Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retards

Splitting hairs there chump

Really! Thing is e.g. communism or commune based living existed long before the Jews became a state from a collection of tribes. Are you going to put all those tribes [Persians, arabs and Europeans [e.g. Palestinians have italic/greek genes mixed with those of the lavant] into the ovens? People want freedom and that’s not something the Jews have any right to appropriate, or for you to say that those things [feminism, anarchism etc] belong to them.

They used up the money gained from capitalism and the banks [the jews - to them] and then ran out and failed. Secondly they failed because people want freedom and so reacted to nazism with force and destroyed it. You could take the jews completely out of the equation and all of that would still have happened, after all we didn’t know the nazis were mass killing until later - after the war had started. It wasn’t the idea of jews being cast out of germany and/or killed, which prompted us too fight them, it was them. We know what people like that are like, because we have had enough of similarly minded individuals. We have been fighting them since the peasant revolt, and the american and french revolutions, and throughout history.

All people like you are doing is giving the jews possession of everything we have fought for. Well done, that’s like handing them a gun and saying shoot me lol.

_

Strong and smart men tend to create good times for, themselves, their kith and kin, at least in the short term, cause what goes up, tends to come down sooner or later.
Strong and smart men tend to create bad times for others.

You don’t need austerity to produce strength and smarts, in fact, I would say austerity produces the opposite, cause the worse your environment is, the less nutrients you’ll have, the more toxins you’ll have, the more genetic mutations will occur, and mutations are almost always bad.

Hard times also tend to produce primitive, physical and instinctual organisms, that have to mature quickly, where as soft times tend to produce advanced, psychological and intellectual organisms, that can take their time maturing.

The strong and smart will still do better than the weak and dumb during good times, cause even if there’s less threats killing the weak and dumb off, there’ll even be less threats killing the strong and the smart off, cause they’ll be able to avoid them even better, and have the time and energy to find ever more ways to maximize the quantity and quality of their offspring, and if they don’t do this, well then they weren’t very strong or smart to begin with, or their strength and smarts were relative to austere environments.

But if it doesn’t pay to be strong and smart, than why be strong and smart?
If machines do all the work, we can afford to get dumber and weaker, so long as this doesn’t affect survival/procreation, and as soon as it does, again the weak an dumb will tend to be weeded out.

Now if the strong and smart start caring for the dumb and weak, to the point where it begins significantly compromising societies survival as a whole, than this is rather dumb, and either the strong and smart weren’t all that strong and smart to begin with, or they’ve been temporarily deceived somehow, perhaps their emotions under these circumstances have overcome their reason to their detriment, and maybe that is occurring presently, and maybe it can be corrected.

Is that what’s occurring today?
Difficult to say.
Are people with severe mental and physical deficits being taken care of today more than yore?
I would say probably, but perhaps the smart and strong are also being taken better care of, and so these two things cancel one another out.
It would be interesting for a sociologist to really look into this in detail, do some investigating.

Myself I’m not a mean person, unless necessary, I wouldn’t advocate killing cripples and retards cause their useless, anymore than I’d advocate killing dogs and cats cause they’re useless, but at the same time, if the mediocre and superior are at risk of being overtaken by the inferior, than something has to be done, like forced sterilization, or contractual sterilization (if you want permanent disability/welfare, than you have to get sterilized first), or forced one child policies, or contractual one child policies policies.

But who is superior?
If you’re rich, or a rich capitalist, does that make you superior?
It doesn’t necessarily, althou the rich tend to be a little smarter on average, and some of this can probably be attributed to genetics, it doesn’t guarantee anything, and it certainly doesn’t make you or your activity more benevolent.
The capitalist class has profited off of nature’s, and in many cases, societies expense.
I don’t think the rich should automatically be deemed superior, if you own casinos, or have shares in fast food or arguably the pharmaceutical industry, or you’re selfish, stupid and inherited your selfless, smart grandpas money, than you too might be just as or more parasitical than a disabled/welfare person.

I think if we are too target anyone, we ought to target the underclass, not for extermination, cause that’d be unnecessarily cruel and many people of all classes would rebel, but for regulation of their birthrates, cause I’m pretty sure almost all of them have little-no productive value, and they’re dependent on government, but as for the other classes, I don’t think we should assume you have value, just cause you’re rich, if we are to target all or some members of the working or middle classes for regulation of their birthrates, we should target all or some of the rich too.
The working and middle classes are arguably the backbone of our economies.
If anything, conditions for the working and middle classes need to be improved.

A great deal of the rich are more cunning than forthright. Is cunning a superior trait?

AutSider

With regards to economics, there’s plenty to argue. What happens if you become unproductive because of terminal illness or permanent disability? So if you become unhealthy and/or dysfunctional(unable to deal adequately with normal social relations) we should dump you in the wilderness - let nature do its thang with you - is that something akin to what you are saying?

:-"

Yes. I would be ashamed to live as a burden on a system.

Actually, a minor correction - I would feel ashamed living as a burden on a system IF the system was such that I wanted to preserve it in the first place and I deemed its standards as worthy of judging me.

Since the current system isn’t like that, I don’t really care.

Well, how convenient.

I would say cunning is an ability, a tool, it can either be good or bad, or it’s good in some senses, like it’s an ability, a skill, advantageous, but bad in others, like it conceals truth, but really it’s the intent that makes it good or bad, cunning when hunting legitimate prey, or thwarting an enemy is good, but cunning in economics is usually bad, selfish, malevolent, not that selfishness is all bad, but in my view, when one is rich, has a lot, and cheats a productive person out of something they very much needed, that’s bad, and many rich are like that and it makes them bad in my view and I know I’m not the only one.

What is “legitimate prey?”

You know, women, children, the disabled, anything weaker than you…naw just kidding, lol, I meant like unendangered species, especially if you put their carcasses to good use, like for food, or to make something useful out of, like a hat or a spearhead.
I suppose cunning isn’t always bad in economics, like if too corporations are competing, and both of them are good corporations with good goods and services, it’s just the town ain’t big enough for the both of you, than out-thinking them, deceiving them and so on would be a legitimate use of cunning, but say selling people drugs and hiding the negative effects would not be a legitimate use of cunning.

Gloominary

Well thought out - I would agree that cunning in economics is usually bad, selfish and malevolent - fighting fire with fire is sometimes the only solution left . . . sad but true . . .

Good points . . . I particularly have an affinity with selling people drugs and hiding the negative effects would not be a legitimate use of cunning. The legitimate use of cunning comes about when it is necessary to fight fire with fire and as you say when hunting . . . I think this has deeper ethical implications too for that matter.

=D>

Well the consciences of the cunning are shallow. Deception is an inferior mode of operation whatever the case may be.

WendyDarling

And that is at the heart of the deeper ethical implications I am talking about . . . Thank you.

:smiley:

In which case it becomes difficult to legitimize cunning in the human sense.

:orcs-cheers:

Exactly, cunning humans are inferior.

Gloominary

I meant austere more as in “challenging”. In order to grow and become stronger or more intelligent one needs to face and overcome increasingly difficult challenges. Take resistance training for example. If you want to make your body stronger you must face a challenge (resistance), overcome it (which tears your muscles apart), then heal and rest for the muscles to grow back stronger. What you’re pointing out essentially, and what I agree with, is that the phase of rest and recovery is just as important as the phase of facing a challenge. But this doesn’t go contrary to anything I’ve previously said, though it may highlight some aspects of the process I’ve neglected to mention.

Doing either of the things alone doesn’t cut it. Doing resistance training without an adequate rest and recovery phase is at best not going to accomplish anything, at worse will result in becoming weaker and injury, and only resting without ever having faced any challenge results in stagnation and atrophy. Balance is required.

I disagree. I think the issue here is that the current society removes any stress factor whatsoever on the population (insofar as they are willing to become obedient, mindless drones), which alters our perception of what is hard to “anything that isn’t complete and utter spoiling we are all so used to”. I would say that without such a stress factor no growth can occur at all and organisms remain forever in a state of infancy psychologically.

You can see this in modernity, you have these spoiled adult urbanites who are still psychologically children. Well, this applies to almost all women as women are half-children with regards to emotional maturity, but that’s a separate topic. I’m talking primarily of men who have never been in a fight, never punched somebody/been punched, never ventured out into nature for a longer period of time, basically never had any contact with reality outside of the sheltering, comfortable bubble of urban life. I’m speaking of men like this:

[tab][/tab]

But as I said, key word is balance. Too much hardship results in destruction, too little in stagnation. Being forced to mature too soon may impede growth, but so does never being forced to mature.

Well the very fact that you can deceive somebody implies they have some weakness that you can take advantage of (meaning they lack strength/smarts) but still, deceiving and brainwashing a child into adopting a set of self-destructive mental constructs is much easier than doing it to an already healthy adult, if you attack organisms in their state of infancy with your memetic virus it is much easier to deceive them, and this is what’s being done.

Not to mention that all attempts at debating the validity of these self-destructive mental constructs are in many countries shut down with threats of violence by the state.

Yeah I agree, in fact that itself would already require effort to organize and execute. But

  1. We should stop glorifying such people and pretending they are equal
  2. We should not permit any more of retards/down syndrome and such to be born as that would be literally creating more problems, if they are born they would be killed
  3. We should not expend energy to keep them alive if they are completely unproductive

Agree, capitalism fails to connect wealth to productivity. Capitalism is essentially globalist as it seeks to create one global state so that all the competition occurs between individuals in the system and is limited to competing over material goods, accumulated money, and such. It basically makes some of the people in your own society an enemy that is destroying and exploiting you but that you’re not allowed to fight back against or even recognize as an enemy. I believe one’s own people should be led and guided, not exploited for profit. Capitalism sells vice and subverts the health of a peoples under the guise of freedom. It would be desirable if one went to an enemy’s country and sold the subversive bullshit there, but not in one’s own country.

EDIT: Basically what capitalism neglects is that given the present quality and quantity of humans on earth, competition will always necessarily happen between different groups of humans, not on an individual scale. Promoting competition on an individual scale (like subverting your own group for profit) isn’t very beneficial for anybody except the enemy. Some competition on an individual level has to be allowed of course, but not to the point it becomes detrimental to the health of a group.

I agree with Gloominary. Rest is more fundamental than work. In other words, work is a child of – it is built on top of, it follows from – rest.

Weakness isn’t caused by rest. It may be correlated with rest (someone who’s constantly under stress will require a lot of rest) but it is not caused by it. Rather, it is stress that causes it. And work is stress. When you’re exposed to stress, you become weaker which is felt as tiredness. In other words, you lose energy. You don’t gain it, you don’t become stronger. Rather, stress merely SHOWS how strong you ALREADY are. If you’re weak, with no energy left in you, it breaks you. Otherwise, it does not. And how much energy you have is simply a measure of how rested you are.

Work dis-charges/de-generates.
Rest charges/re-generates.

I completely agree with this. Just so you know. But i have nothing to add at the moment.

Hard times create strong men (winter leads to spring), strong men create good times (spring leads to summer), good times create weak men (summer leads to autumn), weak men create hard times (autumn leads to winter).


Okay. Seasons belong to nature.

Good analogy. :wink:

Thank you.

By the way: (1) “night/winter”, (2) “morning/spring”, (3) “afternoon/summer”, (4) “evening/autumn” are also comparable with (1) being in the uterus (or egg/ovum, soil/ground/earth), (2) being in the family and kindergarten, (3) being in the school, (4) being in the adult’s world as one of the adults, so that at last the death can be seen as a new (1) “night/winter” that leads you to a new (2) “morning/spring” that leads you to a new (3) “afternoon/summer” that leads you to a new (4) “evening/autumn” … and so on. :slight_smile: