The standard egalitarian position is anti-race realism but it's no more "pseudo-scientific" than dog breed realism.
I'm not an egalitarian, and I think racial-realism is spooky and pseudo-scientific as hell. This has nothing to do with egalitarianism in my case, it has to do with race, gender, religion, etc all being bullshit social constructs.
Dog breeds can't be compared to the human species. They were purposely bred to bring out certain characteristics. It wasn't done by natural and organic natural selection. Also, no dog breed is inherently lesser than another, like racial realists believe about human "races." They are each bred to excel at something.
Biology and genetics are real,
No kidding. This doesn't = racial realism though. Far from it. Most scientists who aren't quacks would disagree with that. I'd argue you're just twisting the evidence to support a presupposed political position you hold, same as young Earth Christian creationists do. They also claim their side is "scientific."
Race realism simply posits that there are also differences between human populations that have evolved in geographic isolation from one another for 10,000's of thousands of years.
There is more diversity between Africans alone than there is between a random African and a random European, showing racial divisions are simply constructs. You can't just look at the color of someones skin and say "they differ from me genetically by 1%." Other Africans who are also black differ much more from another African than a European, Africa being such a huge and diverse continent. Racial distinctions are useless and can't be clearly defined into neat groups. There is no 100% white or 100% black. No one is saying there isn't genetic differences between groups, no one is that stupid. That's not the anti racial-realism argument. The argument is that those racial distinctions of white, black, Asian, etc, can't be clearly defined that that there is more genetic diversity between Africans than there is between Africans and Europeans on average.
It's also a really simpleton way to look at the world. You can't just base intelligence and the like on "race." There are many intersecting factors, like poverty for example. That's a big one.
I don't place it above me, I want it to serve me. If there was a hypothetical tribe that wanted to invade territory in which I was living among others, I would want there to be a monopoly on the use of force to prevent it. Anarchy wouldn't serve my interests here. You don't need to worship the state for it to serve a purpose.
That's really fucking spooky and I think you miss the point of Stirner completely. Anything he critiqued you just write it off as "It's not sacred to me!" How can you say you like Stirner while being for the state, racialism, private property, etc? Why even bring Stirner into it then if you're willingly going to embrace all these spooks anyway?
Any system will restrict our individual autonomy in some way. Socialism requires rules to function just like capitalism but the rules we follow are different.
Many of us don't regard ourselves as socialists neither. And I don't want any systems. I'm strictly anti-political, anti-ideological.
I couldn't agree more.
We may agree about those spooks, but while I reject these phantasms of the mind completely, you choose to embrace many of them.
"Anarchy is not a social form, but a method of individuation. No society will concede to me more than a limited freedom and a well-being that it grants to each of its members. But I am not content with this and want more. I want all that I have the power to conquer. Every society seeks to confine me to the august limits of the permitted and the prohibited . But I do not acknowledge these limits, for nothing is forbidden and all is permitted to those who have the force and the valor.
Consequently, anarchy, which is the natural liberty of the individual freed from the odious yoke of spiritual and material rulers, is not the construction of a new and suffocating society.’ It is a decisive fight against all societies — christian, democratic, socialist, communist, etc., etc. Anarchism is the eternal struggle of a small minority of aristocratic outsiders against all societies which follow one another on the stage of history." - Renzo Novatore