rigorousintuition.ca

Race is socially constructed for sure, but is not "real" in the thoughtless sense that most racists suggest. It does relate to skin tone, and racialization is an ascriptive process. The social construction involves most all of us: for example, if a person of a certain skin tone speaks this way instead of that way, a properly socialized person in North America will "know" what box to put them in

White nationalists and other such racists love to stoke the Us and Them dichotomy in various ways. It's not so cool to be seen as a goose stepping Nazi anymore so instead they may suggest that it's kinda ok to beat up on immigrants, that jews run the world, that islamic people should be suppressed or expelled because they are all terrorists, etc.

Class struggle is not a doctrine cooked up by the Frankfort School to undermine the supremacy of the "White Race". Instead, it is an inescapable part of our lives. It is factories closing and the rent going up. It is pollution increasing and global warming getting worse. The Rockefellers and the (jewish?) bankers are part of it, but they are first and foremost the finger pointing at the moon, not the ultimate cause of all that is evil. Capital is a dynamic social relationship rather than a bad group of people, even though there are bad groups of people doing bad things, for sure.

An anti-racist, class struggle orientation is definitely compatible with critical thinking about State as institution, so beware of those who are quick to use straw men to pump up their bogus ideas regarding some sort of stark choice between State Tyranny and "Race Realism".

Most people who don't get the above are useful idiots and/or maybe leaders and organizers for fascist/racist/far right type causes who know quite well what they are doing, no matter what the reasons they are doing it for. In the guise of exposing evil conspiracies, instead they are perpetuating them.

American Dream » Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:28 pm wrote:Race is socially constructed for sure, but is not "real" in the thoughtless sense that most racists suggest. It does relate to skin tone, and racialization is an ascriptive process. The social construction involves most all of us: for example, if a person of a certain skin tone speaks this way instead of that way, a properly socialized person in North America will "know" what box to put them in

White nationalists and other such racists love to stoke the Us and Them dichotomy in various ways. It's not so cool to be seen as a goose stepping Nazi anymore so instead they may suggest that it's kinda ok to beat up on immigrants, that jews run the world, that islamic people should be suppressed or expelled because they are all terrorists, etc.

Class struggle is not a doctrine cooked up by the Frankfort School to undermine the supremacy of the "White Race". Instead, it is an inescapable part of our lives. It is factories closing and the rent going up. It is pollution increasing and global warming getting worse. The Rockefellers and the bankers are part of it, but they are mostly just the finger pointing at the moon, not the ultimate cause of all that is evil. Capital is a dynamic social relationship rather than a bad group of people, even though there are bad groups of people doing bad things, for sure.

An anti-racist, class struggle orientation is definitely compatible with critical thinking about State as institution, so beware of those who are quick to use straw men to pump up their bogus ideas regarding some sort of stark choice between State Tyranny and "Race Realism".

Most people who don't get the above are useful idiots and/or maybe leaders and organizers for fascist/racist/far right type causes who know quite well what they are doing, no matter what the reasons they are doing it for. In the guise of exposing evil conspiracies, instead they are perpetuating them.

Congrats on producing a well thought out post.

The bolded bit caught my eye, are you saying that race is real in some other sense?
I know you've hinted at this, but this is a step beyond the usual 'race isn't real'. Probably a significant one.

jakell » 10 Feb 2016 23:59 wrote:

Joe Hillshoist » Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:49 pm wrote:I'm not hedging on it. I am sure you will be unable to find one (or more) example(s) of the term "white race" being used to promote anything other than division to enable exploitation and conflict.

With one exception. People talking about the term "white race" as a thing, what it is, who uses it and why.

people may use the term 'innocently' not realising it is poisoning their minds ... well programming them anyway. You'll find when they do use it then itimmediately starts framing their worldviews and expression in nasty ways.

Seems we're agreed then... 'always' was a pretty long shot and best sidelined.

I think we can agree on 'mostly', taking into account that weighting I described. It seems we may be usefully moving on from terms having an inherent weight to them, and how it is careless or malign usage of them that is the problem (human fallability again). The problem being in not noticing the, sometimes barely noticeable, gap before we pile on our preconceptions.

Well no always isn't a long shot.

Apart from people criticising the term 'white race' as a construct to enable division, exploitation and conflict for the benefit of an elite class of people the only use of the term is to enable division, exploitation and conflict. For the benefit of elites. that it is inherent weighting and the only time it doesn't apply is when the term gets used in the context of criticising it for its divisive race baiting qualities.

That is how it is.

if you or anyone else could find examples of the term that show it being used in another way that doesn't promote division, exploitation and conflict then you would have by now.

Joe Hillshoist » Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:03 pm wrote:

jakell » 10 Feb 2016 23:59 wrote:

Joe Hillshoist » Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:49 pm wrote:I'm not hedging on it. I am sure you will be unable to find one (or more) example(s) of the term "white race" being used to promote anything other than division to enable exploitation and conflict.

With one exception. People talking about the term "white race" as a thing, what it is, who uses it and why.

people may use the term 'innocently' not realising it is poisoning their minds ... well programming them anyway. You'll find when they do use it then itimmediately starts framing their worldviews and expression in nasty ways.

Seems we're agreed then... 'always' was a pretty long shot and best sidelined.

I think we can agree on 'mostly', taking into account that weighting I described. It seems we may be usefully moving on from terms having an inherent weight to them, and how it is careless or malign usage of them that is the problem (human fallability again). The problem being in not noticing the, sometimes barely noticeable, gap before we pile on our preconceptions.

Well no always isn't a long shot.

Apart from people criticising the term 'white race' as a construct to enable division, exploitation and conflict for the benefit of an elite class of people the only use of the term is to enable division, exploitation and conflict. For the benefit of elites. that it is inherent weighting and the only time it doesn't apply is when the term gets used in the context of criticising it for its divisive race baiting qualities.

That is how it is.

if you or anyone else could find examples of the term that show it being used in another way that doesn't promote division, exploitation and conflict then you would have by now.

You have already described circumstances where it is not (always) used to enable exploitation and conflict, so there's no need for me to go hunting for examples. Really though, those were are no brainer and wouldn't need either of us to make much effort.
I thought we'd agreed here though (on 'mostly') and don't see why you are revisiting this.

jakell » 11 Feb 2016 09:14 wrote:

Joe Hillshoist » Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:03 pm wrote:

jakell » 10 Feb 2016 23:59 wrote:

Joe Hillshoist » Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:49 pm wrote:I'm not hedging on it. I am sure you will be unable to find one (or more) example(s) of the term "white race" being used to promote anything other than division to enable exploitation and conflict.

With one exception. People talking about the term "white race" as a thing, what it is, who uses it and why.

people may use the term 'innocently' not realising it is poisoning their minds ... well programming them anyway. You'll find when they do use it then itimmediately starts framing their worldviews and expression in nasty ways.

Seems we're agreed then... 'always' was a pretty long shot and best sidelined.

I think we can agree on 'mostly', taking into account that weighting I described. It seems we may be usefully moving on from terms having an inherent weight to them, and how it is careless or malign usage of them that is the problem (human fallability again). The problem being in not noticing the, sometimes barely noticeable, gap before we pile on our preconceptions.

Well no always isn't a long shot.

Apart from people criticising the term 'white race' as a construct to enable division, exploitation and conflict for the benefit of an elite class of people the only use of the term is to enable division, exploitation and conflict. For the benefit of elites. that it is inherent weighting and the only time it doesn't apply is when the term gets used in the context of criticising it for its divisive race baiting qualities.

That is how it is.

if you or anyone else could find examples of the term that show it being used in another way that doesn't promote division, exploitation and conflict then you would have by now.

You have already described circumstances where it is not (always) used to enable exploitation and conflict, so there's no need for me to go hunting for examples. Really though, those were are no brainer and wouldn't need either of us to make much effort.
I thought we'd agreed here though (on 'mostly') and don't see why you are revisiting this.

Ok .... the word "white" is one thing.

Add the word "race" to it and it becomes something else entirely.

...interesting snippet on our Neanderthal inheritance....

Neanderthal DNA linked to disease in humans

Clive Cookson in Washington February 11, 2016 7:04 pm

www.ft.com

The Neanderthal DNA inherited by modern Europeans and Asians has wide-ranging clinical consequences, from mental illness to blood disorders and skin disease, according to a genetic analysis of health records.

Between 1.5 and 4 per cent of the genome of today’s Eurasians — but not Africans — comes from the Neanderthals with whom our ancestors interbred about 50,000 years ago.

A study released on Thursday at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Washington is the first to relate patients’ clinical records to the parts of their DNA derived from Neanderthals. The full Neanderthal genome is known from analysis of tiny amounts of DNA extracted from fossilised bones.

“Our main finding is that Neanderthal DNA does influence clinical traits in modern humans,” said John Capra of Vanderbilt University, senior author of the study which is also published in the journal Science. “We discovered associations between Neanderthal DNA and a wide range of traits including immunological, dermatological, neurological, psychiatric and reproductive disease.”

The researchers analysed a database containing the medical records and genetic profiles of 28,000 patients from nine US hospitals.
Neanderthal DNA must have propagated over many thousands of generations of Homo sapiens because they conferred some adaptive advantages. But these benefits may not apply in current industrialised societies.

Researchers found that Neanderthals, who had been living in Eurasia for hundreds of thousands of years, gave modern humans moving north from the warmth of Africa a tougher skin more suited to a cold, dark climate. This Neanderthal legacy results today in increased susceptibility to keratosis — skin lesions induced by sunlight.

They also discovered a Neanderthal genetic variant that makes blood coagulate faster. The researchers say quicker clotting might have helped ancestral Eurasians cope with the new pathogens they encountered, by accelerating the sealing of wounds to prevent germs getting into the body. But today it is harmful, increasing the risk of stroke and pulmonary embolism.
The most intriguing findings are associations between Neanderthal DNA and psychiatric and neurological disease. One Neanderthal gene mysteriously makes nicotine addiction more likely, while many variants influence the risk of depression — some positively and some negatively.

“The brain is incredibly complex, so it is reasonable to expect that introducing changes from a different evolutionary path might have negative consequences,” said Corinne Simonti, another member of the team.

Whether the Neanderthal DNA inheritance is beneficial or harmful to a modern human depends on the individual’s circumstances. But the study suggests that, in general, the effect is probably negative for people living in Europe and Asia today.

“Perhaps spending a few nights with a Neanderthal was a small price to pay for many thousands of years of adaptation to the environment,” said Professor Capra, referring to ancestral modern humans moving into Eurasia 50,000 years ago. “Today Neanderthal interbreeding does not seem so good for us.”

Further analysis is expected to shed light on different disease patterns between Africans who have no Neanderthal DNA and Eurasians who do. The researchers also hope to uncover the health effects of ancestral interbreeding with other hominid species or subspecies, such as the mysterious Denisovans who lived in Asia at the same time as Neanderthals.

Sounder » 11 Feb 2016 00:25 wrote:It is a class war alright, as the chattering class shifts the blame away from world class fascist and racist social dissolution experts, and on to yet more victims of of their world reshaping crusade.

The White European power structure is maintained by subverting the aspirations of regular white people as well as those of any and all other races.

You know, because race and our social constructing of it distracts from the more salient class issues.

true. the mass incarceration of non whites throughout the western and esp English speaking new world is really just a distraction and we should ignore it so we can make sure regular white people don't suffer from subverted aspirations.

While Auberon was no Steve I'm sure he's resting happily in his grave knowing one little piece of his pro "world class fascist and racist social dissolution experts" semantic programming is working on you.

Chatter v - to talk incessantly about matters that that are trivial or unimportant.

I could respond if I knew what you are talking about Joe.

jakell » 11 Feb 2016 02:34 wrote:

American Dream » Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:28 pm wrote:Race is socially constructed for sure, but is not "real" in the thoughtless sense that most racists suggest. It does relate to skin tone, and racialization is an ascriptive process. The social construction involves most all of us: for example, if a person of a certain skin tone speaks this way instead of that way, a properly socialized person in North America will "know" what box to put them in

White nationalists and other such racists love to stoke the Us and Them dichotomy in various ways. It's not so cool to be seen as a goose stepping Nazi anymore so instead they may suggest that it's kinda ok to beat up on immigrants, that jews run the world, that islamic people should be suppressed or expelled because they are all terrorists, etc.

Class struggle is not a doctrine cooked up by the Frankfort School to undermine the supremacy of the "White Race". Instead, it is an inescapable part of our lives. It is factories closing and the rent going up. It is pollution increasing and global warming getting worse. The Rockefellers and the bankers are part of it, but they are mostly just the finger pointing at the moon, not the ultimate cause of all that is evil. Capital is a dynamic social relationship rather than a bad group of people, even though there are bad groups of people doing bad things, for sure.

An anti-racist, class struggle orientation is definitely compatible with critical thinking about State as institution, so beware of those who are quick to use straw men to pump up their bogus ideas regarding some sort of stark choice between State Tyranny and "Race Realism".

Most people who don't get the above are useful idiots and/or maybe leaders and organizers for fascist/racist/far right type causes who know quite well what they are doing, no matter what the reasons they are doing it for. In the guise of exposing evil conspiracies, instead they are perpetuating them.

Congrats on producing a well thought out post.

The bolded bit caught my eye, are you saying that race is real in some other sense?
I know you've hinted at this, but this is a step beyond the usual 'race isn't real'. Probably a significant one.

You probably should start here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28h ... sification

Then work your way through the references.

Sounder » 12 Feb 2016 23:55 wrote:I could respond if I knew what you are talking about Joe.

Don't use the words "chattering classes" then write a post like the one you wrote.

The European Power Elite may subvert the aspirations of white people too, but on a very different level and the immediate consequences are far worse for non whites in my country and from what I can see across the ocean, the US. Not recognising that or resisting it is definitely a symptom of the chattering classes i spose.

I"m sick and tired of the "white people are guilty due to their genetics" meme. I get the point but it has become sickening. I didn't own no slaves and i'll be god damned if i'm willing to feel guilty for any "white folk" that did before I was even alive. Not to mention the fact that if we want to get all "statistical" about the matter, the vast majority of "white folk" never owned any slaves anyway. What a juvenile way to view the world....The fact that the meme is allowed to survive here is sickening and divisive.

backtoiam » Fri Feb 12, 2016 9:30 am wrote:I"m sick and tired of the "white people are guilty due to their genetics" meme. I get the point but it has become sickening. I didn't own no slaves and i'll be god damned if i'm willing to feel guilty for any "white folk" that did before I was even alive. Not to mention the fact that if we want to get all "statistical" about the matter, the vast majority of "white folk" never owned any slaves anyway. What a juvenile way to view the world....The fact that the meme is allowed to survive here is sickening and divisive.

The fact the meme is "sickening" to you indicates you need to buffer your immune system. Most memes are "allowed to survive" here, and surely crackers are tough enough to deal with it, yeah?

Getting statistical is always a good idea, especially since it tends to subvert both sides of most any argument. I don't think what Joe is advancing here is about individual guilt, so much as collective outcomes.

Surely such larger topics can be discussed without anyone taking it personally.

Surely such larger topics can be discussed without anyone taking it personally.

Now that is a good thought.

this fucking thread should have been deleted the moment it was posted. just imagine this....

"abolish the black race-by any means necessary"....would be immediately deleted
"abolish the jewish race" by any means necessary"...would be immediately deleted
"abolish the muslim race" by any means necessary"...would be deleted immediately
"abolish homosexuals" by any means necessary"....would be deleted
"abolish heterosexuals" by any means necessary....would be deleted

maybe not deleted, but immediately scorned....this shit should have run its course long ago......

Wombaticus Rex » 13 Feb 2016 00:54 wrote:

Getting statistical is always a good idea, especially since it tends to subvert both sides of most any argument. I don't think what Joe is advancing here is about individual guilt, so much as collective outcomes.

Yes exactly.