About the racial equality:
It takes half a brain to realize people are different. Not much more to understand different races have characteristic features other than the looks. "The Cathedrals" "lying" and "bad-policies" are imho misinterpretations of the actual noble cause to provide an environment where all the different people may flourish and feel equally respected, which is the right thing to do.
The comments below are about sexism (masquerading as the realities of differences between sexes), but can be similarly applied to racism (masquerading as the realities of differences between races).
If I am correct at representing the thinking of the D.E., we can't "provide an environment..." because there is a natural order to such matters.
There is no natural order. To assume such order you'd have to incorrectly assume that
1. Individuals within each group do not differ from each other.
2. Environment for every group is the same.
You have argued that the only order that could possibly exist would be the uniform distribution, which of course is dead thus can't exist.
http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Matter_as_a_continuumThe non-uniform distribution of mass is
mutually causal with oscillation. A uniform distribution of mass would be no contrast and nothing could exist, especially knowledge creation.
The knowledge creation process is opaque to a single top-down perspective of the universe because to be omniscient would require that the transmission of change in the universe would propagate instantly to the top-down observer, i.e. the speed-of-light would need to be infinite. But an
infinite speed-of-light would collapse past and future into an infinitesimal point in spacetime omniscient is the antithesis of existential. In order for anything to exist in the universe, there must be friction-in-time so change must propagate through resistance to change mass. The non-uniform mass distribution of the universe is mutually causal with oscillation, which is why the universe
emerges from the frequency domain. Uniform distribution of mass would be no contrast and nothing would exist. Taleb's antifragility can be conceptualized as lack of breaking resistance to variance amplification.
Btw, famous mathematician and author Nicolas Taleb reviewed what I wrote above and replied that he understood the concept.
It is competition that creates the order. If there was infinite disorder in the universe, then the Second Law of Thermodynamics would cease to exist, because it says that the entropy (disorder) in the universe trends to maximum. In other words, the universe would be flattened to a blackhole.
So there is always a contention between perfect order (the uniform distribution) and perfect disorder (a blackhole). Otherwise without oscillation(s) a.k.a. frequency and phase, nothing could exist i.e. no equivalent spacetime, as I explained in the above blog article on the The Universe in great detail about why the speed-of-light can't be infinite otherwise past and present collapse into one, and without oscillation there can't be mass for I clarified what mass really is.
If you work through the math I showed, it is irrefutable.
What I am saying is that it is fine-grained, bottom-up competition is an order in itself. If a top-down entity could anneal fitness as optimally, then the top-down entity would need an infinite speed-of-light in order to know all situations (far from him) in real-time in order to anneal as optimally with the same information set.
Thus it is a mathematical fact that we can't top-down provide an environment, rather we push on the environment and see how it anneals (this is effectively what government does, although it may wish it was actually setting the environment).
If you don't understand the math, then take some time to read and learn what I have elucidated. Otherwise please STFU if you can't comment intelligently on the math (because I don't have time to respond to non-analytical diarrhea).
Note CoinCube and I have recently added the theory of Contentionism, which explains there must be an oscillation between order and disorder, because the environment is dynamic. He and I explained that upthread with links off to discussion we did previously in other threads.
If the above two points were true, evolution would have already come up with the superior race and wiped out all the others.
Illogical. If your assertion were true that we can top-down create an environment, then evolution wouldn't exist.
You claim there is no order, but then why did evolution give females
an accelerated fertility curve as compared to males, which has numerous serious ramifications. Why did evolution give women a different strategy for hypergamy and short-term time preference. Because this strategy was the most optimally fit for the survival of the human race.
The government wants to turn women into men (and
men into women, and here is
more on that), and does its damn best to destroy the marriage economics by funding all the needs of women, but this is just pushing on the natural order in the environment and the environment annealed by producing a failed society with insufficient youth to support the elderly and a $150 trillion global debt bomb that will soon explode and then we go back to the natural order again.
In fact, evolution would preserve wide diversity (within the group) even if the environment was set, so as to allow survival of the species in a future change of the environment. When we observe evolution, "Survival of the fittest" is not exactly accurate. "Elimination of worst losers" fits much better.
That is not a refutation of my logic.
Where D.E. stands on this is still not exacly clear to me, and it doesn't seem to be very clear to you either.
It is mathematically and precisely clear to me as explained above.
If your premise was to acknownledge and appreciate the differences between peoples I'd agree, but right now it looks to me like you're more set on assuming and finding a "natural order" to put people in.
As I explained above, there must be a contention between order and disorder. And top-down order is the antithesis of degrees-of-freeom and fitness, because the speed-of-light isn't infinite and if it was past and present would collapse into one and nothing would exist.
Not only do I disagree on the existence of any definitive order, but I also think it's a very dangerous premise to build an ideology on. It will be used as an excuse for discrimination or something much worse.
Your irrational emotions aside, the mathematical facts are irrefutable.