Characters of races

[Adrianv2]

Marxism is a general theory of the world in which we live, and of human society as a part of that world. It takes its name from Karl Marx (1818-1883), who, together with Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), worked out the theory during the middle and latter part of the 19th century.

They set out to discover why human society is what it is, why it changes, and what further changes are in store for mankind. Their studies led them to the conclusion that these changes – like the changes in external nature – are not accidental, but follow certain laws. This fact makes it possible to work out a scientific theory of society, based on the actual experience of men, as opposed to the vague notions about society which used to be (and still are) put forward – notions associated with religious beliefs, race and hero-worship, personal inclinations or utopian dreams.

Communism marxism is nothing more than a low iq blueprint to get useful idiots to overthrow a government.

[Roy]

And that there are spiritual differences between the races is obvious.

Can you describe them?

[capocannoniere]

Italian colonists in Brazil have uncomparably higher beauty, IQs and phallus size to the rest of North, Central and South America. The Germans come second.

[Batavia]

And how about your Jewish 6%...how does that affect your character?

I don´t now who you mean, but youre confusing race with ethnic background, there also can be a full Nordid jew.

[Batavia]

Can you describe them?

There are just too many and it would take too long to list them all here; but there are books on this topic and I´m sure also on the internet.

[capocannoniere]

Now unironically, we as North Italian immigrants differ from Brazilians in general mostly when it comes to long-term reasoning and planning.

The Portuguese had a metaphorical gold mine for resource extraction and slaves, while we got land we needed to work and live on ourselves. So what favoured us was a diligent and economically austere way of living, especially at the beggining, while Portuguese exploration was more short term.

Social organization was less unequal as our immigrant society had no clear caste systems or elites. None of our traditional families dominate, there are ups and downs for all.

Perhaps we are more short tempered than Brazilians too, it's very easy of one of us to blaspheme after the smallest of predicaments.

I also feel we lack contemplative abilities. The only artist to ever get out of our colonies was a filmmaker called Rogerio Sganzerla. Purely Italian music and visual art is almost inexistent. Even if we look at the "Gaucho" music that is full of Italian influence, it's for us a background for dancing feasts, with no artistic ambitiousness whatsoever. Compare "Vaneiras" and "Bailão" music to the Chamamés and Milongas of Argentina, Uruguay and the Portuguese Southerners.

While I feel we as a people are smart, we are very far from intellectual. Perhaps this is the reason for our success .

[Batavia]

bump

[lei.talk]

[rothaer]

No one says that the shape of the nose must necessarily have something to do with the charackter, but each breed has its strengths, weaknesses and inclinations and of course the outer style.
And race is more important then the ethnic group of an induívidium, a nordic Swede has mor in common with an Nordic french man then with a alpine Swede.

This was commonly thought but genetical tests proves this wrong. You can see that an individual scores ancestry components in line with his actual regional ancestry regardless of his typological look. The look displays the genetics for that particular look, of course, but when mixtures are old traits are inherited independendly from each other and there is no linkage (anymore - if there at all once was).

Hans F. K. Günther already sensed that both from logics as well as from experience when he wrote that a dark and non-nordid looking Northern German will likely have more "nordid blood" than a blonde and nordid looking Northern Italian. If you define nordid only by metric athropology, this is not true, because in that case "what you see is what you get" (wysiwyg) but Günther's definitions of the typological races included mental traits and most people do project such imaginations also today.

Today we must not guess anymore, DNA tests prove it:

The genetics of the Italian Giovanni Trappatoni



are essentially like those of the Italian people that is predominantly mediterranid and thus also his mental traits are to be expected resembling theirs.

And the genetics of the Norwegian Magnus Carlsen



are essentially like those of the Norwegian people that is predominantly nordid and thus also his mental traits are to be expected resembling theirs.

Dealing with the individually typological look of these two for getting to know more about their remaining DNA and thus also how may be their mental traits would be very misleading, because both are not representative for the look of people from their respective genepool and traits are inherited independently.

Regardless of that, "lookism" may be a good approach if you know nothing of an individual but his look. You can then make a somewhat educated guess based on statistical expectations. But if you know where an individual hails from, then you have his actual genepool. In that second his look gets irrelevant because it doesn't tell you anything more.

Here's the aforementioned Italian football trainer Giovanni Trappatoni speaking in Germany. Enjoy all three minutes of a legendary press conference! (Even if you don't understand what he says. He speaks in German but so badly that there are even subtitels for Germans.):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub1zsUD7UNQ

[Batavia]

This was commonly thought but genetical tests proves this wrong. You can see that an individual scores ancestry components in line with his actual regional ancestry regardless of his typological look. The look displays the genetics for that particular look, of course, but when mixtures are old traits are inherited independendly from each other and there is no linkage (anymore - if there at all once was).

Hans F. K. Günther already sensed that both from logics as well as from experience when he wrote that a dark and non-nordid looking Northern German will likely have more "nordid blood" than a blonde and nordid looking Northern Italian. If you define nordid only by metric athropology, this is not true, because in that case "what you see is what you get" (wysiwyg) but Günther's definitions of the typological races included mental traits and most people do project such imaginations also today.

Today we must not guess anymore, DNA tests prove it:

The genetics of the Italian Giovanni Trappatoni



are essentially like those of the Italian people that is predominantly mediterranid and thus also his mental traits are to be expected resembling theirs.

And the genetics of the Norwegian Magnus Carlsen



are essentially like those of the Norwegian people that is predominantly nordid and thus also his mental traits are to be expected resembling theirs.

Dealing with the individually typological look of these two for getting to know more about their remaining DNA and thus also how may be their mental traits would be very misleading, because both are not representative for the look of people from their respective genepool and traits are inherited independently.

Regardless of that, "lookism" may be a good approach if you know nothing of an individual but his look. You can then make a somewhat educated guess based on statistical expectations. But if you know where an individual hails from, then you have his actual genepool. In that second his look gets irrelevant because it doesn't tell you anything more.

Here's the aforementioned Italian football trainer Giovanni Trappatoni speaking in Germany. Enjoy all three minutes of a legendary press conference! (Even if you don't understand what he says. He speaks in German but so badly that there are even subtitels for Germans.):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub1zsUD7UNQ

Let's agree to disagree