PSA

SJW is right, not left

I suppose it would be pointless to say that, in order to be a communist, you have to at least broadly agree with the tenets of communism?

this

>thinking or discussing earthly politics
how about no

You do, commie. Communism is centrism, a neo-liberal western form of it, but both were crafted by the same people. It's all you've ever known. I know as an apolitical freethinker you scoff at this, but it's true.

> leftism was taken too far in some cases. Case in point: the SJW movement, third wave feminism, etc.
>However the rightism we're seeing now is just as severe: racism, white supremacy, sexism, etc.

It's just the natural reaction user. Tho majority of rithism is nowhere near the alt-tards of the alt-right, unlike SJW and MSM want you to believe it.
I dont realy know if the rightism in this board is legit or just maymays, but either way, dont get too suprised when some tards comes with "muh jews". Usualy they dont know any better and are doing the most natural thing, they are joining a group to resist sjw and leftism depotism

That's why I like mine political philosophy: no right, no left, only militaristic authocracy

>Communism is centrism
You are making my head hurts. Fucking phisicaly remove yourself from this board.

>You're just a leftist

Not really.
If you're on the right, just because I don't agree with you, doesn't make me a leftist.

Personally, I don't like all this SJW bullshit that's going on. I prefer that an individual is based on their own merit, rather than lumped into a category like "white", "black", whatever. Or "privileged" and "oppressed".
The idea of representing under-represented groups in industry and education doesn't really appeal to me, because it is against progress and prosperity. It makes technological progress take longer. Similarly, I am not opposed to "race realism", if we were to say "the average intelligence of such and such race" is lower than the average of my race, that isn't a meaningful reason to "discriminate" against that race. I'd rather discriminate against low-intelligence regardless of race. Give them a slum area to live in, and legislate that they are stuck in that internment zone.
That's just my preference though, based on the idea that prosperity and technological advancement is desirable, which is just a spook.

Similarly, I don't like the dumb shit that many people on the right have to say. Being "pro-white" or "pro-life" is little other than spooks, or biased interpretation of a baseless axiom that an unborn child has more rights than a pregnant mother.

In my opinion, globalism leads to more technological prosperity, but leads to the proliferation of intellectual-defectives.
Conversely, isolationism reduces the rate of prosperity, and allows inbreeding of intellectual-defectives.

I'd much rather find a nice compromise, where rapid technological development is achieved, followed by (a hypocritical axiom) that mandatory genetic engineering of offspring for intelligence is morally good, and economic penalties to families who produce intellectual-defective unengineered offspring.

I don't know if I fall into being a leftist or a communist. Maybe you can explain your perspective to me, in a way I can understand?

this user isn't me => =>

delet urself my man

>communism is centrism
Jesus fucking Christ. This board is irredeemable.

user I suggest you to dont let yourself fall inyo the tendency of people to try put people on either x or y. Politics arent like this, at all, not even human relations.
You should try to find a political tradition with you most identefy with or come up with your own (like me).

Usualy people who are like "u left or right?" are the people who say you are a commie when you arent right enought or you a fascist when you arent a leftist enought

Either explain yourselves, or don't bother responding.
You're lowering the quality of discourse here by not explaining, because you just open the door to strawmanning.

How do you know if his arguments aren't reasonable, if you don't ask questions to understand them more.

You're simply being reactionary plebs

I don't care to find a political tradition.

Tradition implies a dogma. Being dogmatic is in opposition to intelligence.
I don't claim to be intelligent, I simply aspire to be.

Similarly, finding the political tradition which identify most with currently isn't intelligent.
Intelligent people aren't dogmatic. Adopting a tradition is akin to dogmatic.
An intelligent person accepts uncomfortable truths, if they are demonstrable. Or rejects previously held axioms, if they are shown to not have a unique claim to being true

The alt right position is the centrist position: one people living in a country as it's always been. That's normal and natural. The issue is that what most now *perceive* as normal and natural has been so mangled by jews who don't feel comfortable living in homogeneous states and have therefore worked tirelessly over the last 50 years to alter what is perceived as normal and natural to mean multiculturalism + racism as new original sin + whites must give up their nations to invaders or they're evil, that the rubber band of reality is finally snapping back. That's how it is. Your left > center > right spectrum is nonsensical and you are a warped late stage product of ideas that have gotten out of control ... of a reality that is fake.

Lol ... it hurts, I know. You can't handle the truth, fellas, don't shoot the messenger.

>You can't handle the truth
Come on, I wrote a whole large post here , and this is all the response you give?

How can you claim to be rational or correct, and then be unable or unwilling to explain your position?

Okay, fine.
How is communism any form of centrism? Communist states operate ideally operate by the proletariat controlling the means of production but generally that function devolves to the state controlling production and the distribution of goods. The state dictating production, distribution, and direction of society and its good is seemingly as hard left as any ideology can go. And if communism is centrism, what is left of communism? Surely not any form of anarchism, even ancom?

You dont need to be dogmatic in following a political tradition. That's why there are liberals in the left and the right.
This would be for you only fiding some tradition you mostly agree with and tell people when they ask your political posicion. Since you dont care, isent a problem either.

>The alt right position is the centrist position
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
FUCKING COMEDY GOLD

Not all alt-righters are fucking stupid, but dear lord, majority are all "le jew meme" unironicaly.
Sorry, no, I dont believe in the Jew Fairy Tale or Nigro IQ Legend, no matter how hard you people try to cook proofs (who are already debunked decades ago by both science and philosophical tradition)

You really want me to read that? Fine.

>You dont need to be dogmatic in following a political tradition. That's why there are liberals in the left and the right.
>This would be for you only fiding some tradition you mostly agree with and tell people when they ask your political posicion. Since you dont care, isent a problem either.

Ah, but you make the mistake that I'm a libertarian. I think my comment about internment camps for intellectual-defectives can be construed as authoritarian.

Similarly, I tend not to associate with people who would get offended by my position, or who really care about posturing regarding politics, so I don't mind explaining it.

Also.
Why not give that other user a reasonable explanation of your opinion, rather than just treat him with ridicule.
I'm sure if you posted your opinion, he could find things to ridicule about yours, that from my position would be just as "true" as your ridicule of his position on centrism.

et al. re: communism as centrism...
When I say that communism is the new centrism it's a little tongue in cheek because I'm more referring to the fact that the architects of communism are the same jews who have designed the present neoliberal system that informs you. Since our parents' generation it has come standard like windows OS in our brains. You're told it's a lot of things, most popularly, "progress," so you're conditioned to view it from an angle that seems real, makes sense since things do by the word "progress," but the sociopolitical reality you're told is progressing with that is really just a scam, which is why it is presently collapsing before our eyes and confusing the hell out of a whole lot of people.

>In my opinion, globalism leads to more technological prosperity, but leads to the proliferation of intellectual-defectives.
Conversely, isolationism reduces the rate of prosperity, and allows inbreeding of intellectual-defectives.

Think you're getting hung up right about here, friend. These things are not abstract, they rely on people and produce different outcomes when different people are manning the stations. And some of those are just stereotypes you'll see the error of if you keep looking. White people have been responsible for 97% of technological innovation ... that's where it comes from. Globalism is the neocommunist, neoliberal, whatever you want to call it, jewish system of control via institutions like the UN, IMF, World Bank, etc. Jews are non-nationals so they create international systems, as they did in the Soviet Union. Isolationism vs cosmopolitan globalism is the lens you're supposed to view things through, but it's not accurate. I understand where you're coming from though and apologize for skipping over your post.

This left-center-right thing when falls into public debate usualy is more a bitching contest than anything. Ideological characteristics shift with time, and seeing this, it isent impossible for communist to turn centrist. Problem is, the ideology didnt shift in our age, at all, majority of communism still keeps its hardcore XX century leftist tradition.
And I dont mean hardcore as "far-left", I mean their dogmas and so on, they are the same from last century

I don't know if I necessarily fall into leftism or communism though.

Personally, people are born and people die.
Discriminating against any group of people wastes time in terms of technological progress towards genetic engineering.
Once we have genetic engineering, we can correct the defects of these groups anyway.

Part of the reason I'm against racial genocide is that it limits the number of people that are alive that can work menial jobs like agriculture. Meaning more intelligent people aren't able to help technological progress.

When it comes to moral or social or political progress. I don't particularly care, I don't think that diversity is moral. I don't think that homogeneity is moral. I think they're spooks that tend to inhabit the minds of people who aren't very intelligent.

For example, education correlates with intelligence. Education also correlates with crime rates.

What is the point in wasting resources genociding a "lesser race" and leaving intellectual-defectives around to procreate and fill that vacuum?

It's a shorter path to just genetically engineering more intelligent individuals, and cutting the problem off at the source.

As far as diversity or homogeneity comes in to play, I tend to see it as just a heuristic spook that humans involved in prehistoric times to ensure that their genetic lineage is passed on.
When genetic engineering is common place, and when everyone is significantly intelligent, they'll be able to appreciate this, and not care about their genetics being passed on (since engineering will render this obsolete)

>>In my opinion, globalism leads to more technological prosperity, but leads to the proliferation of intellectual-defectives.
>Conversely, isolationism reduces the rate of prosperity, and allows inbreeding of intellectual-defectives.

>Think you're getting hung up right about here, friend. These things are not abstract, they rely on people and produce different outcomes when different people are manning the stations. And some of those are just stereotypes you'll see the error of if you keep looking. White people have been responsible for 97% of technological innovation ... that's where it comes from.

Sure, if it comes from whites mostly, that's fine. But that isn't an excuse to keep intellectually-defective whites around.
And wasting resources on finding, transporting, exterminating, and burying intellectual defectives limits technological progress

>Globalism is the neocommunist, neoliberal, whatever you want to call it, jewish system of control via institutions like the UN, IMF, World Bank, etc. Jews are non-nationals so they create international systems, as they did in the Soviet Union.
It doesn't make a difference to me who creates a system, or for what reason they create the system. If it works, it works.

>Isolationism vs cosmopolitan globalism is the lens you're supposed to view things through, but it's not accurate. I understand where you're coming from though and apologize for skipping over your post.

What is the accurate point of view, if not isolationism and globalism?

I only favour globalism for a few reasons.
Globalism reduces the cost of manufacturing goods. Some pharmaceuticals and livestock thrive in climates that aren't found everywhere. Astrological observatories have to be founded in particular locations, and these suitable locations aren't found everywhere.

Also, if globalism is the case, then when disaster strikes in particular areas, its easier for countries to only admit those who are intelligent, and leave intellectual defectives to die off in those areas.

The argument here being, yes it is the loss of a life, but if you look at the entire chain of offspring that a defective could produce, the net loss of letting those offspring come into reality is less than the net loss of an individual life.

The argument here being, yes it is the loss of a life, but if you look at the entire chain of offspring that a defective could produce, the net loss of letting those offspring come into reality is less than the net loss of an individual life.

I think I didn't explain this properly.
It's more ethical (arguably) to not let 100 intellectual defectives be born by letting one person die, and this outweighs the immorality of letting one defective die (instead of those 100 being produced).

We are all born, we all live, we all die.
Does it particularly matter if they die before or after they reproduce?

I know it's probably more than 50% likely that this is a troll, but centrism is as dogmatic as the right or left. There's nothing about being in the middle that transcends anything.

I fucked up my >> s

These are both mine, and should be read together

Genetic engineering in the sci-fi sense you seem to be imagining it as is no given, and is hardly a justification that the most fundamental aspect of who we are, what determines our outcomes and behavior -- race -- is irrelevant or not important as other things.

Also, genocide? I didn't say anything about genocide. But do you see what I was talking about before? You are conditioned to associate certain things with certain other things and this informs your, everyone's, viewpoint. Whites who want to live around other whites and don't want to give their money and resources and human capital to others anymore are justified in that and it's absurd that genocide would play any part. White societies used to peaceful and full of innovation and opportunity. That's all nationalists want.

>since engineering will render this obsolete

Again, no guarantee of that, especially if those whites who have been responsible for 97% of all innovation continue to be replaced in the tech workforce.

About the why the alt-right? Yeah you have a point.
Yeah I should do this.

Anyway, let me try to be the clearest I can on why alt-right isent centrism :

The movement, as far as I know, was created by right figures of last century. This in itself dosent mean much, but the core ideology keeps many of the traits its founders had:

>one people living in a country as it's always been

This isent necessarialy a rightist posicion, but is well know that the concept of nationalism is more proeminent on the Right, especialy in the XX century. The idea of a collective community that shares cultural ties and racial ones was and keeps being a primarialy rightist posicion. A centrist posicion on this, is more of skeptcism. The centrist may dont follow the "all whites are racist", but he neither falls for the "all niggers have low IQ", because he usualy dont look collectives as much as the right does, tho collectivity isent rightist exclusive.

>That's normal and natural.
Yes and no. Yes, ir normal for human groups to try fiding some place to settle and make their lifes; but such groups arent 100% pure neither impossible to change. If we take the first human communitys and take their timelines, many of they are completely alien to their modern counterparts, if they even exist in the first place, cause, they may have been all killed (like the Neanderthals) or culturaly change realy, realy hard (like europeans after christianity, tho they didnt change 100% like it sounds)

>The issue is that what most now *perceive* as normal and natural has been so mangled by jews who don't feel comfortable living in homogeneous states

This is conspiracy theory, this isent even a argument. Firstly, the jewish people are to homogenous to make such a thing,and something this big woudent be hiding for so long, if it were to be true. Not only that, but many jews are firstly germans, britishy, russian then jewish. Many care more about their nacionality then their ethinic or religious background.

>Your left > center > right spectrum is nonsensical and you are a warped late stage product of ideas that have gotten out of control ... of a reality that is fake.

No, the reality that truly is fake is come up with a logic of jewish conspiracy that works for 50 years as something not only possible, but capable of coming into anything near what they supposedely "planned".
There isent enought game theory or intrigue level to be this illuminati of precision.

Sorry user, is just I am triggered because /a/ fucked me up right now.

Sorry but I just don't buy into this Landian, nihilistic argument. Of course who is in control matters ... that determines the outcome. As I've said before to Landians, capitalism, globalism, etc., are not systems with minds of their own, they provide different outcomes depending on who is providing the inputs. This is about people, not abstract concepts.

I'm not saying you brought up genocide.
I'm simply saying, considering genocide is a rational step, that I (as a self-proclaimed atypical politic person) thinks must be considered.

What is race but culture and genetics. Essentially what is learned and what is inherited.

If you can fix what is inherited, and fix what is learned, then why does it matter what the colour of someones skin is?

Personally I study the brain at a top 10 global medical school. Genetic engineering for intelligence is almost a certainty, the only questions are when and to what degree it is possible to affect intelligence.

People who usualy go with the skin colour meme unironicaly dont know any better and buy into the flawed argumentation that skin colour matters something.
Majority seens to fall cause of misinformation
Others have a real baseless prejudice against it

>The idea of a collective community that shares cultural ties and racial ones was and keeps being a primarialy rightist posicion.

You should stop with stuff like this. It's not right of anything. It is the way it's been for millennia. It's the natural order for any territorial species. Classifying as anything else is retconning reality.

I've never read any Land or whomever they are.

When I say I don't care who comes up with it, I mean, almost any political system or ethics is based on unproveable axioms.

The focus of the far-left and the far-right seems to be on what they perceive to be morally correct.
But both groups start with their own unproveable axioms and progress towards differing points of view.

If any political or ethical system could be proven to be based on the True set of axioms, by which I mean axioms that can be proven to not be subjective (without appealing to naturalistic fallacies, or anti-naturalistic fallacies), then someone would do it.

Similarly, arguing on these non-issues is pointless.
If everyone became what we perceive as leftist, there would be no issue.
If everyone became what we perceive as rightist, there would be no issue.

The point is, getting to the time when everyone has the same politics is going to take a longer time if we don't focus on technological progress and engineering of people.

I personally don't care what axioms people base their ethics and politics and society on, I'd just prefer a peaceful prosperous society as quickly as possible.

Well, it doesn't matter whether skin colour means anything about a persons intelligence or not.

Either way, in my opinion, the best path is to reach the technological ability to select for desireable traits for a peaceful prosperous civilization

Because it's about much more than skin color. Genetics and human biodiversity is something you should look into if you really want to shed this very superficial understanding of race you seem to have. I'm surprised you would still give the skin color argument if you're studying medicine of all things.

> It's the natural order for any territorial species.
Yes, it's natural, but dosen't mean its mandatory.
After the enlightment, many of our concepts of what is acceptable from nature changed. Today, we as a society are well capable of accepting alien individuals from our origin group, and we can leave peacefully and even turn into a new societal form. This happened to the romans to a extent, where the mixing between them and their subjects gave breed to a new ethinic and cultural posteriority.
And let me add that, this mixing wasent the reason the roman empire fell.
Another example, one more big on this topic, is Brazil. Tho Brazil is amoust a failed state, the ethinic and cultural diversity didnt get the extremes of conflicts between said groups.
Of course, there are a little prejudice here and there, but nothing like the Iraq level of bigotry and so on.

In a world where technological progress is sufficiently advanced, biodiversity and genetics become a non-issue.

Anything which could wipe out a biodiverse species would be easily countered.

Which I know because I don't have a superficial understanding of biomedical science.

Besides, 30% of genes are only expressed in the CNS. It's likely that most intelligence specific genes are found in that 30%.
The CNS is much more protected from infectious disease and toxins than the rest of the body. Biodiversity in terms of race is usually given as a reason in terms of things such as infectious disease, which wouldn't make a difference in engineered societies, because the population frequency of immune system-specific alleles wouldn't be affected significantly

Hmm. Well what I'm telling you is that jews create these moral systems:Christianity, communism, and multicultural neoliberal globalism were all designed or heavily promoted by jews because are systems that are universalist and therefore accepting of and beneficial for jews. They have many of the same tenets too, because they come from the same mind. Nationalism is the enemy of the universalist system, and the enemy of jews who try as hard as they can from steering people away from any system that could be based not on abstract ideas but on race and peoplehood. That's the crux of all this. One of nature's many dualities.

> no right, no left, only militaristic authocracy

I can agree with you in this, but I am not up to state sponsored eugenics. But if a family wanna take the dumbass trait from their chield before birth or after and this dosent hurt their kid, them go for it. But this would require the kid to be tested in school in a different way, because it would be ilogical to make the same tests for kids with geneticaly enchanted inteligence.

No, is more about skin colour then genetics, realy. I see no one talking about the genetics of other skin colour groups when it comes to this kind of argument. The skin colour can even be changed! Look Michael Jackson ffs.
If the problem was genetics, this dosent change the fact that all populations have the smarter ones and the mid-to-low ones, seeing that there are people from all over the world that go to top uni's and get top jobs, regardless of skin colour.
There is also the problem with culture. If you live in a culture where you should put lots of effort even if fucks you up, the rate of people being sucessefull is highter. Look the asians. Isent because they are yellow or they have some genetic disposition too such more then other ethinic groups, is just their culture that promotes this miserble sacrifice they do in a daily basis. And not all asians are as smart as we believe it. Lots of asian people are average or low in their intelectual prowness. This isent necessarialy bad, but they cant compet in uni's with their better counterparts.

But all of that has to do with race. No one's talking about diversifying Africa, this is only happening in white countries. America could handle a 10% dysfunctional black population but it's failing as more low IQ brown people enter. Same with Brazil. Brazil has essentially a 50% pardo (mestizo/african) mix ... that's why there are 60,000 murders there a year and why most of the functional white people live in the south.

This idea of race and peoplehood seems to be centred on a low-intelligence specific idea that people of specific races belong together.

That it is based on an evolutionary heuristic for kin-selection and genetic propagation.

As average global intelligence increases, if there is an "innate" desire to be with people of similar appearance, it can be countered easily either by education or genetic engineering.

In the past, I would have an issue with this.
If my morals and ethics (back then) were True (with a capital T), then they must be held and spread until they are the standard.

But with ethical and political systems being based on unproveable axioms, I was lead to the uncomfortable realisation that I have to let go of some naively held ideas of morals and ethics.

I dont get it. Is it a problem? I personaly have come to the conclusion that this is the best societal organization. Tho I can change my mind in the future, as I did many times and aint realy sure of if is authocracy or aristocracy; neither if is as militaristic as it sounds to some.

>I can agree with you in this, but I am not up to state sponsored eugenics. But if a family wanna take the dumbass trait from their chield before birth or after and this dosent hurt their kid, them go for it. But this would require the kid to be tested in school in a different way, because it would be ilogical to make the same tests for kids with geneticaly enchanted inteligence.

The thing is, intelligence is correlated with many things like crime rates. The argument can be made that deciding to not have modified children is making a choice to deprive the child, which is unethical, and has a negative societal impact which is unethical.

...

>In a world where technological progress is sufficiently advanced, biodiversity and genetics become a non-issue.

No, and it's preposterous that you're stating this as an unavoidable future reality ... it's not.

>No
Please explain?

> it's preposterous that you're stating this as an unavoidable future reality
It's not unavoidable.
Any multitude of unpredictable things could happen.
For example, vacuum decay travelling at the speed of light could destroy us before we know what's happening, and wouldn't be able to detect it.
So it's certainly no unavoidable.

This isent all connect with ethinical or racial background, those are societal conditions.

Yes, there is a ideological movement that wants to "diversify" the US and Europe, but this isent part of a conspiracy, is just a stupid ideology that gainned to much power and now is doing shit it believes to be right, even if it is failing right before their eyes (just like the commies and nazis).
Brazil do has one of the highest murder rates of the world, but have you checked the social conditions and poverty levels of it? The place is uterly miserable, it is a tropical Russia, full of corruption and all those nasty political and social issues every corner of Earth had/has to deal with.
And even if the people have low IQ, dosent mean they are fucking animals. They are capable of living in society until proven otherwise, they may come with bad values (like the mistreament of women and the kill fags), but when their offspring and some of them will for sure blend in nicely. I am not saying we should accept the entire fucking world in Times Square, but believing that some kind of racial purity is what drives good societal work is non-sense. Several highly homogenous societys have shit quality of life, like North Korea and Eastern bloc countrys.

>This idea of race and peoplehood seems to be centred on a low-intelligence specific idea that people of specific races belong together.

Well, as I explained in my first post, you've been conditioned to hold this opinion. But has nothing to do with low intelligence because it's a reality of nature present in every species. You're supposed to feel good and highly intelligent for believing that is some lowly aspect of the less evolved and that you, mighty enlightened defier of nature, care not about such trivial matters. Our system rewards that type of thinking, of course you want those rewards of being seen as an enlightened individual. But your good feelings aren't going to change nature.

99% of the time, a "centrist" hates the far-right more than he hates the far-left.

Well that's all I'm saying. And if silicon valley continues to promote diversity hires instead of the white men of the 97%, it will continue to become increasingly unlikely. I see this argument as a cop out from talking about the importance of race more than anything, but I don't think what you think is going to happen will anytime soon.

No, dude. It has little to do with societal conditions and everything to do with race. People evolved in very different environments and are not going to change because good schools or whatever. Trillions in white tax dollars have been spent trying to lift blacks up and there's little to nothing to show for it. Why? Because blacks on average have low intelligence, high criminality, and high time preference, which stems from their evolutionary environment.

>you've been conditioned to hold this opinion
Whether I've been conditioned to hold this opinion or not, has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of it.

I can as easily argue that your opinion is simply conditioned as well, and then you could claim that the falsity of your opinion has nothing to do with it being conditioned or not.

That's why I said here An intelligent person accepts uncomfortable truths, if they are demonstrable. Or rejects previously held axioms, if they are shown to not have a unique claim to being true

Your axioms lead to the conclusion to race and peoplehood being meaningful.
There are axioms that I used which come to other conclusions.
Both have claims to being true. What is needed is some sort of proof that one set of axioms is true and the other is not.

>But has nothing to do with low intelligence because it's a reality of nature present in every species. You're supposed to feel good and highly intelligent for believing that is some lowly aspect of the less evolved and that you, mighty enlightened defier of nature, care not about such trivial matters. Our system rewards that type of thinking, of course you want those rewards of being seen as an enlightened individual. But your good feelings aren't going to change nature.
Arguing which persons feels are good or misplaced or whatever isn't going to help either of us determine what is True.
Perhaps what my opinion is, can be proven false.
Perhaps your opinion can be proven false.
The kind of regression that someones opinion is meaningless and conditioned is pointless.

You can argue that im conditioned, i can argue that you think that because you're conditioned, you can argue that i think that because im conditioned, ad infinitum.

I don't believe anyone can escape their conditioning.
The only thing left to do is look for what can be proven to be True. If nothing can be proven to be True, then why does it matter what is selected?

>Well that's all I'm saying. And if silicon valley continues to promote diversity hires instead of the white men of the 97%, it will continue to become increasingly unlikely. I see this argument as a cop out from talking about the importance of race more than anything, but I don't think what you think is going to happen will anytime soon.

Oh I don't like diversity hires either

That's why I said here The idea of representing under-represented groups in industry and education doesn't really appeal to me, because it is against progress and prosperity. It makes technological progress take longer

It will only be unnethical if you take the geneticaly enchanted kid and make the same measurement with a non-enchanted one. Problem is, this tech, like all tech, when it comes out, will be very expensive, so only a few will have acess at first. As times goes, it will get cheaper, not only that, but the Law Science will eventualy take up with the tendency and I would probably assume that, if you are a non-enchanted kid because your parents didnt want to touch your genes, then the Law will probably will make legislation for a kid who is suffering because of this to get her genetical enchantment (if possible, of course[and in the best of worlds, without public funds from other tax-payers). Other than that, society as a hole has a tendency to change with tech. Many parents may be reluctant at first, and they may avoid this, but, many others, specialy with time, will see how this could be beneficial, and eventualy, they will allow genetical enchantment of their kids.
Even if there are groups of people that arent genneticaly enchanted by choise, they surely will need to be measure in different perspectives from the enchanted ones.
Problem is, the first generations of said future society may have lots of social inequality because of this, but if we restrict any of the option, we would be unethical in both ways.
This is more a question of "what is less bad" then "what is the right thing to do?". We cant be ethical all the time, specialy in a future that private genetical enchantement turns more and more into common place

>It will only be unnethical if you take the geneticaly enchanted kid and make the same measurement with a non-enchanted one
This doesn't necessarily hold true.
And regardless, anything can be claimed to be unethical or ethical if you select the correct axioms/postulates.

This leads to the point that, either we need to find the correct True axioms, or we need to determine what should be the driving force of humanity.

My argument is that prosperity and technological advancement is best, because it would lead to the least suffering, and the least lingering of undesirable anti-prosperity anti-advancement traits.

But again, my argument for prosperity and technological advancement is equally baseless.

I suppose it's simply that out of all the infinities of political systems and ethics we can have, we are (hypocritically) unlikely to benefit from them, unless they are centred around advancing technology as rapidly as possible

But I'm saying there is a higher conditioning based on nature and thousands of years of evolution that can't be redefined by associating adherence to nature's principles to low intelligence. And I'm saying that that trope -- the "racist hillbilly old white man stuck in the past" -- is where you're getting that idea, which in the above form and many others found its way to your consciousness through social conditioning that wants to change nature, that thinks everyone can be equal, etc. I'm not saying you believe that just that that's where it comes from. What enlightenment ideal could truly surpass these biological realities? This is new age thinking, man. That's why I said the alt right is the center, because these other ideas were unfathomable just 50 years ago, which is where the conditioning began.

theis antithesis synthesis
argumentum ad temperantiam
you aren't enlightened, you're a teenager

And with a longer scope, with white people going from 90% in 1965 to 60% now to ... do the math. If you want that, and I'm not saying I don't, it can only happen if a homeland for whites is preserved. Can't have it both ways.

>When I say that communism is the new centrism it's a little tongue in cheek because I'm more referring to the fact that the architects of communism are the same jews who have designed the present neoliberal system that informs you
This is so dumb. Some of the big names in communism are jews and likewise with neoliberals: that's just because jews are smart.
The only common thread between the two is some level enlightenment values (something the jews might want to take credit for but it's europe's jewel), which are accepted so widely because they're what anybody who is allowed to think for themselves is going to think - that's the Kantian definition, as a matter of fact.
The position you're taking is either a paleoconservative one or actually a literal Frankfurt School jewish postmodern one (incidentally, the jewish marxists antisemites speculate are spreading the enlightment propaganda, lol) or a paleoconservative. The paleoconservative one can be chalked up to the similarity between the senile and infants in their state of dependence and loathing of responsibility. To be perfectly I don't understand the "dialectic of enlightenment" argument but I'd be happy to learn if that's your position.

If you know what enlightenment is - "man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage" - you can see how it has a self proliferating force. Anyone can look at post-enlightenment history, and find countless battles of two sides fighting - enlightenment vs. reactionaries, and can see the most extreme reactionaries continually losing, and the spectrum shift for what even constitutes a reactionary. This is not to say that people who claim to be enlightened are always right. In many cases they're just absurd.
.
The fact that sociopolitical reality is confusing isn't an argument against anything. The fact the world is full of terrible shit isn't either. Nature is nasty and brutish so of course things are gonna be shit and might always be. But going from "shit's fucked now" to "there has been no thread of progress throughout human history" is absurd . Enlightenment is more alive than ever so if you're an infant or geriatric who hates to hear that I'd recommend growing up or dying.

>No, dude. It has little to do with societal conditions and everything to do with race.

No dude, it dosen't. Race isent a thing, firstly. There isent "white race" there are ethinic groups that share similar skin colours, but even so, there are accounts of ethinic diverse groups in culturaly homogenous societys.

> People evolved in very different environments and are not going to change because good schools or whatever.

Yes, true, but this isen't the only paramether we use. There are individuals (and groups) who share different ambiental backgrounds, but share culture ties and even if they dont, they can live in piece when territorial stability is ensured (many empires in history where ethinicaly diverse and they didnt collapsed because there where too many ethinic groups. The similarities between some groups may have drawn new borders, but they were able in many cases to live one with other without going full terrorist mode. Not only that, but the khawarij were ethinicaly similar to the mainstream sunnis, but killed them for cultural and religious ties rather then ethinical ones).

> Trillions in white tax dollars have been spent trying to lift blacks up and there's little to nothing to show for it.
Let me tell you that isent all white tax. Taxes are universal let me tell you, many other communitys may pay less taxes, but is because not only they sometimes are minority groups, but also because they are majoritaly poor.

>Because blacks on average have low intelligence, high criminality, and high time preference, which stems from their evolutionary environment.

This would emply that every black lived in the same enviroment, with they dont. There are very different ethinic groups of black skin that grown up in different enviroments and this dosent change the fact that, on average, black familys are poorer. This state of poverty makes their stability and financial gains and contributions lesser in comparisson to white pop's, but this has nothing to do with IQ. Is a historical reflex of a lot of time of slavery and social stigma over minority pop's. This dosent mean that all black criminals are society victims, but it makes understandable why on average, the black familys are more violence and poorer. This has to do with the history black people had in many countrys. Not only to say, there always had been upper and lower classes. If you look for upper classes in african countrys, many of then are black, the ones that arent, mostely had a past where they were decendents from colonizing countrys.
This isent IQ, is just quality of life per family

>is where you're getting that idea

>But I'm saying there is a higher conditioning based on nature and thousands of years of evolution that can't be redefined by associating adherence to nature's principles to low intelligence

This is a naturalistic fallacy.
Something isn't "right" just because it occurs in nature.
Similarly, any inventions man makes are natural, because man is part of nature.
Evolution is the means by which population genetics is changed over time.
Regardless of whether it is or is not low intelligence, which doesn't particularly matter, the point is that either we have a global population of just whites who either have issues with each other or do not, or we have a population of intelligent people (regardless of race) which will be better positioned to determine what is best.

The fastest way to get to that is through focusing on technological advancement.
It may be that there can be no peace for humanity without everyone being homogenous. In which case, we may have to engineer non-whites to have white appearing children, or simply have full ectogenesis of just whites.

If we try to make the world entirely white first, then we won't have the labour of other races, in their niches, to reduce the cost of manufacturing ecological niche specific products.

My point being, regardless of whether we can only function as homogenous isolated groups, the most efficient way to get to a "utopian" society is focusing on technology first.

The way to focus on technology first is to try to minimise conflict now, which causes economic instability, as seen by plummeting exchange rates of British currency following a referendum that tends towards anti-globalism.

All societys eventualy came up with a solucion. If they dont, they die and new ones form. Its messy and majority of times, violente, but seens to be the fact of a multi-cultural human society.
I have the feeling that in the future, the political systems of tomorrow will be somewhat alien to our assunptions of today.

God dammit... this was a such a good thread because there were no jews in it ... it was highbrow and deep and mature ... and then this this jew had to come along and nudge his way in jewsplaynin'. This behavior is why your people continually get removed from other people's countries.

Sure, if they dont solve these issues, they die.

That's not particularly controversial, since claiming life is favourable to non-life is unproven, and may simply be anthropocentric vestiges of evolution.

But I'm not in the mood to live in a chaotic world, when I can live in a more appealing (according to my tastes) world. I'd assume most people would like to see the fruits of their labour, which has the best chance if we focus on technology

Focusing simply on non-whites instead of focusing on defectives white and non-white is illogical.

Whites can be preserved even if we euthanise or steralise defective whites.
Which will lead to a greater average intelligence, and a steralised workforce to do menial labour.

>Race isent a thing
... grudgingly continues reading....

I don't know what to tell you. You're a true believer with a deficit in race realism. These are strong boundaries culture can only draw a weak connecting string through for so long. A constant rule of nature is diversity + proximity = war. Wanting to believe blacks will one day be just like whites is a delusion that's run its course.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm saying it's a natural order humans have yet to overcome.

Again, eh. Do you know what regression toward the mean is? A multicultural population based on intelligence will also fail just as quickly. Races have a mean intelligence, okay? All members revert to that mean, so the children of a 130 IQ Saudi will eventually drift back toward the 85 average. You have to understand how this stuff works if you want to talk about advanced societal organization.

Also ()

If it were asians, or blacks, or native/indigenous americans, or inuits, or whichever other race, that was the leader in technological innovation. I would still promote these ideals.

It doesn't make a difference to me whether I am part of the "master race". If I'm intelligent enough, I'd make it through the selection process.
If I wasn't intelligent enough, I'd prefer to be euthanized.

There doesn't seem to be any difference between life and non-life. And if someone kills me, it's (arguably) not technically suicide

Sorry, I will take the less intelligent whites over intelligent non whites 8 days a week. Stop thinking in purely technocratic idealistic terms and read up on what I just said about regression to the mean.

That's not how regression to the mean works.

Regression to the mean essentially means that if you (by chance) score to the right of the average, that on the next trial you are more likely to score closer to the average.

Your understanding of regression toward the mean isn't accurate

>I will take the less intelligent whites over intelligent non whites 8 days a week.
That's nice

Regression toward the mean, regression toward the mean ... regression toward the mean!!!

It's not about individuals! This is 101 stuff. It's about group average, that's all that matters. All individuals regress toward the mean and these are the means.

But white innovation has to do with creativity caused by higher individuality as well.

Yes it is. Regression toward the mean is about individuals regressing to the group average over time.

Itt /pol/tards show their retardation

>Regression toward the mean, regression toward the mean ... regression toward the mean!!!
>It's not about individuals! This is 101 stuff. It's about group average, that's all that matters. All individuals regress toward the mean and these are the means.
>But white innovation has to do with creativity caused by higher individuality as well.
You don't understand what regression toward the mean is.

A population with an intelligence bell curve is more likely to produce children that have a bell curve around the same average.

But if you have a "the children of a 130 IQ Saudi", they would tend toward the average of the parents, not to the ethnic average. Since IQ is heritable

You can read up on misunderstandings of regression toward the mean here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean#Misunderstandings

I've already studied statistics for grad school, I don't want to have to explain it to you personally.

Did you miss the note about this being a "no jews allowed" thread?

You have no idea how idiotic you people make yourselves look on this website. The jewz meme was never taken seriously until you newfags came along.

You don't have to explain it to me. We're talking about human difference as related to IQ here, and regression toward the mean implies exactly what I was saying it was.

isteve.blogspot.com/2013/01/regression-toward-mean-and-iq.html?m=1

Why are you still here?

>These are strong boundaries culture can only draw a weak connecting string through for so long

This isen't 100% true dude. If you take US for example, the cultural ties are so strong that biological basis are irrelevant for majority of the population. Lately we have been seing this grown in racial-nationalism (BLM, neo-nazis, black israelis, so on), but they take their race and turn it into a form of cultural connection. That's why all afro-centric groups have Black History Day as gospel and get triggered to the idea of a White History Day. This has to do with the fact they developed this race-centered culture, where you being black is the most important thing. Is like religious movements of a sort: if you arent from this sect, you arent like us, tho this varies from religion to religion. In islam, for example, I know you must know that sunnis and shias hold a bitch contest so old and so hard they sometimes go fully racist mode, where sunnis say thing like "oh well, you are just a persian scum", and in fact, this group mentality is very strong in societys like the ummah, be it shia, sunni, ibadi or whatever. The ethinicity for many of them, is just one more reason for why you arent like us and, therefore, inferior.

>A constant rule of nature is diversity + proximity = war.

What about Veeky Forums's favorite the G R E E K S ?
The G R E E K S arent ethinicaly diverse, and many of the ties that hold them are cultural. I know that not all G R E E K S are ethinicaly 100% the same, but they are very close to one another and shared many ethinical backgrounds. Of course, when the communitys that would give birth to G R E E K S movend into the penisula, they had their cultures, that were, very, very similar (check Fustel de Coulanges magnus opum about the G R E E K world). And they waged war all the time, more in the fact their cultural maxims where so different.
Even the muslims. The first islamic civil war was a bunch of ethinicaly similar tribes killing one another over power. You may say that civil wars are arent a constant, thats true, but as Schimitt said, conflict between people is inevitable, and there was a awfull lot of power strugges in a culturaly centered moslem world.

> Wanting to believe blacks will one day be just like whites is a delusion that's run its course.

They dont need to be just like whites, but here is the thing: there is no white homogenity in way of acting, neither is there a black one. All these people are individuals who share or dont similaritys in cultural familiarities, and they act how they believe accordingly to their own perception. It's impossible to make a homogenous statement like this.
And again, the black community dosent need to act like whites, the same way whites dont need to act like blacks. Communitys eventualy find by their own organic behavior a solution, and if this would mean something absurd like black being majority dumb people, this would come out naturaly,what dosent happen.

Why are you?

fuck you you fukcing bitch ass nigger cunt

>isteve.blogspot.com/2013/01/regression-toward-mean-and-iq.html?m=1

Sigh. If you're going to base your entire understanding on what some biased person wants you to believe, then go ahead.

It seems that we've reached the end point of rational discourse, and I can't be bothered to post screen captures of textbooks and articles just to change your mind.

If your entire argument is predicated on this incorrect understanding, and I can't get you to see why you're incorrect, there's no point in talking about it much further.

Have a good day/night, I'm going to go get an early start on my lab work

>This isen't 100% true dude. If you take US for example, the cultural ties are so strong that biological basis are irrelevant for majority of the population.

This is simply not true and you know it. America is the quintessential example of how civic nationalism fails. Whites were willing to go along when with that when there was a 10% black population (that definitely doesn't align with what you're saying) but it always devolves into ethnic politics as it is now. Whites have been told that they're the only ones who can't play that game, but that's changing as well -- they just played it.

[continuing...] instead, we see black communitys turning into any other society, developing a upper and lower class based on their own merits and, at some degree, background family history.
It would be stupid to say that a rich black kid is in the same condition of a poor white kid.
The other way around too.

Also, this Bell Curve isent the way people paint it to be:

youtube.com/watch?v=ilIkoSWeOSk

>"how dare you use kraut the cuck?"
>"kraut is virtue signaling against race realism"
>kraut this and that

Those arent arguments, and he made a well researched argumentacion. I dont see well researched argumentation with the bell curve, I see authority arguments, with arent arguments at all!

>This is simply not true and you know it. America is the quintessential example of how civic nationalism fails

I am not advocating for civic nationalism, I am just saying that the race argumentacion is nonsensical when there is so much empirical evidence against it. If it has turned into ethnic politics, then is a falty of the society to allow segregationism narratives like the ones in BLM or neo-nazi groups take hold. Thankfully the situacion is changing, slowly, but this dosent change the fact that it has less to do with race, and more with culture, tho one culture may be filled by race prejudice like the american one was.

You lost the point and are sulking away in an immature manner by trying to discredit the source, which is completely legit btw, and pretending labeling something incorrect that you never came close to proving was incorrect. Not like your stat texts broached the subject regression toward the mean as it relates to IQ but whatever makes you sleep tight and go on ignoring the reality of racial differences, right?