Master Race

One thing that I never understood about ideologys, religions etc. that belive in a superior master race, world domination and more in general in social darwinism. It's how's that is practial, desirable or even a good thing. What kind of people want to live in a costant state of war? What happens after your race, religion or state defeat others? Nothing, you won and then? I mean I really don't see how this kind of Ideologys and religions would live in a normal or a peace context. Take away that living a costant war is not desirable, but no one ever asked to them self what happens after? >Ok we control the world, we destroyed every other race, we are the strongest and the cooles... Still we are "warriors" without a war now.
And to control the world is totally impossible, so it's just the costant state of war part. Why would someone want to live like that?
And that's why imho communism it's not bad as Nazism or Fascism: When the revolution ends there is actually a plan of peace and stability.
Pls explain is just bugging me

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_color-coded_war_plan
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>What happens after your race, religion or state defeat others?
That's literally retarded. That's like saying "why don't you believe in God? What if God comes down to Earth and gives you superpowers, what then?"

World domination has never happened because for vast vast majority of hundreds of thousands of years of human history it was impossible. Real world domination only became possible in the late 19th century AD by European but the specific political circumstances prevented anyone from actually going at it so World War Two is the ONLY real attempt at world domination in all of human history.

Also let's get rid of the implied bullshit before it even begins - white people were NOT the only ones with a superiority complex. Nearly every civilization believed they were the most glorious and most important ones. Chinese literally thought they were center of the world and that everyone else was a dirty barbarian that ought to bow down to them, Arabs oppressed and subjugated the fuck out of Maghrebis and Africans from the moment they met them (famously, in Arabic the word for slave is the same as the word for African) and established a color based hierarchy where Arabs were at the top, then Maghrebis then Africans. And so on and so on.

Well I can't speak for others, but personally as a racist that believes whites are simply the best race, I'd say that's a mischaracterization of what I believe.

I don't believe whites should dominate the world or destroy other races. I believe that when we want to we can do such, but as not only the most powerful race, we also have the greatest empathy for others, and so we've decided that would be cruel, and would rather help other races even to our detriment. This pathological altruism is an evolution of the older idea of the white man's burden to bring civilization to the rest of the world. Sometimes this has admittedly gone awry and been corrupted more sinister, greedy, and base motives.

>white people were NOT the only ones
Never implied m8. I cited nazism and fascism at the end simply because I had those two in mind. When I talked about religion I was Impling Wahhabism

>World War Two is the ONLY real attempt at world domination in all of human history.

Very wrong not only because Hitler didn't actually have the goal of world domination and only had the goal of conquering Eastern Europe, but only forcing a treaty of surrender upon the Western European nations whom he held in higher respect.

But also incorrect because earlier world leaders such as Napoleon, Genghis, and Alexander and several Caesars certainly had the intent to conquer the whole world, even if it wasn't technologically possible. Although I'd say by Napoleon's era it was possible and he definitely and specifically wanted to control a world government.

Also you didn't answer my question ok world domination is impossible so it creates a costant state of war with no resolution, how's that practical

>What kind of people want to live in a costant state of war?

With respect op, perhaps there are men you don't fully understand. When I used to work for the government we had a case in Fresno where a local crew was robbing bars in the area.

After 4 months we couldn't find anyone that the crew had traded with on the streets.

Then, while conducting field interviews on Rialto avenue we came across a child with a $10,000 stack of banded money.

The bandits had been throwing the money away. Maybe they just though the robberies were good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical like money.

They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with.

Some men just want to watch the world burn.

>There is an optimal state for humanity to be in
>we are currently not there because large numbers of inferior humans (africans have an IQ of 85 on average) are a drain on the planet
>if we eliminate the inferior humans humanity as a whole will benefit
Its about optimizing the species there is a reason we kill babies with down-syndrome before they are born, just take that sort of mindset to its logical conclusion.

>Hitler didn't actually have the goal of world domination
He absolutely did. he was going to split Eurasia with Japan for 50 to 100 years and then fight a war with Japan for it and then fight a war with the US for the rest of the world. The entire ideology of the nazis was tied to conquest and winning, there's no way in hell they'd stop with only half of Eurasia.

As for ancient leaders who set out to conquer the world, good for them? I can also set out to become god doesn't mean there is any chance, even minuscule, I'll succeed.

And Napoleon lacked all of Africa and much of Asia. Europeans didn't know precise geography of Eastern, Southeastern and Central Asia until mid to late 19th century. Also Napoleon's France was even worse situation when it came to navy than Hitler's Germany was, there was no way in hell he was invading even GB let alone the rest of the world. Throughout Napoleonic wars the French were never able to even weaken the British naval blockade.

It's not but it's not about practicality. Hubris, egotism and tribalism are core tenants of humans going back to our times as primates. Any civilization which reaches a sufficiently advanced level and which is able to dominate its entire surroundings will see itself as "the master race", that's inevitable and its simple human nature.

>equating Nazism and Fascism with "master race"

I think you mean Zionism and Jews.

>What kind of people want to live in a costant state of war?
We already live in a constant state of war, whether we want to or not though.

It doesn't matter if I want to be at war with Islam, if Islam wants to be at war with me, and by pretending that we aren't at war, I'm simply deluding myself while my enemy makes gains against me.

American women will scream hue and havoc if you try to prevent them from multiple abortions.

Even suggesting birth control is an infringement on their rights, they believe.

And yet they would scream bloody murder if you decided to end a down syndrome babies life.

Hello darkness my old friend.

>so it creates a costant state of war with no resolution, how's that practical
From about 1618 to about 1713 there was nearly constant state of war in Western Europe as someone was always either fighting or rebelling against someone else. And people lived and societies went on and life continued

Not every war is a total war and as long as its not total war a state of war can be sustained for very very long time. it somewhat changes the society but it doesn't break it.

>they would scream bloody murder if you decided to end a down syndrome babies life
something like 90% of downies are aborted wtf are you on about

The robber, in Fresno, did you catch him?

Actually that's false.

The 'christian' West has been trampling around in Islamic nations for centuries often with catastrophic results for the populations.

Islam was actually pretty much pacified until the recent era.

So you haven't 'been at war with Islam' but our system empirically has been.

>He absolutely did. he was going to split Eurasia with Japan for 50 to 100 years and then fight a war with Japan for it and then fight a war with the US for the rest of the world.

Source

>He absolutely did. he was going to split Eurasia with Japan for 50 to 100 years and then fight a war with Japan for it and then fight a war with the US for the rest of the world.

>believing in propaganda
>he actually believed that Hitler was going to wage war against Japan 100 years later.

Wtf Hitler doesn't age? Wtf

Yes.

We burned East Fresno down.

>Islam was actually pretty much pacified until the recent era.
That's blatant lie, Muslims were never historical victims. They were always victimizers and conquerors, oppressors and bullies.

Islam from 1258 until re-arrival of Europeans wasn't rampaging and pillaging around Indian, Chinese or European lands yes but that is ONLY because they were too weak to do so. They still continued to kill, slaughter and war against each other all the time and Barbary pirates still continued to raid southern shores of Europe for slaves (something like 700k to 1M slaves kidnapped, USA had ~800k black slaves in 1783).

Before that, in the golden age of Islam that liberals love to jerk off to, Muslims conquered left and right the ENTIRE Middle East, North Africa spreading into East and West Africa (and destroying native African cultures and replacing them with Islam and Arab culture), Europe, Southern and Central Asia until they conquered, raped and pillaged across some 10 million square kilometers for OVER 5 centuries before any crusades came around.

Oh, and the big evil mean imperialist crusades? They operated in an area the size of modern day Israel and alltogether maybe spanned few decades.

But yeah, poor oppressed victim Muslims.

>He absolutely did.
No he didn't.
I already conceded that yes he had ambitions of conquering eastwards through Russia, but he wanted a peace with France and Britain. He considered them fellow great powers and people worthy of their own self-determination. He didn't annex France after he conquered it like he annexed Poland, instead he negotiated a favorable peace treaty of French surrender with the Vichy government. He called for peace with Britain dozens of times publicly even when he was in the absolutely superior position.

This was all explicit not only in his public writings and speeches but in his private conversations with generals and friends.

Also there is zero evidence he ever intended to betray Japan.

>the terrorism will eventually go away in hundreds of years if American foreign policy changes meme

You know nothing Jon Snow

>so it's just the costant state of war
I don't see how that's any different than life now.

The pictures of the left are a result of the western influence and of Muslim women emulating western women.

The pictures on the right are Muslim women in Muslim culture with no western influence.

You mean if certain people ever get civilized?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars

He had rudimentary plans to invade America after he finished with europe. There were plans drawn up to invade neutrals. Richard Evans third reich in power talks about his determination for world domination

This Is fucking retarded.

Yes you're absolutely correct.

Islam was so pacified in Iran and Afghanistan that western influence was taking hold and creating contemporary societies.

I agree with you.

Well then we overthrew the Shah of Iran and upset that apple cart.

Who really killed Anwar Sadat?

There are machinations within spheres that most us the world will never experience.

>There were plans drawn up to invade neutrals.
And I'm sure the US has plans to invade Canada. We have contingencies for invading pretty much everyone. That doesn't mean we are going to, it means we're prepared to if it comes down to it.

We train to fight Russia and China, but most likely we're only going to fight more illiterate goatherders.

...

were all in a constant state of war any way, most reasonable people do their best to aleviate this situation and maintain states of peace in their own areas, but theres people whos reaction to this situation is to agravate the state of things into open conflict, its a primal thing, a need for establishment and repeat confirmation of hierarchies and control, it isnt even that they want to be the top, its the same thing you see when a bunch of dogs come together and act out the violent recapitulation of whos top dog now, you see these guys among footbal club fags, right wing rallies, SJW protests, they are in desperate need of a top down structure, of themselves and others being put in a ''order of things'', and of this having some element of violence about it cause that makes it certain, that reinforces the control and status they claim

then you have people that feel the peaceful state of things and the favorable order of things can only be maintained trough constant mobilisation and organisation for conflict, and that a basic top down domminance hierarchy is best suited to mainatin this, and that occasional displays of violence and threat are good because they keep you safe, or just people that feel safe when they are being told they are protected by someone stronger and, unlike them, actualy capable and villing to use violence

and then theres people who are simply pleased with the curent state and order of things and are perfectly happy to utilise the above mentioned to keep shit just as it is and maximise profits

so when you put these elements together into a cooperating whole you get some totalitaristic set up thats fascistoid in one way or another

>Islam from 1258 until re-arrival of Europeans wasn't rampaging and pillaging around Indian, Chinese or European lands yes but that is ONLY because they were too weak to do so.

What? Then who conquered Constantinople and all the Balkans?
Who sacked Delhi and all of Northern India?

Have you ever read a history book? The only time Islam has not been actively conquering the rest of the world is when someone else was actively beating them back.

The biggest looming threat to the United States is internal.

Our enemies know that the contiguous States could never be taken by force. And so they seek to subvert and destroy from within.

We have only seen civil unrest climb and climb in the last 10 years. Obama's presidency was marked by his ineffectiveness and lack of concern for urban rioting and the people really behind it.

>Generals making plans
That's what generals do. They come up with strategies in case the need to use them arises.

I guarantee you the Pentagon has plans on how to invade every single country on the planet, including our "allies" but that doesn't mean we're actually intending on doing that. Hell the Pentagon has plans on how to invade TEXAS in case they need to.

Nah, the biggest looming threat is antibiotic resistant disease.

I am way more afraid of MRSA than I am Antifa.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_color-coded_war_plan
War Plan Black
A plan for war with Germany. The best-known version of Black was conceived as a contingency plan during World War I, in case France fell and the Germans attempted to seize French possessions in the Caribbean Sea, or launch an attack on the eastern seaboard.
War Plan Gray[11]
There were two War Plans named Gray. The first dealt with Central America[11] and the Caribbean, and the second dealt with invading the Portuguese Azores.[12]
War Plan Brown[13]
Dealt with an uprising in the Philippines.
War Plan Tan[14]
Intervention in Cuba.
War Plan Red[15]
Plan for the United Kingdom (with sub variants Crimson, Scarlet, Ruby, Garnet, and Emerald for British dominions)
War Plan Orange[16]
Plan for Japan.
War Plan Red-Orange[17]
Considered a two-front war with the United States (Blue) opposing Japan (Orange) and the British Empire (Red) simultaneously. Ultimately this analysis led to the understanding that the United States didn't have the resources to fight a two front war, and it would make sense to focus on one front, probably in the Atlantic. Ultimately this was the decision made in the Plan Dog memo.
War Plan Yellow[18]
Dealt with war in China—specifically, anticipating a repeat of the Boxer Uprising (1899–1901).[19] War Plan Yellow would deploy the US army in coalition with other imperial forces to suppress indigenous discontent in the Shanghai International Settlement and Beijing Legation Quarter,[20] with chemical weapons if necessary.[21]
War Plan Gold[22]
Involved war with France, and/or France's Caribbean colonies.
War Plan Green[23]
Involved war with Mexico or what was known as "Mexican Domestic Intervention" in order to defeat rebel forces and establish a pro-American government. War Plan Green was officially canceled in 1946.
War Plan Purple
Dealt with invading a South American republic.
War Plan Violet
Covered Latin America.
War Plan White
Dealt with a domestic uprising in the US

That's not a threat that's a foregone conclusion actually.

Recent man in Montana gets a tooth ache. Goes to hospital and gets antibiotics.

Dies two days later. From a minor gum infection...

>officer I swear I dindhu nuffin
>just cuz I raped and killed 1 pretty white girl don't mean imma do it again sheeeiitt
>y'all is ignant as hell if you be thinking I don't deserve parole

Nice try Fritz