What is Reddit's opinion of Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Someone shared that a "Hate Watch" subreddit has this comment linked.

When I went to see it, they only have this small thread within this larger conversation linked. It would have been just as easy to link to the conversation, as a part of the conversation. It's obvious that they're disinterested in what r/AltRight is about -- rather, they're seek only echo chamber indignation fodder.

I was once a Leftist -- but also cared about intellectual integrity (which would explain my move Right). For the Leftist who thinks they've got all the information when their leaders lead, you should know that they're giving you a square inch of a building sized mural -- they are intentionally handling and deceiving you.

Here's something I said in a different part of this conversation. A part the Propaganda Ministers don't include.

[–]AltRightNow 1 point 23 hours ago Until you get to the White contributions, I would say exactly the same thing. We're always painted as hating everyone else, instead of loving ourselves and appreciating others. It's true that African, Jewish, and Latin peoples have made some fine contributions to the world. And I'll give credit where credit is due. But that doesn't change the fact that most of the essential contributions to civilizing society are overwhelmingly White. And I'll give credit where credit is due. permalinkembedsaveparenteditdisable inbox repliesdeletereply

[–]AltRightNow 1 point 18 minutes ago This book lays out the accomplishments of civilization. I hear that a "hate watch" r/group has this conversation linked. Someone in there might be ready for something more than chanted rhetoric. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060929642/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A2FSDR5QBR3PE4

This book lays out the accomplishments of civilization. I hear that a "hate watch" r/group has this conversation linked. Someone in there might be ready for something more than chanted rhetoric. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060929642/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A2FSDR5QBR3PE4

https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households

> No single program explains immigrants' higher overall welfare use. For example, not counting subsidized school lunch, welfare use is still 46 percent for immigrants and 28 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 44 percent for immigrants and 26 percent for natives.

> The welfare system is designed to help low-income workers, especially those with children, and this describes many immigrant households. In 2012, 51 percent of immigrant households with one or more workers accessed one or more welfare programs, as did 28 percent of working native households.

> The high rates of immigrant welfare use are not entirely explained by their lower education levels. Households headed by college-educated immigrants have significantly higher welfare use than households headed by college-educated natives — 26 percent vs. 13 percent.

You said, "scientific and intellectual progress could be heightened with more people [from those in Central America]". What data are you using to base such a claim? 97% of all innovations have been from Europeans from 800BC to 1950AD.

What is said work? All you have provided so far are context-free graphs and a quote from the ALA.

EDIT: Using your other posts, I was able to determine the work is Human Accomplishment by Charles Murray. Reading about Charles Murray^1, he seems to have a real bee in his bonnet about people who aren't white (and women in general^2) being naturally inferior or less intelligent. The SPLC has labelled him a white supremacist.^3 He also argues against the "welfare state" and social programs because anyone below the poverty line is just lazy and genetically inferior.^4 He seems surprised that "the Left" thinks so little of his work as it would make a useful argument for their "redistributionist policies" (e.g. we need welfare because black people couldn't feed themselves otherwise).

Typical racist attempting to trick people into accepting their backwards ideas using pseudo-science and cherry-picked data. It's a shame he has to fall back on genetics now that phrenology has been thoroughly discredited.

About this ALA "statement" you've posted to prove the work's credibility: I can only find it one place outside the unsourced quote on Wikipedia. It's Amazon.^5 They credit the blurb to a Ray Olson (who I'm otherwise unable to definitively identify) and the copyright is owned by the ALA. Wikipedia may be misattributing it. In any case, the review does little more than summarize the book for marketing purposes. It does nothing to reinforce the supposed validity of the previous excerpts.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Murray_(political_scientist)
   
2. https://www.rawstory.com/2014/04/adviser-to-texas-gops-greg-abbott-no-evidence-that-women-are-significant-thinkers/
   
3. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/charles-murray
   
4. https://www.aei.org/publication/deeper-into-the-brain/
   
5. https://www.amazon.com/Human-Accomplishment-Pursuit-Excellence-Sciences/dp/0060929642

https://www.amazon.com/Human-Accomplishment-Pursuit-Excellence-Sciences/dp/0060929642

This is the book in question.

> European people's relied on circumstance?

Once it is a happening. Twice it is coincidence. Thrice it is a pattern. The European land is the best as far as evolutionary benefits goes. Best nutrition, weather, resources etc. Yes. This is why we are here today. This is why by the evolutionary process the achievements of Europeans number 90-95% of all.

> How much of it was won through the spoils of war instead of self innovation?

Precisely? No clue. However when are the means more important than the end? And by what metric do you judge war to be inherently negative? By war men know the fullness of life. By war we reveal the worst of humanity yes, but also the best minds, the most innovative discoveries and forms of progress.

> This "my people" shit just seems like a way for people who haven't accomplished shit to feel a part of the accomplishment of their ancestors.

The idea is simple. Our ancestors fought, bleed, sacrificed and constantly pushed for better. We live on their shoulders and the greatness that was their existence. What we have today: safe and prosperous societies, those things came about because of their goodwill. The conclusion is that we should strive to be as best as we can be. To honor them and ourselves. To match their greatness and eventually surpass it. That is the idea of "my people". A never ending passion to better yourself and what is yours. I believe this is what everyone of all people on Earth should be doing. Love for your own does not need hatred for others.

> However culture is learned and not predetermined by your genetics.

To some degree yes. However genetics dictate the level of intelligence of the individual. They tell about the likelihood for addictions, the speak of capability to understand and innovate. Genes are everything. If the genes of humans coded for roughly the same capacity all across the board then how come there are still groups of people in Africa that are living in mud huts? Surely if the biological capacity were there, they would have evolved beyond that point a long time ago. 5,000 years ago. Culture is an expression of genetics.

It´s true that some inventions have been indeed made in other nations, like paper or gun powder, but i really recommend buying "Human Accomplishment" by Charles Murray, i too didn´t understand how influencial Europes civilisation was until i had read it. The 97% figure for important thinkers and scientists is FOR REAL. From 800 B.C till 1950 Europe has for all practical purpose invented almost everything on its own from literature to logic to different art forms to geometry to physics to discoverers who have sailed the world sees and discovered the continents. Murray explains it all in great detail. He examines a total of 4002 significant figures that have shaped the world as we know it and almost everyone is a European.

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

http://www.amazon.com/Human-Accomplishment-Pursuit-Excellence-Sciences/dp/0060929642

>First of all taking issue with white supremacy has nothing to do with white guilt.

Conflating the idea that white people have a right to their own nations with "white supremacy" is the definition of guilt and self loathing. Are Jews supremacists for having a Jewish state? Are the Japanese supremacists for wanting their children to grow up in Japan? Good lord.

>Diversity does breed strength. It puts ideas and cultures together so that the best ideas can float to the top.

You really need to learn the difference between platitudes and facts. Diversity creates conflict, struggle, alienation, and ultimately: violence. It always has and always will. Saying that something that rips your society apart is your "strength" is so Orwellian as to be almost satire in itself.

>That was at the very heart of America since the beginning.

Absolute nonsense. America was created as an unapologetically European state with the first naturalization act granting citizenship to "white people of good character." Spare me your historical myths in which anyone in this country ever imagined we would be "better and stronger" by mingling with the most backwards peoples and cultures on earth.

>That's what the first amendment does. The freedom to say what you want, believe what you want, and group up with who you want peacefully. It ended homogeny. It ended stagnation.

Yes, among a European population. None of this is possible without that. You seem to have entirely confused the point.

>It's interesting to watch you decry tribalism in the US while defending people who want to instil tribalism into white Americans.

Why is this interesting or in any way confusing to you? Because of the deception of the 1965 immigration act (which was passed on the guarantee that it would not change our demographics) whites have no choice but to become tribal as a matter of self defense. This is what you get in "diverse" societies: rank tribalism instead of real politics. As Lew Kuan Yew understood when he said: "In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic or social interests, you vote in accordance with your race and religion."

So yes, I decry tribalism. I despise it. I'd much prefer we had real political discussions instead of endless, bullshit identity politics. But those days are behind us. You can't become a "majority minority" population and hope to keep them. So now we leave our children with the days of every group clawing at every other group for their own power. And white people, filled up with endless propaganda, are the only group still pretending this isn't so. They're the only group trying to vote on policies rather than race. And it's time for them to wake up, or be run down.

>Also your claim that 95% of scientific advancements were achieved by Europeans is laughable. History is long and civilization didn't even reach most of Europe until late in the game.

It seems you imagine advances to be linear in their nature -- they're not. They snowball until reaching an exhaust point. Which is why humanity has made more advancements in it the past 500 years than in the first 5,000. And yes, Europeans have been almost wholly responsible for those advancements. Here is an extremely detailed book on the matter, which gives meticulous coverage to each and every human progression since 800 BC. I'll simply add that your outrage at the very idea of Europeans moving modernity more than some other group is very telling.

>but these things happened in spite of white tribalism not because of it.

Sure. But times change. Whites had no need to be tribal because they were not being overrun, so I fail to see your point. And, of course, there was a point in history in which whites were in danger of being overrun by wave after wave of Muslim encroachment into Europe, and they united as they needed to in order to save themselves. Had that not occurred, I imagine there would never have been an enlightenment and western civilization as we understand it, would never have existed. But hey, they were pretty racist for defending their borders. So there's that...

>Reason is the way forward, Not cultural protectionism. Reason is how we've overcome the conflicts multiculturalism brings about, and it's the way that the good ideas overcome bad ideas.

Well said, my friend. Reason is the way forward. And reason quite clearly stands with those who understand and accept basic biological realities and those who understand and accept basic pattern recognition. Reason will never be on the side of those who make once peaceful societies more poor, more criminal, more violent, and more conflicted, all while insisting they're making those societies more strong.

How will we survive? Like we always have

https://www.amazon.com/Human-Accomplishment-The-Pursuit-of-Excellence-in-the-Arts-and-Sciences-800-B-C-to-1950/dp/0060929642

Dr. Kevin MacDonald has an excellent book on this subject called 'The Culture of Critique'.

And a reminder that King isn't wrong, he just said what you're not allowed to say: https://www.amazon.com/Human-Accomplishment-Pursuit-Excellence-Sciences/dp/0060929642

This book is all about it.