DNA with us).
I think so too, dogs are all part of the same species but differ wildly depending on their breed.
To add to that, dogs and wolves share around 99.9% (99.96% in reality). Meaning dogs are technically a subspecies of the gray wolf. There's a lot of debates about that and I'm not a biologist, so idfk.
Read 20th century anthropological papers.
Go to humanphenotypes.net to find them. Its a dying science because of political correctness. Most of the papers though are in different languages.
Races are just phenological expressions from regional acclimation.
No, humans are not exempt from genetic expression when it comes to physiology. Yes, people will act disingenuously and pretend they have no idea what you're saying but also accept DNA's reality.
Does anyone know of more books about race that aren't based on the American concept of it? I need to learn how to be racist against all racial groups, even the ones Amerisharts aren't aware of.
Go down the street and apologize to your local gypsy community and hand over your taxes
https://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com
>since this is the most racist social media platform in the history of racism,
No its not. 8-chan and 16-chan were more hardcore. So was Iron-March and various other lost sites.
IQfy is not social media.
Bait or just braindead?
Neither. Using "social media" to describe this website is a retconning of a banal phrase onto a type of website where it doesn't apply. It's a lazy post-millennial way of understanding any sort of website that potentially involves two human beings interacting with each other.
Fine, I'll bite
words to describe things is wrong because it boils down the concept into a single word
Are you new to planet earth? Should people write essays on what things are before talking about them? I think that stick you shoved up your ass might have wriggled its way into your brain
IQfy is not social media. "Social media" is a term bound up with websites on which you upload your real name and face, or are at least strongly encouraged to do so. IQfy isn't that, and that's precisely a large part of its appeal relative to the other garbage.
You can have any definition of social media you like. Just like you can have any definition of a million number of things. Although I agree with you to some extent (in that this is a different kind of cesspit), the consensus is that IQfy is considered social media. If you don't like that then good for you. Out of curiosity, what would you call IQfy instead of social media?
It's a public forum and always was, in the same spirit as the ancient Greek forums. You homosexuals made a label for your world ending nonsense and put everything that came before under that umbrella.
"You homosexuals" is the majority bud. Forums were Roman, not Greek too. Though if you'd like to continue in the spirit of ancient Greece you are more than welcome to go suck some wiener
>muh majority
You're the cancer I suspected you are confirmed.
>Forums were Roman, not Greek too
The eternal braindead normie/woman. The same golem everywhere, adding nothing, poisoning everything he touches.
in
semantics, adds nothing to the conversation
>> "Y-you are the cancer that infects muh chans"
Lurk more Black person
The words you choose reflect your attitudes towards things. You see everything as a product, you're a consumer that appeals to majority consensus as if it's ever relevant to anything. Words and history, everything becomes jumbled together in a meaningless incoherent mess. When I referenced the simple and historically often cited idea of a public forum your mind doesn't even grasp what I'm talking about on any level.
>Forums were Roman, not Greek too
You're so irredeemably fricked in the head you thought you were correcting me? Who does this? Imagine how useless you have to be to come up with that line in that context and be arrogant enough to actually post it.
You know nothing of other people so you're quick to reflect your own flaws in them. Look in the mirror once in a while and you might catch a glimpse at your own towering arrogance. Words are social constructs meant to bridge the gap or understanding between people. To reject the established meaning of a word is to reject language, pure arrogance. Seethe some more dumbass.
Got some modern haplogroup literature I could read? Most of what I've found is very outdated
Not op, but thanks anon, I'll give it a go
>Not op, but thanks anon, I'll give it a go
Nice. I am actually the guy who translated it shamelessly shilling my book, kek.
The cutting edge is literally what the people on his talk about. You could try who we are and how we got here but you're right, even that's old
>To reject the established meaning of a word is to reject language
To reject history means anyone can manipulate you into believing anything through word associations. We called these places forums and people actually understood the value of forums until around 2007 when women showed up on phones and started calling everything they saw "social media" with all the baggage that entails. That morons are the majority does not make their moronic shit suddenly coherent or useful to understand anything.
You still don't understand anything I'm talking about but you're still posting, still undermining words and history, the tools we rely on to "bridge the gap of understanding". Why?
>>You this, you that.
You should touch some grass and talk to people in real life. Or do they not let you out of your retirement home?
>>We called these places forums and people actually understood the value of forums until around 2007 when women showed up on phones and started calling everything they saw "social media" with all the baggage that entails
Talk about rejecting history. Just because your wife divorced you and took the kids doesn't mean all women are out to get you. Or that women are responsible for all your woes.
>>That morons are the majority does not make their moronic shit suddenly coherent or useful to understand anything.
We’re talking about language. Who invented language? You? Oh right, you didn’t. Countless generations of what you call morons is why you can talk to people,
>>You still don't understand anything I'm talking about but you're still posting
What is there to understand? Apart from "I reject reality and replace it with my own" there isn't any substance to what you say.
Either way you are a bitter shell of a man, and I won't spend more of my time talking at you (because sure as hell this isn't getting through your thick skull).
>What is there to understand?
You work awfully hard to avoid even trying. Why? What motivates someone this deranged?
It sure caused you to respond didn’t it?
older books on race are obsolete in the face of modern haplogroup research. The concept isn't dead but the delineating lines have shifted
in community college I had an instructor that assigned Blumenbach and origination controversy readings. I felt like I was being trolled, to some extent. didn't help i was early stage schizo.
This was just published, it might be worth a read.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CHL233G3
Racism is so fricking gay
Go move to Africa, it’s soooo much more affordable and the enrichment and diversity are off the charts according to the ADL & SPLC, you hypocritical Black person apologist