corporatism's basic idea was that fascists would force the classes to cooperate and remove the class divide by the state acting as the arbiter of both proletariat and bourgeoise interests and subordinating them to the national need

so they'd merge companies into blocs and have them represented by a singular entity

and so on

yeah, but fascists utilized it most prominently as a third position economic model.

it was integral to the whole 'we reject capitalism and communism both' thing.

yes

because they genetically are

yes

homo sapiens is fairly well defined

i guess we could make black people a subspecies

if you want

homo sapiens negro

but it seems pretty inefficient

are we implying skull shapes are a relevant factor

the variation in cranial formation between populations wouldn't account for any significant difference in the manner you're describing. i don't think brain volume even matters much comparative to other factors such as symmetry.

also, skull sizes are pretty non-conforming across population groups.

so again

is it really relevant

do we have to get into a debate over the statistical relevance of IQ

because people always overstate it

because they're silly?

he's on discord

so yes

we all are

i'm unsure why any of this is relevant

there's a clear biological difference between every person in the entire species, i don't see how it's a relevant decider on what is or is not a race.

it isn't really strength, but economic convenience.

before industrialisation, it was about how much you could produce.

more land is more wealth, aggregate.

more land needs more workers.

Okay, but, again, every individual person has different biological traits. You need to be more specific than that.

If we're measuring purely for phenotypical markers, that's pretty shit, since phenotypes don't really translate well to underlying genetic structure. A single gene contributes up to forty percent of all melanin variation in pigmentation between Europeans and Western Africans, for example. We have tens of thousands of genes.

Well, no.

Studies show it decreases or increases.

Depends on what you prefer.

Some studies show it can, yes, but other studies say otherwise, hence I'd be very iffy making a statement on it without scientific consensus.

I'm not arguing either way, mind.

I'm just saying.

I personally don't care if someone's anything.

Probably.

But I don't really care about ethnicity or 'shared ancestry'. If you want to be whatever, I don't give a shit. I'm a citizen of the world first and foremost.

This presumes common ancestry groups a priori operate for the interest of common ancestry instead of other factors, such as national identity or individual preference.

Reducing it to evolution or biology seems very reductive, since we don't need to work that way in the modern world.

Sure, but selection is geographic. It's rare in human evolutionary history that we specifically chose someone over another due to 'common ancestry' variables. It's who we're around. If we move, we select people there, regardless of ancestry.

I hate the average person because I find them intolerable, but I do not want to reject them from existing near me. Guess it's just a difference of opinion.

S ... Sure. I'm saying we can easily track human population variation and distribution genetically and it isn't uniform. Only very isolated places have uniform genetic distributions. This *indicates* that geography was more of a decider than, say, ancestry or preference of in-group; we tend to mate with those we live around rather than making an active decision of preference for a specific denominator.

We don't need homogeneity, either. You just don't like strange people.

As I said before, there's studies that showcase both increases and decreases in cohesion and trust when accounting for diversity of populations, hence why I'm iffy on this topic. Certainly Putnam's study of social hunkering is the most critical and enlightening in terms of the trust reduction, but even that was a very small effect size.

So we have to be careful when making claims.

Personally, it's a free country (metaphorically speaking) and I'd much prefer you be able to not associate with who you please. Voluntary association all the way.

Sure.

You can easily do that. The United States have communities of Jews in the middle of nowhere who follow their own laws and associate as they please without the outside bothering them.

I think it's possible.

Sure, 'easily' in the sense of an international scale.

Oh, well, tough luck, I guess.

Uuh, there's different economic theories for this, such as taste-based discrimination where business owners who dislike a certain group will gladly incur a financial loss purely to not associate with that group.

Sure.

But this assumes all people in the market are rational actors.

>your people

i love spooks

no

moral relativism wins

sorry babe

>healthy

yeah, my dude

nationalism has brought us such prosperity

like the ... uh ... shit

lmfao

>anachronistic attributions of politics

ah yes

the mighty nationalists of sparta

since nationalism was a thing

That's reductive and asserts the base identity is one beyond the individual, which requires more assumption than otherwise. You can easily argue diversity of the individual and I fail to see how they are not distinct identities.

Well, no, since self-determination is a thing.

But self-determination isn't

no

... no

since nationalism asserts your nation above others to the extent of singular view, which is reductive and a stupid way of viewing the world.

the entire prosperity of the 21st century is predicated holistically on the global trade and cooperation of nations beyond nationalist endeavours. I don't need to cling to national or racial identity because I'm not a NEET who needs some form of achievement to feel validated.

>mass unrest

ah yes

the eurobarometer in 2018 showing the majority of europeans like the EU

mass unrest

you got me

oh right

jewish conspiracy

<:coolpepe:471698334877351966>

I measure prosperity by general quality of life.

I'd rather people have shit than have flags in mud huts.

Sorry, bro.

If you hate poor people, that's cool.

You do you.

I mean

they

literally are

lmfao

Just because you *want* people to be doing bad doesn't mean they are.

yes

it does

it empirically does