(Dwight) Garner is a normal white guy from West Virginia, so I guess he feels he has to say these kind of things to avoid being canceled from his nice job at The New York Times by ambitious underlings.On the other hand, if Garner is from W. Virginia, then caste-over-race theme may be advantageous to his kinfolk. After all, prioritizing race lumps ALL whites together as ‘privileged’ and ALL blacks as ‘under-privileged’. But if we focus on caste, poor whites in W. Virginia become objects of sympathy while rich blacks get lumped with rich whites as members of the upper caste. Because of the fixation on race, poor West Virginia hillbillies get lumped together with billionaire Jews and white goy oligarchs like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos. By the way, how do Jews feel about the caste issue? They are the ultra-brahmins of the West, both ‘spiritually’ and financially. They are deemed the Holy Holocaust race/caste, i.e. a historical event sanctifies Jews just for being Jewish. No matter what they do, their crimes are automatically washed clean by Shoah Soap or 'shoap'. They invoke Nazi evil to perpetuate Nazi-like evil against Palestinians and countless other goyim. And because of their great wealth, goy politicians and others flock to them like dogs to their master. Because Jews count as white, they can veil their power and wealth as 'white'; therefore, whites get blamed for Jews having too much. But if American discussion focuses on caste as well as on race, people may become more conscious of the fact that Jews are the uppermost caste among whites, that is if they should be counted as white at all.
Hence, many of her memories involve less-than-electrifying encounters with fellow passengers in first class who give her a funny look when she asks for help lifting her carry-on luggage or the like.Isn’t she being caste-conscious? Why should she take offense at being mistaken for a flight attendant or airline worker? Why the touchy pride of an elite member of the scholastic class who only handles 'clean' work with ideas? If she is truly against caste-consciousness, she should be PROUD of being mistaken as a member of the Proles or regular working folk. But, she wants others to recognize that she belongs to the master class, the better kind of people. Oh, she’s not the type to handle baggage. That is for the LOWER CASTE losers of society, not for her esteemed self.
Isabel Wilkerson: “Race is a social concept, not a scientific one,” said J. Craig Venter, the geneticist who ran Celera Genomics when the mapping was completed in 2000.One can argue that race is a social construct in that it has often been misapplied. But, the discipline of genetics, especially with the latest technology, is not a social construct. Geo-genetics or 'geonetics' is real. It’s like, even if alchemy isn’t real, chemistry is real. ‘Race’ can be deemed a social construct insofar as people with insufficient knowledge about genetics in the 19th and early 20th century leapt to broad conclusions, some of which were baseless and even harmful. But then, the notion of ‘racial equality’ is an even bigger social construct, and it too has done much harm. Indeed, the pretense that Europe should take in tons of black Africans because 'race is merely a social construct' will lead to the tragic Africanization of the continent: Europe will look more and more like Africa. Of course, white 'liberal' ideas about race went from believing that blacks are merely white people with black skin(or same with whites in every way except in skin color and hair texture) to believing blacks are the superior race for being better at sports, funkier in music, and wilder in sex. So, the current welcoming of black Africa into Europe is less about racial equality than about white bedazzlement with blackness. By the way, if the notion of race is to be rejected, is imperialism now acceptable? If race A invades race B, no one should complain because there’s no such thing as Race A and Race B? The ONLY issue is that some are more privileged than others regardless of the invasion? 'Nation' is a social construct, and so, does that mean any nation can invade any other nation on the basis that "nations are not real"? So, your nation wasn't really invaded by another nation since your nation and the invading nation are both 'social constructs' or falsehoods? So, Palestinians shouldn't complain about Zionist invasion and the great replacement. Jews and Palestinians, what's the difference? It was just one bunch of humans replaced by another bunch of humans. Nothing changed. The only issue is Israel and Occupied Territories have rich and poor. And Jews shouldn't make so much fuss about the Shoah because it wasn't really about Germans killing Jews but humans killing humans. People who think they are German killed people who think they're Jewish. So, Jews shouldn't think in terms of 'they killed us' but 'we killed us' or 'they killed themselves' because Germans and Jews are the same thing. Nation and Culture are far more social constructs than race is, but people believe in them and, furthermore, people are nothing without memory and myths. This is why nations are important even among the same race, such as Europeans. Or between Chinese and Mongols. Social constructs matter. They shouldn't be confused with scientific categories but people don't live on cold reptilian data alone. Race has both scientific basis and meaning as social construct. It's an indefinite term with multiple meanings, like the term 'nature'. But there is a definite scientific meaning to it, and to emphasize this, a new term is necessary for the scientific discussion of differences caused by evolution. As race is essentially the product of genetic differences that developed via evolutionary divergences due to geographic separation, maybe 'geonetics'(geo-genetics) or 'geonet' should be considered.
Isabel Wilkerson: Were height the measure for determining race, as arbitrary a measure as any and less arbitrary than some, the Dutch people of the Netherlands would be the same “race” as the Nilote people of South Sudan or the Tutsis of Rwanda.Furthermore, people naturally identify others as ‘my people’ or ‘not my people’ based on combination of facial features, hair texture, and skin tones than height or body size. It’s just the way of human psychology. People don’t categorize human groups by height because it simply isn't natural for human psychology to do so. Same goes for sexual differences. A small woman and big woman both feel as women first and foremost. A big woman doesn’t primarily identify as ‘big person’ alongside a big man. Height is an adjective whereas race and sex are nouns. Race comes first as existence, size follows as characteristic. It’s like there must be canines before there can be sizes of canines. Race and sex are facts, height and size are features. Some dogs may be more comparable in size with wolves but they are still dogs first and foremost. Before we notice the sizes of apples, a feature, they must exist in the first place as a type of fruit, a fact. There are big apples and small apples, but both are apples first and foremost. Same with peaches. People categorize fruits by kind, not size. Consideration of size follows categorization of kind. Apples and peaches are not placed in the same basket based on size.
Steve Sailer: No, they would not, because race is about who your ancestors were.
In reality, there is of course a country where the racial groups are distinguished not by color but by height: Rwanda.Height is merely one of the differences between Tutsis and Hutus. More significant are facial features. Tutsis have more angular features, Hutus have more round features(and look more typically black-African). Tutsis are Abbots, Hutus are Costellos. While Tutsis are taller than Hutus generally, there are surely Hutus who are taller than Tutsis, just like there are Japanese who are taller than Dutch. But a Tutsi surely sees a short Tutsi with Tutsi facial features as one of his own than feels natural kinship with a tall Hutu.COVID TRANCE: HOW THE IRISH WERE HYPNOTISED BY THE MEDIA (WITH JOHN ANTHONY)