Evolution will still favor people selecting those partners they most relate to genetically by default.
Against this, or not against it exactly, Nietsche says, this is so, but the only cases that matter are the most complex individualities and they can not be subsumed by the laws of lower matter. This become cultural forms which the others invest their emotions in and are more important than the mass (who are predictable by the rule). In Evolution we come to the stage of artificial evolution or selective breeding, and that is where all variation worth speaking of happens. The refined inclinations of the great spirits don’t become only wolves or jackals, as do all dogs gone wild, but a versi-coloured infinity comes forward and produces new forms of life as models for all. Example, gothic architecture, example more particular to an individual, the style of Gaudi.
That Israel/Zionist is constitionalized as a form of National Socialist in response to Hitler's Holocaust, for instance, is a reactionary example to this.
This is not quite accurate. The spark issue for the cosmopolitan Jew, for instance Marx was such a Jew who believe in future the state would be indifferent to groups, and individual citizenship would be the main thing, is usually understood as the Dreyfus affair. It was than that the will to fully define oneself, and the corresponding abandonment of the cosmopolitan possibility, to see oneself concretely with the mirror of the “enemy” (Herzl and Schmitt) is seen in various lights. This is viewed rather positively by the Germans, both Jewish and Chrisitans. The chance to know oneself is at stake; to search into one’s ethos or character.
“This demonstrates how expecting pride as virtue always backfires.”
I agree, but there is a defacto issue. The claim to pride, say the 60’s in America; Civil Rights, is the manner in which rights are won in the Liberal Democracies which are guided by public opinion of the worth of groups. This also produces the entry of, say, Japanese Americans in large numbers into the universities. The universities are thereby the manner in which social good are distributed through the membership title of the degree holder. So, here, pride is political and necessary. Merit might be a pure standard, but it has never been justified rationally and can’t be unless a true science of the human essence is possible. Then the masters of this ethos would have true claim to guiding the other humans (a claim lacking in the body of scientific and technical merit).
"well if they think WE are a distinct genetic class worthy of exclusion for some inferior reason, then we may as well FIT with that expectation in order to survive or risk becoming the next victims of another genocide."
Well, its not a principle, but just the one example you give. But, surely in the example you give, the Jews have done quite well in America through that strategy. There is always a double movment possible, demonstrating merit and the claim to superiority in certain general egalitarian respects where the claim means, we too have talents which make us worthy of entry into the club.
Answer this more clearly: ARE you arguing for a right to give open credit to something you believe has universal genetic validity? And, by extention, are you for openly voicing against certain others as having a right to promote their genetic proclivity when it is presumed universally inferior or invalid?
I’m not arguing at all. I’m giving reasons. If there is such a thing as merit, it must have a standard. That would make it rise above the sub-rational claims to superiority of groups. If the sole standard is egalitarianism is rational than there no standard of merit or pride can have a bearing. Except possibly the claim to the best understanding of egalitarian culture which would likely have to be produced in university departments setting up further difficulties.
“Many on the 'right' side of politics argue against their egalitarian opponents as being 'socialist' without noticing that for those who default to having the power to pass on inheritance economically, such defaults favor to and for their own "families" as just a form of discrete socialism for thier own kind.....a "National" Socialism.”
Most debate of that kind is sub-rational. There are justifications for inheritance, but how much weight they deserve I don’t know. In theory Capitalism differs from Communism in that it permits several titles to demand. I can make demands because I have come up with ideas; not only by doing physical labour. This implies a difficulty with the issue of the length of the copyright. I can manage people and businesses (that is think of what people should do and tell people what to do). I can inherit. I can do arbitrage. I can take rent. Wherase, in Communism labour is the sole title and management is an office of the State. This is a useless scheme under the current conditions since labour has become a marginal form of work under post-fordist individualized demand economies.
I get the impression that the OP (your view) is arguing for a rational eugenics but does not recognize we all tend to select this way by default regardless. The differnce is about whether laws should or shouldn't be made to enhance or subdue racially defined superior or inferior qualities.
But you are taking for granted the environment. The university does science, but why should that be the standard for the tacit eugenics? Is it a rational standard? That’s why one must ask: is science simply superior to common sense? I mention in passing that I consider the Charles Murray sort of arguments intolerably superficial and almost wholly worthless.
But I'm not sure if the intent is to argue for a belief in arbitrary racial genetic factors, like skin color, as though this defines one's 'culture'.
I am not arguing at all. I’m simply protesting the disrespect for reason implied in not admitting, for example, that skin color exists. Skin color exists, like other traits. It plays a physical role, for example in disease. The question of the goal, or the meaning of rationality, would have to be worked out for one to say whether eugenics was or was not against reason. We would have to know ourselves as humans, or, as it may be, as particular kinds of cultures in order to master the problem of autonomy just as a master in the medieval guild is ready to set up shop on completion of the masterwork, one with the principle of rationality could set up a country or culture.
Today, the egalitarians in the left are actually promoting the same racist views when they presume some distinct status of a 'people' as something laws should be made to conserve, protect, or counter.
Well, one may gain something with a detailed look at an actual case. In the case of the general idea of affirmative action in the last 50 years, one can say this certainly has shown an amazing success in some areas. For instance women lawyers never existed for three thousand years. Now they outnumber men in the American law schools. The protection is meant only until the lift off point is reached whereby it becomes second nature or habit.
