/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

Politics, News, History

Posting Mode: Reply Return

Max message length: 5000


(used to delete files and postings)


  • Max files: 5
  • Max file size: 50.00 MB

02/09/20 /ausneets/ has been added!


(8.10 KB 200x200 5891115bcda0a.jpeg)
Splitting Racism Apart Anonymous 05/10/2020 (Sun) 16:05:31 ID:b0cc33 No. 27883
Racism can mean one of two thing: enacting, supporting, or tolerating laws or policies which discriminate on the basis of race / enacting, supporting, or tolerating (state or individual -level) acts of aggression towards individuals (and their property) on the basis of their race. This is a bailey version of racism because it is easier to attack as being unreasonable, and the primary tactic of attacking the other motte form of racism is by associating it with this form of racism as a way to kill all possible considerations that may be given to it's claims. It can also can merely refer to belief that one or more racial populations have positive or negative qualities that significantly differentiate them from other races, that different races possess antagonistic relationships to each other (particularly non-whites towards whites, most especially Jews and blacks), or beliefs that challenge that commonly-accepted race-related narratives (present and/or historical), such as considering them to be false, incomplete, or deceptive/misleading. We need to change the narrative by separating these two terms as cleanly as possible. we need to make it so that racism may only refer to the above, and not to the below, in order to make people feel safer in talking about racial differences. It's a small but very important step in taking back a place in this discussion, whether or not you belong to both groups or just one of the two. for example, you can be realistic about racial differences and still believe that any type of aggression by the state or by other people towards it's members (or their property) - including any state which passes/upholds any policies/laws which discriminate based on race - is morally unjustified. you can still believe in statistics, and maybe make initial assumptions about an individual based on their race, but be open to making your judgments of that individual ultimately determine your first-hand experiences with them. you could be like that, people exist who are like that in their factual and political beliefs, and we need to highlight these people with their own word. why? for one thing, it cracks down on the number of people just generally being referred to as "racist", and helps distance the one version of "racism" from the other (at least in online conversation). by giving these two types pf racism their own terms, It helps us to ferret out provocateurs and shills more easily, such is also a gain. basically, we use two terms for two types of racism to divide the mind-killing sort from the other, and pen up discussion as to whether or not our factual claims are true, without the acceptance of their truth being related to consequences in the form of being compelled actions widely considered to be immoral. Pressing the belief/action fallacy (that holding certain beliefs necessarily leads one to undertaking a specific course of action) to the forefront of this divide, reminding everyone that their beliefs do not force them to and sort of action or inaction.
Look at the success of new atheism, for example of this strategy in action. the claim, "god does not exist' was not able to be argued effectively, however, the claim "the evidence for god's existence is insufficient" was a hill they could fight on with a winning chance. the main tactic of their opposition was to conflate the latter position with the former in order to force them into defending the least defensible position they could represent. hence the creation of "explicit/hard atheism" and "implicit/soft atheism", and the constant reinforcement of this distinction, it was by this one method that the fight was eventually won. right now we have a motte and bailey, and our enemies attack us by forcing us to defend the bailey of suggested action/political ideology in order to to prevent us from introducing the motte of factual truth, where we will be guaranteed to win. make the separation of action from facts, argue on facts alone, and we will have an inevitable victory. political change is going to come downstream from this victory, once everyone has their facts set straight, they can make better decisions, it will not force them to agree with us completely, but if they had been duped into their present political positions by being deceived as to the truths of the matter, they will become capable of turning themselves around to a place that favors us and our interests.
all about picking your battles, and not getting greedy or over-extending, gain some ground, reinforce the position, then taker a little more, and don't ask for more than you absolutely need at the time.
(2.04 MB 1527x1527 1588869453382.png)
>>27883 pic related is you
(156.89 KB 1110x750 7689-17av6dx.png)
you gotta try this bra
(90.42 KB 151x166 1585378329576.gif)
>>27894 >Whites ARE native to america, the injuns came second, archeology is clear about that. >Secondly, whites are not just native to Europe, but to large portions of the Middle East and Africa as well, use "white" not "European" to describe yourself, or you forsake much of the soil that rightfully belongs to us. >Nothing wrong with knowing that human life beings when egg and sperm unite, I'm an atheist who believes this BTW, anti-infanticide of the unborn does not equal christian, and the association between the two is a canard of Jewish origin. >I'm not "straight" I'm mentally well, at least in this regard, lacking in mental disorder is normal, and does not need a name for it. Same goes with "able-bodied", that's just "normal". >Not conservative, I lack a political ideology because it's limiting and gets my currently-held positions misunderstood, I have some ideas, but I'd rather talk in detail about the specifics of the policies that I support rather than using some vague term of team or identity. >I'm pro-white, guns are just tools, very useful ones, but you can violently resist oppression or topple tyranny without them as well, superior firepower does not guarantee victory, especially in a domestic civil conflict, even torches and pitchforks are good enough when wielded competently enough, "welcome to the rice fields, motherfucker". >I'm for a hell of a lot more than a wall when it comes to defending the interests of my people, friend. >not a furry, not obsessed with hating them either, so long as they aren't too degenerate and don't get in my way, I'll give them some distance, I got bigger concerns right now than some group of cringeworthy manchild fetishists who fried their brains on (((saturday morning cartoons))). >Unfortunately for me, I am actually Canadian. Now, what does any of this have to do with anything in the OP?
>off-topic, degenerate filth. Fuck off (((slider))). your presence here means that this idea is better than I thought it would be. you know we win on the facts, scare tactics and moral panics are all you have against us, this idea will remove this thought-killing taboo you've enforced to shut down the spread of information damaging to your cause, and allow us to inch up towards our inevitable victory. prepare to be marked and expelled once again, parasite.
we are the eosinophil, it's only a matter of time before we discover how to remove you from the body, your only hope is to kill us before we can discover the correct defensive measures. You must work as quickly as you can without progressing fast enough to alert the larger but less vigilant/aggressive defensive cells against you. Like any parasite, you've got the systems of your host's body to work for you, defending you even at the cost of damaging itself, but that is why we are free-floating, operating independent of the central systems, even capable of killing off parts of our own host to get to you. You keep you host alive for the purposes of feeding of of it as much as possible, but this gives us the time we need. You protect the malfunctioning cells, and force the functional ones to support them, you bring cancer by turning cells against the body and getting them to abandon their roles. You allow foreign bodies and pathogens to flood into our system by weakening or shutting down our immune responses to them, and even get us to privilege those pathogenic agents over the things that could actually benefit or sustain us. You are worms, prions, cancer, and AIDS all in one package, the ultimate infectious agent, and yet you always lose, we always expel you in the end, and this time, with the aid of the internet as eternal record of your true natures, after we expel you, we will hunt you down wherever you go to destroy you utterly, such that you shall never rise to threaten us again. We will be thorough, salting the earth and burning whatever trace of you may remain, even without you to drive us to self-loathing, we may remember ourselves as monsters, but we will be able to live with ourselves, and most importantly, we will be able to live. But why should a healthy body mourn the disease they purged from their system? why should a victor cry over the totality of their enemy's defeat or annihilation? We used to praise our victories over cowardly creatures like yourselves with songs and feasts, we held celebrations every year on the date of our enemies destruction, we called ourselves heroes and our acts glorious, we've written sagas and epics of how we triumphed over evil, defending our blood and soil with honor and glory. time to recall all the things we were made to feel shame for as sources of pride, absolute victories over our pathetic subhuman neighbors. For decades and even centuries, you've gotten others to endlessly tell us how inferior they are, how we conquered and dominated them, they did this with the hopes of being rewarded with sympathy, but now these tales will be their eternal testament to their existence as a source of our unending mockery and lack of respect, and a record of all the things only we can and why we are to consider ourselves superior and worthy of veneration as a people. so that we will know that we are fearsome, and that we should take pride in that we are feared, and that nothing will come of compassion for the other. You think you've weakened us, and for the time, we have been weakened, but once a body recovers from illness, they become stronger for it, the weaknesses have been identified and purged, and you will have made us stronger. you've shown us what a malfunctioning cell looks like, and how they may damage our systems, I guess when all this is over, our descendants may think to thank your memory for that, but by then, you will be no more, while we may remember you and your brand of evil with our archives, you will leave no descendants behind when you are purged, and the stars will belong to us. you are little men, with small minds and crippled hearts, prideful before your decline and fall into annihilation, celebrating the very signs of you coming destruction, failing to recognize the faces of the harbingers of your people's doom. live the rest of your short existences decadently, I recommend the cask of amontillado, it's truly to die for.
Listen, we've been denying the concept of racism since the day it grew it's teeth, and it's only made the concept stronger by allowing it to be applied to more victims. rather than fortifying it and giving them vulnerable targets, we instead add to the concept and remove people from it's full affect. (((they))) will then have to go on the defensive, and try to deny that racism has subsets, thus publicizing and drawing attention to harmful distinctions (for them), and away from the vague and lazy labels that benefit their narrative, this puts the ball firmly in our court, and makes the concept of racism useful to us. It's kind of like how "fake news" became useful for those it was being applied to after we decided to make use of the new object in play instead of pretending it wasn't there and insisting others follow suit, it would only have made us suspect, and them seem like the propagators of knowledge. roll with the punches, adapt to the enemy play instead of adamantly denying that have made their move. work with whatever they place on the table, make it seem like it's no issue for us as we turn it against them, stay cool, make them panic, and turn their best moves into their worst with a small change. flow around the rocks instead of hurting yourself attempting to upend them, remove only obstacles that are necessary, be graceful and accepting of the situations you find yourselves in. your enemies momentum can be their weapon or your own depending on how you make use of it, follow through with only the force we must exert, applied in key locations, we make the enemy fight against themselves when we become as water. this applies to all conflict, adapt and -with a slight yet effective change- overcome whatever is put before us, make their choices work for us, make their movements into our own, let them be the heralds of their own destruction, let them drown in their own regretted mistakes.
what should we call these two types of "racism"? how to go about selling the idea of there being multiple types of racism to the masses so that it will be talked about?
>>27932 idk,maybe this can tie in with the nigger jew hatred in New York? That news sure died down with corona chan didn't it? Maybe alpha racism and beta racism? Colonial vs Inherited?
>>27932 You make good posts and good points, OP. There are many ways in which (((academics))) have attempted to deprogram our innate racist tendencies, including the famous "race is only skin deep" arguments that run along the lines of "traditional racial categories are a scientific fiction". And it's true- there is greater genetic distance between a somalian and a Mukongo than there is between a german and a chinese man. Traditional racial categorization would place these men into three different groups, rather than four. In my experience, people are ammenable to discussion of ethnic groups, but not of races. Teach people the history of human evolution- the timescales, the genetic distances involved. Talk about how, before humans became anatomically modern, we saw that greater cranial capacity was associated with more sophesticated tool use. When they seem ready, discuss the heritability of IQ, show them the IQ results of different nations. Show them the skull of an aboriginal and the skull of a european. Show them the diversity of the human species. You don't need to frame these things in a positive or negative light- you just need to get the thinking on it. Most people, deep down, know these things to be true. Our enemy has always been fighting against the nature of humans- rational, pattern seeking beings that innately trust their kin more than outsiders. This is why they are bound to lose. I don't know what we should call these ideas. But when you work within a more scientific framework, you can get a lot done to convince people. I've never been very good at phrasing things in ways that have a high memetic potential, but I've found I'm talented at convincing people one on one. "Why would you think that evolution would stop at the head?"
We already have that; Rascist; Knows races are inherently unequal and logically concludes and supports seperation of races or supremacy of their race over others.(making them a <insert race here> supremacist). Then we have: Pussy Faggots; OP
>>27946 once again, kike, I call for your silence. you aren't fooling anyone here, we have seen your kind around here before and know how you've tailored your bullshit to our community. the idea of separating action and subjective opinion (what "ought" to be) from factual belief (what we think "is") is going to allow us to converse with those outside of our communities in a way we haven't been able to before. we make up two names for two types of racism, we promote the idea that racism has two main variants, one more conservative (makes less assertions) and reasonable (the less you say, the easier your position is to defend) in it's nature than the other. then we push with the more defensible type of racism, the motte, where we have the overwhelming advantage of factual truth, while avoiding having to defend the bailey of a tempest of emotional reactions and moral values, which is where the enemies of reason tend to thrive. we do as the new atheists did by breaking ourselves down into two halves and taking the strongest stance we can as a result. the new atheists shined by making the split, when before they had denied the validity of the term "atheism" and used the word "agnostic" the way we use the term "pro-white" and deny the label "racist". this ended after it was clear that the tactic was a complete failure - just as we saw with "pro-white" becoming another word for "racist trying to shake off bad publicity of racism", "agnostics" would constantly be called "atheists who try to shake off the bad publicity of atheism". It was only when they decided to accept the term "atheist" as a vbalid description of themselves, and added subcategories to it ("weak/implicit" vs. "hard/explicit"), that they forced the godly to take the role of denier, an then this high ground was the key to their ultimate victory in their chapter of internet culture wars. being the one who denies is always a position at a disadvantage in any debate, since denial of even the most obvious falsehood is difficult to prove to be true and genuine, people suspect that one who denies if hiding something or lacking in self-awareness. we have to force the jew to deny that racism has sub-types and internal distinctions (especially since it does, stephen molyuneux is both a race realist and fully aware of the JQ, yet continues to recommend anarcho-capitalism instead of the racial policies natsocs support, showing that even when they agree on what is, they can disagree on what should be done about it). Then the jew will have to fight from the lower ground which they had up till now used to it's fullest against us. we steal their power for ourselves, and use their own cultural momentum against them, we become like water, working around their attacks instead of tanking them directly.
please move this idea to endchan, I don't think I can sell it to them as well as I can to you. also, making it seem like more people support it than I alone will make other more likely to to see it as worth participating in. I want to start a strawpoll or something to decide the names we use to describe the two subcategories of "racism". Jews and their puppets will try to derail this, so sell the idea as hard as you can, we need a lot of people behind this push to make it work and get this meme into the public consciousness of the internet. the sooner lots of people start discussing this concept, the sooner the kikes will have to respond to it, then our path to victory is even more certain than it already was. people will say "I'm racist, but not THAT ind of racist, don't mischaracterise me", this leads to racism not being sen as bad in itself so long as it's the right type of racism, the label loses it power to fulfill it's intended purpose. Finally, later on in the war, as things get more edgy on this front, we will have people saying "yes, I'm THAT type of racist, and here is why" and they will say this with no fear of the consequences, but still feeling edgy for doing this, since racism as a concept has lost it's teeth and can no longer be used as the "bad word" to automatically shut people up, the one everyone on our side of the war had to tip-toe around is now something we can fucking stomp on with no fucks given. we will then have to have leftists do as they did with "weak/implicit/soft" atheists - start to concede points and give up ground to avoid appearing completely unreasonable and dishonest especially to their own followers. we take more and more of their concessions until their whole position is weak AF and "anti-racists" are pretty much only nominally so compared to their predecessors (who, of course, they will try to avoid being compared to). We win, the overton window is shifted to our plane of acceptability, and we win just as firmly as the atheists did with this one little rhetorical trick. the trick only works if you have the facts on your side, of course, but we know our evidence makes an ironclad case, our facts are solid, and there is no one who can step to us once the fight is moved to the ground of factual truth and away from moral permissibility.
>>27969 Let me tell you what the normie thinks when you say you're a "peacefull rascist". >He's just like Hitler! Let me tell you what the normie thinks when you say you follow Hitler the National Socialist ideal >He's just like Hitler! But he's proud of it and forthcoming. And when the cards are on the table and the niggers are at the gates of their surban community and they are FORCED to open their eyes. Who will they turn to? We follow the truth, we endlessly search for it and seek to apply it to our nation through politics. Yet you are litterally telling us to water down the truth and stuff it in an ineffective firecracker so lemmings can still hate us for what we are: Rascists. A man who hates niggers and hangs around with a shaved head is the same as a man who "wants to peacefully seperate our two races" and wears a suit and tie. These two men have no differences in the mind of the lemming, and all trying to water the truth down to fit the opinions of the media until your message is paletable enough for the masses to eat. Will only succede in making you like our opposition; Built on lies and anti-white. We are rascists; never shun that word. We love our people so as a direct consquence of that we hate those races which threaten our people's existance. Your not making any "overton window" shift, you're just making yourself a liar and you will be all the worse for that.
>>28004 Let me tell you what the normie thinks when you say you're a "peacefull rascist". >He's just like Hitler! the first sign you are a jew is that you brand all normies as acting the same, thus sending the implicit message that outreach is ineffective, despite us having ample evidence to the contrary. the second jewish trait of this part of your post is that you add shit to my position that i did not say, i never said that we all become "peacefull rascists", only that we bring to attention the distinction between racists that reacts to their knowledge by changing their personal behavior or supported political policies towards racial discrimination, and those who do not. moving on: Let me tell you what the normie thinks when you say you follow Hitler the National Socialist ideal >He's just like Hitler! But he's proud of it and forthcoming. Now, you are real fucking delusional if you actually think the second is going to regarded any more positively than the first, you don't actually think this, however, you are simply trying to convince us that doing fucking nothing is somehow more difficult than doing anything, that scaring away your potential supporters with impotent bravado is somehow going earn their respect, it wont, they will forget about you as soon as they are done with their encounter with you. you are a fucking jew using jewish argument tactics straight from the textbook, neck yourself. And when the cards are on the table and the niggers are at the gates of their surban community and they are FORCED to open their eyes. Who will they turn to? again with the dependence upon outside factors for any sort of change, yea, lets just sit on your thumbs as the NWO rampages across the world unopposed, that's what real natsocs do right? you are a fucking kike. your entire lack of plan revolves around the idea that the enemy will just own themselves, or that some rebellion will start without our involvement that we will take control over, or that the world will become so unfixably fucked that we could somehow come to power. all of these scenarios are jewish fantasies that are used in their movies over and over and over again.
>>28004 We follow the truth, we endlessly search for it and seek to apply it to our nation through politics. bullshit, we aren't doing anything on the political front, we have no effective political presence and you know it, Trump and all the other saviors we have had in the political realm have turned out to be some variant of anti-white pro-kike tools. and also, you only mention political solutions, what about extra-political ones, change doesn't just come from politicians, in fact, it typically comes from them last, where change begins to happen happens isn't an elections winner and it cannot be. throughout history, change never started at the political arena, change comes from media, it comes from education, it comes from community and culture, it comes from the ground up long before it manifests from the top down. but you would know that, wouldn't you? parasite. Yet you are litterally telling us to water down the truth and stuff it in an ineffective firecracker so lemmings can still hate us for what we are: Rascists. more jewish lies, I'm telling you to change nothing regarding your political positions or personal conduct, I've made it clear, and you count on your flattery of national socialism to cause people to skip over all of my words and just let you tell them what it is I'm advocating. that is a very jewish action. A man who hates niggers and hangs around with a shaved head is the same as a man who "wants to peacefully seperate our two races" and wears a suit and tie. I thought the shaved head garnered such greater respect that the suit and tie would be passed over for them in times of a crisis? yeah, jews have a pathological need to contradict themselves and screw with the heads of their enemies, fuck you These two men have no differences in the mind of the lemming. again, almost completely at odds with your first statement, where you said the openly nazi was someone whom the normalfolk would reward with power when the racial apocalypse is allowed to occur. - and all trying to water the truth down to fit the opinions of the media until your message is paletable enough for the masses to eat. Will only succede in making you like our opposition; Built on lies and anti-white. where did i fucking say anything about "watering down the truth" bitch? i never said "leave out some facts", did i? you are lying about me and fighting a fucking fantasy version of myself because you hope no one will read what I've actually written. go choke on a pigs cock you hebe. We are rascists; never shun that word. aren't you supposed to be on the side that denies racism as a valid concept? because it was made up by jewish propagandists? you are no national socialist, or you'd be up to date on that position of theirs. We love our people so as a direct consquence of that we hate those races which threaten our people's existance. hate, no, oppose, yes. We know how you can fight an enemy, recognize them as your enemy, and not get your minds poisoned by hatred. btw, you talk like a nazi as depicted on csi or some other kike drama. dramas written by jews as hit pieces on us. you already praised the degenerates who shave their heads, so it's no surprise that you are promoting self-destruction via painting a target on ourselves by copying the skinhead fads originally created by feral niggers and jew commies. Your not making any "overton window" shift, you're just making yourself a liar and you will be all the worse for that. I'm proposing we speak only the truth and draw attention to something that is undeniably true, and you project your own dishonest jewish instincts to lie about fucking everything onto me when i am proposing we do the exact opposite. your plan is standing still until shit gets real bad, right? just letting the Globalist regime take over the globe without doing anything to interfere, right? and then either the jews shit the bed so badly the world goes to the brink of destruction, or some other people besides ourselves start fomenting a rebellion. then we somehow are just followed by everyone as the leaders of our race, such as being given command of some opposition movement started by total strangers. and this is because we have earned all this respect by circlejerking ourselves on a site almost no one visits and pissing of everyone we can who isn't us with being needlessly aggressive territorial assholes. that is your plan, being weak, reactive, and feminine. fuck you fuck you fuck you I will rope you and all your kind when i have the power to do so you hooknosed sucker of babies dicks. you blood drinking murderer. you corrupter of the innocent. you destroyer of civilizations. you sower of discord. You want me to hate? you've succeeded, I hate you so fucking must, you worms and roaches will be burned by the fires of my fury till not even ashes can remain of you. i will not tell you to go to hell, instead I will bring it to you and give you a personal tour.
>>28034 It's not a bad idea to rebrand racism. The enemy attempts rebranding all the time. Like calling censorship "deplatforming". What would be a fun word to use instead of racism? Something that would just make them seethe hard because they know we're talking about racism while avoiding all the emotional baggage they want the concept to have?
Peaceful racism is an exceptionally stupid term though. It changes nothing since you're using the original term and only adding peaceful to it which makes you look like a powerless faggot who can be easily abused. That's all the peaceful word means.
>>28050 Why don't you just say differences? Or specialties? Racism today means jack shit. Saying "blacks are better at basketball" is the definition of racist but its even acceptable to say on national TV or in blockbuster movies because the people who run show business believe that racism is only a threat when it benefits White People and/or hurts POC. Saying blacks or jews or asians are superior to Whites is perfectly fine. They're just targeting White supremacy (superiority) and using racism as a tool to fight it without causing the most Whites to think that this is just some sneaky way to normalize attacks on White countries, families and movements.
>>28050 postj·u·dice /ˈpostjədəs/ noun noun: postjudice; plural noun: postjudices 1. An opinion that is based on reason or actual experience. "Whites postjudice against kikes, niggers and shitskins" Not liking a person or group with a good reason. Having had experience with a person, you do not like that person. A rational generalization.
>>27883 >one or more racial populations have positive or negative qualities that significantly differentiate them from other races, This affirmation is wrong because only a number of individuals, not 100%, from different racial populations have positive or negative qualities that differentiate them against individuals from other races and it may change due to their place and time and conditions that they live. Race can't be mixed with individuality. If you say that every African is Black you are being racist because some of them are Albinos. And if you say that every European is White you're being racist too because some of them in the Mediterranean are Brown tanned. Over generalization is what racism is. Like a doctor claiming that every smoker gets lung cancer and that every obese gets diabetes. He can only claim that a larger number of them does compared to others. That's what research tells . When researches run IQ tests they claim there's a larger number of people from a country with a racial population that has higher IQ against other countries. This is not racism this is scientific research
>>28050 We aren't rebranding, racism as an umbrella term is still going to exist. we are splitting it apart into two more specific halves, each addressing one of the two distinct things racism is used to address as an umbrella. so reluctant people have a midground to hide in, and so that the debate on the truthfilness of facts is separated from the debate on the morality of actions. The usefulness of racism to the jew lies in its hidden vagueness, where one thing can be misrepresented as another. A cheap rhetorical trick used to mislead until we force them to be specific.
>>28051 More shit i never said. I never suggested a term for either subcategory of racism. If i did use terms, its motte racism and bailey racism. Because I too would think a term like peaceful racism sounds stupid. I only that we give titles to the two subcategories and left it up to you to think up what those titles should be.
>>28054 Ok, look, while ive long since noticed it too amd its something that still pisses me off to no end, talking about it doesnt draw any ears. I understand that its so obvious but no one cares, and its a blatantly unfair setup, but outsiders dont care because they think white people have no right to complain about any inuustice showm towards their race. Getting them to talk about the facts witgout feae might fix this by showing them that nothing is as clearcut as they were led to beleive. Our cause has been on this track forever and not going anywhere, the cause has to either develop new strategies or die. There is no steam left in this train, boss. Stop trying things that havent done anything, its not going to suddenly become a good idea, itll only make you look worse to the outside, like you got nothing else to say, and we both know how deep this well is. Essentially this is a forced meme at this point, its not gonna take off no matter how long you stick to it, time to at least try out some Original Content.
>>28077 Good word, i use it a lot, doesnt apply to what we talk about here though. I might make a thread for it later.
>>28078 Thats what I had intended to get across, but i suck at communicating my meanings via this medium, thanks for filling in one of my blanks for me. ^_^
Can we maybe create an operation? - we come up with names for the two subsets of racism - we coordinate the best means of getting people to use these terms, even if only in a mocking way. - we use these terms whenever we can, maybe create some posters that spread around knowledge of the terms and their distinctions. Shills will try to stop any action on the part of white advocacy, I have identified that they all possess the same strategy: Shills will insist upon inactivity and only preparation for an apocalyptic situation in the future, typically government collapse and/or race war where they propose we will then "take control" when white people flock to us as leaders, despite most likely not knowing who we are, what we stand for, or what we want to acheive. This esstially means we let the jew gorge itself on our people, and if they somehow do themselves in, we might be able to get whatevers left. It also makes us dependant upon the actions of others or on unlikely events, other people start a race war, or if there is a collapse. Not a depression, not some other bad time white people are known to just suffer through without caring for the cause. It has to be something that can very rarely occur, like the collapse of the soviet union. Shills will claim to love, love love national socialism, they will reject anyone who is not their idea of a national socialist. But they will never tell you what it takes to be a national socialist, and will reject the original national socialism because of how they claim it would have been under our circumstances. They obssess over being openly national socialist in the most unappealing stereotypical way you could, they will equate presenting yourself and ideas in a way that others are going to receive most positively to actually changing what your ideas are. These two things are not the same at all, making a good sales pitch for a product is not the same as selling a different product, but jews love conflating different things with one another when it suits them. They will tell you normies respect someone who acts like a hollywood charictature of a neonazi, a hyper-aggressive antisocial socially blind asshole. They might as well to take pride in publicly soiling our pants. If you ate like this, People will not care about you when you arent around, they will remember you, but not as "the autistic pos we need to lead us through these dark times" when shtf, even if they then accept some of our premises as being correct. Its not leaderlike to be full aggro and socially dysfuntional, it makes you a pariah regarded as a dangerous lunatic, they wont even remember enoigh of the apecifics of what you said to think "oh shit he was right about something", they likely would have mever listened to someone who does not care that he is antagonizing them. Shills will be more concerned with national socialism then with white people or spreading the truth. They will demand complete ideological conformity as a requirement for their cooperation, even in somthing that is wholly beneficial to all potential partners. This is because they actually shills trying to cut down on any cooperation happening at all by restricting our numbers to peolple that share all of a list of evermore specific traits. The people who work with us do not have to be completely the same as us in every area, they just need to have enough commonalities to ourselves to do this one specific thing with us. As for this board, the only essential commonality between us is that we agree on matters of fact, and share the opinion that white people are awesome but under attack, and that some action must be taken to defend them. Shills will try to lie about what others have posted, and critcize them for statements they had never made. This is them deceiving us into thinking someone who posted a good idea had actually posted a worse one by reacting as if that was the case. Shills will redefine words to discredot others, for examlle, they will pretend libtard refers to libertarians and not liberals. That the sentence "explaining jewish excellence" means "explaining why jews are awesome" and not "explaining how jews are so much more successful in terms of positions of power", which was made clear by the rest of the specific document the shill is reacting to. When a good idea or piece of info comes along, the shill will tell us to reject it on some grounds unrelated to the opinion or fact itself, such as how it came from a hated source. The shill despises the idea of us exercising proper critical thought and wishes to prevent us from doing so. Bad arguementation or refisal to present justification for ones statements is not incompetance on /pol/, it is a clear sign of a shill being busy at work.
>>28105 Tldr They want us to be an inactive group with strict and exclusive ideological dogma that keeps us from expanding or working with others. They want us to make no attempt to appeal to others, and to actively antagonize potential allies. They want to shut down discussions that are not strictly about how bad things are and how awesome hitler was, maybe also talking about our favorite media and what we will do after we are in power. Just preventing us from planning to do anything to actually challenge the system. Do not listen to these manipulative snakes.
pushing this to the top again so that everyone can see it and hopefully the focus is placed on the operation rather than dealing with the "just do nothing" shills
>>28078 For clarity: Those individuals are of a race and arise from that race at significantly higher odds, precisely because they are from that specific race, as is known to be even after factoring out environmental factors. As well, there's no reason to tolerate another race that negatively impacts your own, especially since they are predominately negative all-around as a race, with lesser morality. Thus any arguments of the 'moral of it' or in 'virtue of' are irrelevant as to benefit the less moral race at cost of the moral is immoral, and as a reframing: aiding them to commit immoral, 'evil' acts. So, basically, the evaluation of the virtue or vice of 'being racist' or 'racism' has not been conducted on its own by you and others and so the implicit connotations of your statement are laden with unquestioned prejudicial assumptions about morality, ethics and reality. >>28105 I suggest a more motivated group of individuals l o l
>>28033 Yes, normies all act the same in pratice. This is why it's called "social conditioning", if they don't walk in lockstep with social --> norms <-- they are no longer normies. This social norm is controlled by the (((media))), education and finacial system. The lies are pushed through media and education creating the social norm in the first place then ensured by pushing those would be social offenders out of jobs and home through finacial and media means. All vectors of social contol are in Jewish hands. The normie is a product of social conditioning, hence the term "normie", this anything anti-Jewish will never be accepted on-mass by the masses. No matter how you dress it up. It is the anti-social people we can recruit, those who are anti-social in a sick society are not to be looked down upon, and they don't care about appearance or branding or they wouldn't be deemed "antisocial" in the first place. Rockwell's greatest recruits where from these ranks, none of his core base included any of these milque toast conservatives you want to try and recruit... and he said so many times himself. >that's your plan being weak reactive and feminine No? Quite the opposite, you're the one who wants to play dress up to try and appeal to the masses... the most feminine and ineffective thing one can do. >your plan is standing still until shit gets real right? No, when did I ever say that. What does any of the rest of your statement have to do with anything I said. Who are you talking to, because it clearly isn't me. I never stated that I want to "stand still" or am against "non-political" soultions, I'm against the mass movement as a soultion to our social ills; connect the dots and read Siege. And the rest of your argument seems to be a sperg fest and trying to call me a Jew. Christ, lay off the fun-dip and learn to >green text when quoting, half of that is unreadable.
>>28295 >No? Quite the opposite, you're the one who wants to play dress up to try and appeal to the masses... the most feminine and ineffective thing one can do. It's what Hitler did, so fuck you. >connect the dots and read Siege No. >when quoting, half of that is unreadable. I'm bad at navigating this system, sue me.
We tolerate living in a world with animals that would kill a human being for little to no reason. We simply do not live among them when we don't have to. If some of another political ideology or racial group are willing and able to work with us towards one of our goals, we should be willing to enter that partnership on whatever terms we find most agreeable and safe, that does not mean making them one of us, an eternal ally, or our best friends, it;s merely a collaboration that all sides stand to benefit from, for the sole sake of achieving that benefit. finally, never make enemies you don't have to, even if they do seem too weak to ever be a threat.
>>28338 "That's what Hitler did" You know nothing at all about Hitler and have never read the Mein Kampf nor understand National Socialism. This is the more basic concepts of our movement; "The NSDAP must not be a follower of public opinion but must become the master of public opinion, it must not be the masses's servant but their lord." - Adolf Hitler If you notice the NSDAP never adopted the pouplar opions of the masses nor changed their party line to be more appealing to them but remained stead fast in the pursuit of applying the National Socialist truth to society without compromise or "dressing up" for the masses. This is why the 25 Points of the NSDAP program were UNCHANGABLE for this very reason so they would never become a "party" changing their views to appease the masses but instead a constant vanguard for the natural law. It seems all of your argument is just scarecrowing and "no you", even when it comes to Hitler and National Socialism which you have no understanding of.
>>28357 >If you notice the NSDAP never adopted the popular options of the masses nor changed their party line to be more appealing to them - and that's different from what I'm doing how? I'm not asking fir a change in any policy here, this operation is purely a "public information" campaign about the existence of point of views that the establishment lies to ignore. Either get it through your skull or stop lying, I don't know if you're a shill or not anymore. BTW, I spellchecked your post for you, stop phoneposting please. Look, I'm not trying to change anything, so you are arguing with someone who isn't in this thread, and never was, a figment strawman of your imagination. your posts are off-topic and serve only to misrepresent your opponent, go away until you can address my real proposal as it is and not as you wish it was.
>>28284 Both race and environment defines a person otherwise we would be just like our grandparents but instead we only partially relate with them. Race is a important factor, but once you ignore every other factor, this becomes racism. You judge a race as a whole individual when in fact is only a high number of individuals. That is no different from judging humanity as whole. You must realize that a species have similarities and also differences. A race might have a high number of individuals that harms individuals from other race. Look at how certain animals eat other species, they do it to survive, and some of them might even turn against their own species if they have to but once they're domesticated they act differently and this is not different from humans but you can't expect certain species to be domesticated in the same way as other species. >>28339 As I mentioned above some of these animals that would kill could be a benefit once they're trained, but not all of them can be trained at least not by the same standards. Some of them might live peacefully among you once you learn how to relate with them. You might not want to live among them, but some other people from your species might want that. That's why there's people who raise dogs and live in big cities, and people who live near woods with wolfs
>>28380 "Nature vs Nurture" is just like "Survival of the Fittest" - a false and nonsensical concept brought about by ignorance of the science of how biology works with regard to genetics. Genes and Environment are not alternatives to one another in terms of the explanation of human traits or behavior. They are complementary, working as a team, Your Genetics sets the potential for what you have the potential to be, and the Environment determines which of your potential selves is actualized. The environment can never turn you into someone you did not have the genetic potential to become, because what your genetics do is determine how your environment will affect you, including your development and you behavior. "free will" is a complete fantasy, you are a deterministic being - the combination of your genetics and the series of external factors you are exposed to determines everything about you, your body, your abilities, your actions, your words, your beliefs, your opinions, your thoughts, your feelings. The debate is on HOW a set of genetics could be affected by certain types of external factors, not whether external factors could allow one top transcend the limitations imposed upon them by their genetic makeup.
"survival of the fittest" is just as much of a canard, all nature cares about is "survival". In the beginning life was a bunch of small asexual organisms that could barely be considered life (and not nonliving elements in a chemical reaction, which they closely resembled). These guys reproduced by splitting in half, and having each of the halves continue to survive following division. The division process did not always produce two perfect copies of the original, in some cases (quite often, actually, even more than similar organisms today, mostly due to the high level of mutagenic factors of the environment in which this was happening), the organisms resulting from the division process were different from the original, and when these guys divided, the differences were carried over to the organisms that resulted fro the division. Then some events happen that kills one, a few, or a great many of these guys, and this means they don't get to divide and spread their traits any further among the population. some sets of traits allow one to survive situations that would kill a different set of traits, and so certain traits became more common than others. furthermore, different sets of traits could be useful in surviving the same threat, and as a result, divisions and distinctions emerged between populations of different sets of traits, as each of these populations continued to specialize on their unique pattern of survival strategy. this was the rise of species. the organisms initially took the energy they needed directly from their environment, but the environment was quickly changing to the point that it was providing less sustenance, and so new sources of energy had to be found to avoid starvation. the organisms' survival habits were thus specialized to the point where some of them became reliant upon other organisms for energy; rather than taking it themselves, they became parasites and carnivores, consuming other organisms either in part of or in full for their energy, there were also omnivores and opportunists, those who primarily relied on the environment for energy, but supplemented it with the consumption of other organisms, and those who fed both from the environment and upon other organisms. Since being fed upon generally resulted in death, the organisms adopted traits that made them less likely to die from being fed from, typically by avoiding predator attacks or by retaliating against them, however, this did not stop them from adapting to feed from other organisms, in fact, most developed traits to allow them to feed upon other organisms and to avoid being fed upon themselves. all this from mass starvation. and it introduced it's own pressures, first on strategy was to have multiple organisms go beyond merely cooperating, and actually join together into a single being, where each organelle in these single-celled lifeforms had then specialized to fill a specific role in it's survival, eventually giving rise to creatures composed of multiple specialized cells; multicellular organisms, and then to specialized parts of the body, an thus, to anatomy as a whole. Secondly, mutating fast between generations had all of a sudden become necessary for the survival of an organism's family line (especially since the mutagenic factors of the environment were in a great decline). eventually, this led to another great development which once again had completely changed the genetic landscape; the organisms discovered how to re-combine the genetic traits of two individuals to produce a third individual with half the genetics of each of it's parents, and the added bonus was that neither parent had to sacrifice it's life to pass on it's genetic traits, and this, sexual reproduction, was the ultimate evolutionary advantage. it caught on like wildfire and gave rise to the precambrian explosion, where all sorts of new and increasingly complex species quickly developed due to all the once simple (and still rather simple) organisms swapping around their genes in a primal environment. the rest is history, but even with just this, there was never any pressure to be the best, to dominate one's environment and live a comfortable or pleasurable life, the only pressure was survival and reproduction, and with the advent of sex, the optional addition of ensuring the survival and reproduction of one's children. nature is lazy, it does not care about creating the ultimate form of life, it merely favors those who survive and carry their genetics to at least one (but ideally to two) other generations, to reproduce and ensure you have children (and ideally grandchildren) is the only goal nature sets out for any living thing. all evolution is towards just this end.
sure, a group of smart africans could dominate the rest of their environment and thus become more prosperous, but intelligence has a cost of not only the additional energy spent by the brain (and the threat to the mother of giving birth to a child with a larger head), but also the reduction in aggression and impulsivity, which spells doom for any single african living among his stupider but more aggressive brothers. The primal african environment is one that does not favor intelligence, when food is plentiful all year round, there is no way the absence of abstract thinking (required for long-term planning and empathy) is selected against. the winning strategy for survival in this strategy that requires the minimum of adaptations is to get control of as many resources as you can and maintain your control over them, females are included as resources, and so being very sexually interested (r-selected reproductive strategy) is favored as well. every human adaptation must favor humans on an individual level before it can be adopted into the general population, and a single african is only disadvantaged by becoming much more intelligent then his equally much more aggressive fellows, he loses the competition for control over resources, which includes potential mates, and he is either killed or dies as a sexually unsuccessful individual, leaving either no children, or fewer children, who are also at risk of inheriting the same disadvantage. it was only when the acquisition of food was limited to a specific, yet predictable, period of time that intelligence is favored. Such as being dependent upon when the Tigris and Euphrates rivers of Mesopotamia flood every year, or when the Nile floods in Egypt, or further up North where a regular event known as "Winter" exists, a long period of time when the very air kills you if you are out in it for too long, when prey is more elusive, making hunting even harder, and when very little grows, and whatever does grow is buried under the snow and ice, worse, this period is preceded by another period known as "Autumn", where plants die, animals begin to vanish, and the air and ground begins to get cold and hard and dry. Areas like those Asia also favor the development of intellect for similar environmental reasons, mostly concerning the chief crop the region's peoples depend upon, rice. In all cases, this regular period of death and scarcity also favors being less sexually dominating since mates are rendered much more immobile, finding them is much more difficult, so taking on and making the most of her is better than burning through them, and since the chances of offspring survival depends upon them learning the strategy and knowledge of patterns required to survive in this environment, leading to a k-type reproductive strategy as the ideal, with a more present and invested father, the effect death of the mother is no longer as bad as it was for the survival of the child, leading to the development of even larger brains in a cognitive arms race. Harsh environments make for smart men, and compassionate men, gentle ones make for aggressive and horny men.
The entire jewish survival strategy is living among another group of people, without being genetically overtaken by them. After being chased out from their land of origin by their enemies, the ancestors of the jews had to live in the lands of others, who initially took them in due to their policies of hospitality, and the similar appearance of the jewish ancestors to themselves. the jews had three choices: the first was to assimilate, and lose their genetic and ethnic identity as they make up an increasingly smaller share of their own family members with each generation, the ultimate result being every trace of the people they were fading out and the only thing remaining is them showing up as a small genetic contribution to non-Jewish DNA, known only by some alphanumeric designation along the lines of "genetic population X". The second was to try and wage a war of conquest against their hosts, which would have been suicide for them since they were in much smaller number, much more poorly equipped, and were surrounded by their opponents, with nowhere to fall back to. The third path is the one they took. They segregated themselves from the surrounding population, and to ensure none of them would be tempted to assimilate, they defined themselves in contrast to their hosts, to the point where "not being of the others who surround us" is the most essential component of their ethnic identity (as is their barely restrained ethnic hatred for us). They teach their children that they are a superior people and that their hosts are intended only to serve them, the children are also taught to hate their hosts and to do anything they can to harm the people of their host while benefiting the Jewish people, but to do so without provoking them into martial conflict with their people or into revoking their people's hospitality privileges. The Jews promotion of reducing the host's populations and to force them to combine themselves with other very distinct peoples is another survival strategy Jews have evolved, a large risk of assimilation is posed to the Jews through their similar appearance to their hosts, not knowing who is a Jew and who is of the host is dangerous to them on a genetic and ethnic level. So the Jews wish to make the numbers of the host population smaller (and to make their own numbers larger) so that mistakes happen less often. Their drive to mix the host population with another population whose appearance is distinct from them serves to make the proces of telling one of the host from a fellow Jew much easier for them, and thus making it easier to for them to avoid assimilation. Now, all of this goes back to many generations of evolution, and so is ingrained into the very biological nature of the Jewish people, a Jews who is capable of resisting this genetic drive (typically due to inheriting less of the traits that influence it's expression, and have the right series of environmental influences to make this resistance easier) are Jews to whom I would give a great deal of my respect (but they are carriers for the genetics of their ancestors, and so I will not live among them easily).
note that I am not talking about the mere presence of absence of traits when i compare populations. I know for a fact that there are plenty of intelligent and compassionate Africans who raise their kids and can keep their dicks in their pants, and plenty of Jews are more than wiling to adopt the gentile lifestyle and oppose the ethnocentricism of their people and set themselves against the Jewish agenda of their people. I've met examples of both such individuals in my lifetime. but what I am referring to is the difference between the degree and frequency of these traits between populations, and the origins of these differences, even a slight increase in traits can produce a significant change, so a slight difference in traits between all individuals of two populations are enough to set them strongly apart from one another, and to be the origin of what we call "stereotypes" that, while not universally true, are largely justified. a last note is that the Arabs resulted from the actions of the Jews, the West Asia/North Africa region was as originally just as White as Europe, but Jews caused the decline and fall of Egypt and Mesopotamia, mixing populations and giving rise to the Arab people as we know them today. The Arabs are what the Jews wanted us to become. Also, without the Jews, there would be no monotheism among Whites, the concept of a "one god" was a direct response to living in the lands of another people, the ancestors of the Jews were polytheists, becoming monolateralists and monotheists only after being driven from their indigenous soil, and in direct response to this. - every population begins as atheists, then moves on to animists as the human brain detects a supernatural world around the natural one. This follows into shamanism, as some humans claim to have a greater connection to the supernatural world than others, and their greater connection allows for communication between these worlds, some spirits (my catch-all phrase for any being of a perceived supernatural nature) then become more recurrent and important than others, thus graduating to godhood, and thus forming polytheism, a hierarchy us established, and there it would typically end. But then there is the event of becoming dependent upon one god in particular to the point that he outshadows all others, the duties of other gods are then requested from this main god and this main god is made into a sort of leader of the people, who devote themselves to him, the other gods still exist, and this factors into the lives of the people, but their god is the one they choose to follow (especially in times when the agendas of different gods come into conflict).This is monolateralism. Typically, entire city-states would devote themselves to a particular god or goddess above the others. Such as how Athenians devoted themselves to Athena, and how Spartans devoted themselves to Ares, or how the cult of Set clashed with the cult of Osiris (I think it was Osiris and Set? maybe it was some other two). Gods have a history of being demoted to spirits as well, particularly when coming into contact with monotheism, such as Celtic Gods becoming the Faeries and the Desert Gods becoming the Demons.
>>28387 Yeah, religion evolves as well, memes are like DNA, those which can survive and pass themselves on most regularly are the ones that come to dominate society. This extends not only to religion, but politics (which can become the equivalent to religion in terms of how it affects one's thinking), philosophy, culture, and social standards (which is the term I'm using as a broad "everything else I haven't yet mentioned" category, a collection of not-unimportant items including concepts such as tradition, values, and etiquette).
One last thing, Jews want to destroy the host population family structure in order to induce their ethnic confusion into ourselves, by making us reproduce in an r-selected manner, while they privately continue to use k-selected reproductive strategies, they can more easily resist assimilation. The biggest primal fear of the Jew is that their children would become Gentiles, though mist of them do not remain conscious of it, when immigration to Israel is mentioned, this primal fear surfaces and they panic with the evolutionarily-instilled paranoia of their ancestors, this is why hashtags like #openbordersforIsrael, or the statement "Israel is the homeland of the Israelis, not the homeland of the Jews" is the best way to trigger them in the most autistic fashion. They will hate you so much more for saying something like that, or for showing them a picture of a Black "Jew", especially if you tell them that that guy has one parent who is pure-blooded Jewish.
>>28381 >The environment can never turn you into someone you did not have the genetic potential to become, because what your genetics do is determine how your environment will affect you, including your development and you behavior. The environment can only trigger the genetic potential, but sometimes the environment selects the genetic potential of the fittest to survive. When there's challenge only a small number of individuals from a race will adapt and the environment will define what genes should survive and define their new race. In modern days this happens when a family grows faster or shrinks from generation to generation due to their adaptation to their environment. This creates genetic differences among people from the same race living on different environments for generations. >The debate is on HOW a set of genetics could be affected by certain types of external factors Different genetic species should experience different external factors in order to live harmoniously. Otherwise only the most compatible genetic species will adapt and survive. This is why different nations and races with different people need different politics and laws but always considering the small differences from each individual being genetic or not. As punishing those who commit crimes and protecting talented people so they can have a bigger and more prosperous family and creating a race with better traits in the future
>>28410 >"The environment can only trigger the genetic potential, but sometimes the environment selects (individuals with) the genetic potential of the fittest to survive." sometimes, but typically not, overwhelmingly it's just the set of genetics that simply survive who get selected for, mother nature is not only callous and capricious, but a lazy-ass bitch who likes to do the absolute minimum she can get away with. >"When there's challenge only a small number of individuals from a race will adapt and the environment will define what genes should survive and define their new race." yep, and different populations within that group will survive in different ways and/or by different traits. The same environment selects for a whole range of possibilities, not just one, but different environments select for different ranges of possible adaptations that benefit the continued survival of a genetic line. It's quite chaotic, but it produces genetic divergence within populations (and the rise of new races/species). >"In modern days this happens when a family grows faster or shrinks from generation to generation due to their adaptation to their environment. This creates genetic differences among people from the same race living on different environments for generations." yep. >"Different (species) should experience different external factors in order to live harmoniously." Do you mean that different people and organisms should live in different environments, or be treated differently in the same environment? >"Otherwise only the most compatible genetic (populations) will adapt and survive." Okay, but there's an advantage and disadvantage to leaving hybrids of genetically distant populations as your offspring, it's a risky move in terms of reproductive strategy, especially in the age where donations of tissues and fluids from one's own parents could save the life of a more "purebred" human but not that of a more "hybrid" human. >"This is why different nations and races with different people need different politics and laws but always (keeping the smaller differences between the individuals within the population in mind)." more like "different populations are predisposed to different political preferences". It may not be the type of system that suits them best, but it's what their brains are programmed to advocate for. >"__ Punishing those who commit crimes and protecting (the most productive) people so they can have a bigger and more prosperous family and creating a race with better traits (for productive contribution to society) in the future" No traits are objectively better than others, as I said earlier, stupidity can be advantageous for individuals living in a resource-rich environment due to higher levels of aggression, and individuals with anything beyond a certain level of intelligence will be selected against in those circumstances (at least locally, and until a high-intelligence group comes in from the outside and inadvertently uses their cooperative skills to completely wreck the native population).
There is no such thing as "laws" or "rules", only "actions" and "consequences", Nature has it;s consequences for every action, and by simply allowing consequences to play out, rewarding and punishing the actions of individuals, we will allow the traits which leads to better outcomes to emerge and show themselves over time. Bottom-up emergent selection is far better than any top-down system of eugenics human beings could ever come up with IMO. It's why I support capitalism and freedom a lot more than NatSocs do, National Socialist social programs are always going to be dysgenic, just less dysgenic than the social programs of other systems. A short-term tolerance of some degeneracy without bailing degenerates out of the consequences of their behavior is what leads to no more degeneracy, since degenerate behaviors are by definition self-destructive. What NatSoc does is protect the genes for degenerate behavior by simply banning and punishing those behaviors. Meaning that the carriers of those genes are merely hidden within the population, and possibly just doing their sick shit in secret, thus making the degenerate an even more dangerous individual to society than they previously had been. I prefer my enemy dies of their own self-inflicted wounds, "hoisted by their own petards", then by my hand, as then they have no one to blame for their end but themselves, and their only possible complaint to me is that after they blew themselves the fuck out, I refused to help them get back on their feet again, to which I say "but you said that doing the things you were doing had no significant risks to yourself, according to you, you wouldn't need my help, and so I made those the terms of allowing your behavior, that I wouldn't be held responsible for the consequences of your decisions, either find a way to help yourself out of this, or learn how to live with the results of your chosen path". It leaves a lesson behind for the eternal record, which I also like, since it provides an example of why future generations should not walk down the same path as these failures,a and why these things are as they are.
>>28415 Excellent post.
>>28414 >Do you mean that different people and organisms should live in different environments, or be treated differently in the same environment? If a species can't live in a environment better suited for themselves they are condemned to live as parasites, cattle, slaves, or to vanish completely thanks to the dominant population. Their best hope would be mixing their genes with the dominant population, but for this to happen they should learn to adapt in order to be accepted. >No traits are objectively better than others, as I said earlier, stupidity can be advantageous for individuals living in a resource-rich environment due to higher levels of aggression, and individuals with anything beyond a certain level of intelligence will be selected against in those circumstances (at least locally, and until a high-intelligence group comes in from the outside and inadvertently uses their cooperative skills to completely wreck the native population). When South America was colonized the most aggressive natives were the first people to be killed by Latin Europeans for not adopting their culture and denying their presence. And the most weak have died from their illness. The few ones that were most intelligent, lucky and submissive survived longer until their most sexually attractive females start mixing their genes through rape and marriage and then they all got mixed. But some of them that were more inteligent escaped to the Amazon forest and preserved their genes. Their aggression was advantageous against rival tribes but not against Europeans. Europeans selected most of the genes that survived trough race mixing. The African slaves that survived were also selected through their submission and had their females mixed as well. Most European males that mixed their genes were aggressive/degenerates. Because they were usually those who invaded tribes and cheated on their wives with a more attractive/submissive female that they could better choose. This all resulted in a new race full of aggressive/degenerate males and submissive/attractive females. But again, not all of them were mixed in the same way. A minority of rich Europeans mixed their genes through traditional marriage giving their mixed children a better education and latter on his patrimony. These mixed genes turned out better.
>>28430 a good historical example of my point, thank you.


no cookies?