How do you define race?

submitted by [deleted] from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Which topic? There are probably 5 in that paragraph. Catastracism? Antediluvian civilization? Ancient Aryan tribes? Giants? White Israelites? Anti evolution? Ancient racial castes? Solar cycles/birklan currents? Alt archaeology? Jews? Ancient plasma sky symbols? Alt astronomy (plasma theory)? Ancient symbology?

(for they record I'm an expert on exactly ZERO of these topics, they just interest me. Asha Logos and Robert Sepher got me into some of this so I'd start there.)

since I have many doubts on its legitimacy.

As do I. However, I straight up reject most of the current academic 'consensus' on these topics.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

For what its worth, I share some of your thoughts - at least as possible hypotheses. I also think you ought to not straight up reject most current academic consensus. Just mainstream presentation of the "consensus". Race & genetics is mainstream too, but thats not how the media or anthropologists present it.

There is a lot of interesting writing

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I also think you ought to not straight up reject most current academic consensus.

Our academics are compromised on so many fronts everything they produce and promote should be heavily scrutinized. Which field of academics do you think is trustworthy and worth taking at face value? There's a clear intellectual cabal inside of these institutions that have been hiring and promoting people on racial and ideological loyalty not truth. No field of study is safe from this head hunting. Every generation gets more bold in their ideological conformity and anti white/anti christian/ anti masculine/ anti traditionalism biases.

Just mainstream presentation of the "consensus".

Good point. It's sometimes a misrepresentation of the ideas. However, more often than not it's just a straight up a biased academic who knows exactly what they are doing and why.

Race & genetics is mainstream too, but thats not how the media or anthropologists present it.

Again these 'pro' HBD academics are still openly operating according to oligarch rules for talking about these topics. Whats the point of doing the research if you're not allowed to promote it or contextualize it for the populace? Race aware scientists that self censor are doing just as much damage don't you think? They are uniquely positioned to change the public mindset on these topics yet they remain silent? In fact this silence could even help elites as they get the first look at new science and can figure out how to fit it into their global domination schemes.

There is a lot of interesting writing

Agreed. I'm constantly overwhelmed with everything that needs to be read!