>Marxian polylogism asserts that the logical structure of the mind is different with the members of various social classes. Racial polylogism differs from Marxian polylogism only in so far as it ascribes to each race a peculiar logical structure of mind and maintains that all members of a definite race, no matter what their class affiliation may be, are endowed with this peculiar logical structure.
>There is no need to enter here into a critique of the concepts social class and race as applied by these doctrines. It is not necessary to ask the Marxians when and how a proletarian who succeeds in joining the ranks of the bourgeoisie changes his proletarian mind into a bourgeois mind. It is superfluous to ask the racists to explain what kind of logic is peculiar to people who are not of pure racial stock.
>Neither the Marxians nor the racists nor the supporters of any other brand of polylogism ever went further than to declare that the logical structure of mind is different with various classes, races, or nations. They never ventured to demonstrate precisely in what the logic of the proletarians differs from the logic of the bourgeois, or in what the logic of the Aryans differs from the logic of the non-Aryans, or the logic of the Germans from the logic of the French or the British. In the eyes of the Marxians the Ricardian theory of comparative cost is spurious because Ricardo was a bourgeois. The German racists condemn the same theory because Ricardo was a Jew, and the German nationalists because he was an Englishman.
>Then there is the fact that there is disagreement concerning essential problems among people belonging to the same class, race, or nation. Unfortunately there are, say the Nazis, Germans who do not think in a correct German way. But if a German does not always necessarily think as he should, but may think in the manner of a man equipped with a non-German logic, who is to decide which German's ideas are truly German and which un-German?
Answer these /pol
>This would suggest the infallibility of a majority vote. However, the Nazis rejected decision by majority vote as manifestly un-German. The Marxians pay lip service to the democratic principle of majority vote. But whenever it comes to a test they favor minority rule, provided it is the rule of their own party. Let us remember how Lenin dispersed by force the Constituent Assembly elected, under the auspices of his own government, by adult franchise, because only about one-fifth of its members were Bolshevik.
>Hitler was even frank enough to admit that the only method available for him to sift the true Germans from the mongrels and the aliens was to enunciate a genuinely German program and to see who were ready to support it. A dark-haired man whose bodily features by no means fitted the prototype of the fair-haired Aryan master race, arrogated to himself the gift of discovering the only doctrine adequate to the German mind and of expelling from the ranks of the Germans all those who did not accept this doctrine whatever their bodily characteristics might be. No further proof is needed of the insincerity of the whole doctrine.
Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises
YOU WANT AN ANSWER? I’LL GIVE YOU AN ANSWER ONCE I’VE READ THAT.
There are significant differences in cognition between ethnic groups and to deny this is being anti-science. This does not of course mean that they’d however be unequal. It’s not surprising that the ancap condition was equally sad 70 years ago.
So much so for the debate skills of von mises.
it was the jews?
did you even read the whole thing? my attempt at translating it into Sup Forumsack: if there were, for example, a finnish girl who enjoyed sucking on multiple black dicks for breakfast, which we know there are, does that mean that being a finn is to suck black dick? does that mean that she is not a finn? what is the meaning of being a finn if some finns suck black dick? there is proof that being a finn is no guarantee that you won't enjoy black dick and therefore you would have then to refer to a subgroup of finns, which are finns that do not enjoy black dicks, which again defeats the purpose of being finn in the first place, and likewise enables other non-finns to define subgroups which match the non-black-dick-sucking finn subgroup in everything except in the title of finn
samefag
>genes don’t exist in groups
Uruguan intellectuals everyone.
you're correct, and there are african nigs out there right now which belong to genetic groups which have a higher IQ than you do. that's basically what mises is saying
No shit, did I ever say anything else?
Differences in cognition doesn't mean their logic is somehow different. 2+2=4 wether you are black, white, jew or whatever.
>Genes don't exist in groups
Nice strawman. It's a shame you couldn't even rebutt the strawman you made so you resorted to ad hominems.
There are Finns who suck black dick. You call yourself a Finn, therefore, you suck black dick. That's basically your reasoning.
based argie
Good thing you let us know that you think of black dick all day. We could discuss whether logic is unversal or not (too big of an issue to phonepost about), but the main point that needs to be adressed about mises here is that he’s trying to play the rational centre by grouping the far right and left together.
>implying logic might not be universal
kek, now we know which genetic group you belong to
You’re clearly not capable of discussin this topic so I recommend you concentrate on the black dicks you like so much to talk about.
dude are you retarded? you are the one grouping the far right and the left together. I take it you are far right and a (presumably "pure") finn, and it would take me 5 seconds of googling to find examples of far left, pure blooded finns, which belong to the exact same genetic group as you do
I am not far-right. I somewhat doubt that far-right would support ethnic eqelitarianism. Study genetics if you want to discover some quite unique finnish alleles.
Assume a pure blooded far right person, then assume a pure blooded far left person (or image search "finnish interracial" and pick the purest looking one). Because they are both pure blooded they belong to the same genetic group, that of pure blooded finns, no? Isn't that grouping left and right together?
>genetic similarities =/= ideological similarities
Nice try.
That's either a fail use of greentext or you're a retard. Are you quoting me and implying that genetic similarities necessarily mean ideological similarities? Or are you incorrectly using greentext to make the statement that genetic similarities (i.e. belonging to the same group) does not necessarily mean ideological similarities?
In case you didn't get it, which it seems you didn't, the point is to make a reductio ad absurdum argument in which I find two people of the same genetic group, which do not have the same ideology, therefore proving that genetic groups necessarily group the far right and far left together, which is what you accused Mises of doing in this post
Mises is trying to group far left and far right ideologically together by saying thay share qualities in order to make himself look more rational. Do you understand because I have no more time for this?
Reddit spacing, wrong use of green text.
You need to go back, mate.
He is showing how marxists and racists (which is neither right or left since there are leftist racists and in fact national socialism was ironically inspired by marxism) use faulty deductions to justify moral authority and ascribing diferent ideas within the same group to a corruption of true (insert group here) ideas.
>You are not a communist? You are petite Bourgeois
>You are not a feminist? You have internalized opression
>You are not an ethnonationalist? You are not truly white, you've been corrupted by THE JEW.
Saying "He trynna put us in the same bag duude", isn't a rebuttal.
>make himself look more rational
I think you got the wrong idea of how argumentation works. The universal use of logic is to make rational arguments which, if correct, can be accepted by both parties and hopefully reach an agreement. It's not really a highschool debate where you "try to make yourself" look cooler or however it is that you see it. Normally someone who disagreed with Mises would state in what and why, as in, give a reason why he thinks Mises is incorrect, which I mistakenly thought you were attempting to. But yeah, if your argument is "i think Mises made that point to look cooler", then we belong to very different genetic groups and we are both wasting our time.
>Racial polylogism differs from Marxian polylogism only in so far as it ascribes to each race a peculiar logical structure of mind and maintains that all members of a definite race, no matter what their class affiliation may be, are endowed with this peculiar logical structure.
I agree dude if we find a #basedblackman then we can surely agree that there are no differences in thinking or behaviour between our two races. #MAGA
So... what's the question?
I think I get what you're asking, but don't believe pol would be the best place to define what is what for this group or that
Is that what you're asking or am I missing something?
I wasn’t trying to address his main point because I’d need to type more than what is reasonable with a phone. Good that you were finally able to understand this after several posts.
These quotes speak to the racist mindset (I don't want to use that word because it sounds demeaning and I actually respect most "racist" polacks) that you often see on pol. It speaks to the "I wonder who is behind this post" or the "kys kike", without offering any valuable rebuttals. It speaks to the discussions we saw for example during the sargon-spencer stream, in which, spencer couldn't answer/provide proove of what is the true "white mentality". It shows that racial uniformity means jackshit when compared to cultural/ideological uniformity. It shows the parallels between "alt-righters" and sjws.
I want pol to rebutt, or try to rebutt them.
Phone posting... dude. You are showing your true colors and they look like a rainbow flag. First the reddit spacing, then the shitty green text and now this.
I said I was phoneposting several posts ago. Improve your reading comprehension.
>some people have 6 fingers therefore all people have six fingers
that is your analogy and its shit. If you want to see what is Finn you look at what was traditionally finn, not what its evolving into.
Said you. Are the traditional ways of the Finn the only or "correct ways of the Finn? No, and you can't prove that because there's no correct way of the Finn, there's only morality, logic and rationality, all of which apply equally to everyone regardless of their race.
What's more, are you saying there weren't counter cultures in traditional Finland? Are you saying their traditions were always mainstream? Should whites resort to monarchy or feudalism because it is what it originally was?
>Some Finns did x, therefore, if someone doesn't do x they are not a true Finn and if someone does x they are a true Finn