Since someone pinged me, looks like I have to crawl back over here and fuck everyone up again.

```>muh bezemenov
>muh century of self
```
How lazy of you. The 'social engineering' excuse still ignores that some kind of conscious human action and human complicitude. You talk about 'muh corruption' but you never offer a standard for what this is on a concrete level, instead talking about abstractions which spill over into mere tautologies. By your standards, there is infinite 'corruption'.
```So no you all the dudden accept that the self can be corrupted in to having a choice made that isnt theres
intresting backpeddal
```
I don't need to endorse your reasoning to use it against you. Pic related.
```\ i post the wiki definitions, so try again bud. It is you who changes up the meaing of things by making something up that fits your narrative
```
This is false, since just like with the 'fascism' article, you left out the part about it being right-wing and only quoted the opening of the article. And like I said before, you still have to deal with my own definitions, which you have not done. **You've just posted a screenshot of me saying this but you didn't respond to it.**

```I never said that true freedom coudl be obtained. unless you are god. there are to many limitations to man . you will never be free
I also stated thare is a gradiant of freedom
here again you are arguing against me ion bias and assumtion when in reality you agree with me
funny
```

If it can't be obtained by people, then why bother talking about it? You accused me of harping on about God earlier and now you're the one raising this impossible standard yet again, which is why I continue to accuse you of the Nirvana fallacy.

Funnily enough, this 'gradient of freedom' is a vulgarisation of my own notion of provisional freedom!

**So you're stealing concepts from me. Glad to see that we agree in crucial respects while coming to radically different conclusions because one of us is still hung up on spewing out false dichotomies and frozen ideas.**

```Every one is racist
Racism: the recognizing of the inherent differences among the various racial groups
Not every one is racially discrimative , racuially predejudges or racially bigoted. These terms are conjoined and they meansomething differnt when they are appart
And you accuse me not knowing basic things```

Again, you speak like a postcolonial theorist!

'Racism' in common usage *and* on Wikipedia is used to talk about *unfair* discrimination between people of different ethnic and racial heritages!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

You will be relying on the second screenshot as 'evidence' that it's oh-so-innocently referring to recognising differences between racial and ethnic groups.

**But then you have to explain why many reactionaries are using the term 'race realism' instead of plain old 'racism'.**

But no, not eveyone is actually racist. Recognising 'inherent' differences between people? What makes them so 'inherent'? It is nothing besides biological heredity, which is trivial. However, to justify your politics, you have to argue that our present biologies are inherent to us and inherently control us without our will and our input, and that this will always be the case or will be the case for at least the next 50 or so year.

**There's a huge leap between recognising differences between races and enforced racial segregation at a national level of planning**

```racial micing is genocide
diveristy is un obtainable if you mix ppl```

***First, it's an idol that people believe in. You want people to keep their idols, do you not? So why do you make a special case out of anti-racism on the grounds that it's genocidal? Many sects of the Abrahamic religions are bloodthirsty. Are you willing to give them a pass on the same grounds? Why are you picking and choosing?***

```>muh images
```

'Racemixing' is a straw man!

You've previously assumed that my politics can only be achieved using a homogeneous population.

No, in fact, it does not. And with use of biological engineering, there can in fact be an *increased* diversity.

But this does not mean that we need ethnic and racial segregation.

**The point is that we have to be conscious and radical about our uses of these structures and technologies, and that we can still uphold something deeply universal and cooperative across people of all kinds.**

```This is a vague statement
```

What's vague?

```Are you fucking kidding me btw
animals dont do things because of their biology ??, have you ever heard of the clownfish
a clown fish has a symbiotic relation with the anomene. They developed a biology that changes the properties of its skinby getting stung, resulting in a slimy layer on the fish that allows it to slide past the ?stingers? of the anomone
You can take a clownfish that never seen a anomone in its life and py them togheter
and the fish moves in to have itself get stung
This is biological predeterminated behaviour
```

We're not talking about clownfish, we're talking about humans, including *you*.

You can cry 'poetic term' all you like, but you are making a leap from biological differences to political differences.

***Can you explain your own behaviour in terms of biology?***

```parcially it tots is```

Then you're using a different definition of 'class' to the one I'm using.

Mine focusses on a sustained configuration of society rather than this highly ahistorical notion of 'specialisation', which is trivial.

@Garbage mate if your Aussie or not you have to admit one thing about race. The Abos really are at the bottom of the pile. Now that I’ve made my point I’m of to 4chan

Then go back there.

Anyway, back to another self-retarding fool:

**My point is that you don't get to talk about a general triviality and then propose a politics which is not trivial whatsoever. We do not have to live with an enforced form of racial segregation at a national or even a city-state level.**

```Are you saying that there isnt always a input, need, disaster, moment, event that is corrupting the freedom of a person.? lol```

I'm saying that by your definition of what 'corruption' is, there *is* infinite corruption everywhere. By my definition, there is not, but I know that you will insist on saying that I'm endorsing yours.

Your definitions crumbles into a tautology. You're being a sciolist again.