Evolution isn't progress/constant improvement you retards

Live in order to survive or survive in order to live?

Void

True, there are same borderline cases where it’s difficult to determine if something truly is degenerate or not, and then another cases which we already mentioned when the degenerate thing is so irrelevant it wouldn’t be worth it to pursue its destruction. I’m not perfect myself, but unlike many others I know at least I recognize some of my shortcomings and seek to correct them when I can.

However, sometimes degeneracy is very easy to spot.

INTO THE OVENS WITH ALL OF THEM

Yeah, and I anticipated the typical classical liberal/libertarian response of “freedom of speech until it causes harm/death to others”, or “until it incites violence against actual person/s”. The thing is, just because some claim doesn’t cause immediate harm, like lying about electricity and then immediately after dropping an electric device into the pool, doesn’t mean it isn’t harmful and doesn’t cause death in future, or prevent birth. Saying that the sexes are equal is such a claim which has destructive consequences when adopted and practiced in reality (destroying sexual dynamics between the sexes → diminishing possibility of healthy relationship → destroying the family unit, which is the basis of society → lower quality/quantity of children, birthrates below sustenance rates (<2.0) → death of society) and it is also an obviously false claim so there truly is no reason at all to permit its expression.

Basically my goal would be to create a society which has built in measures against self-destruction in future, this means some pretty strict principles have to be imposed on the population. I am fine with that, it’s not perfect but it’s better than pretending to value freedom only to then let yourself be infiltrated by all sorts of filth who justify themselves by appealing to the “freedom” of expression and action you give them. While I’m aware of the downsides of an “authoritarian, draconian” society, if it is set up the Reich way I am willing to accept that lack of freedom and a no mercy policy towards opposition as a price to be paid for having a healthy, strong, functioning society.

Again I don’t think you quite understand what I mean by competition. In order to exist society necessarily must limit internal competition, it must impose order violently, and people are then allowed to compete within the restrictions determined by the system. Competition is good, yes, but it’s not good when it’s taken to the extreme and applied out of context (inappropriately), just like cooperation. Anyway, it’s also worth mentioning that cooperation exists only within the larger scale of competition - entities cooperate in order to compete more successfully.

If you don’t fight against it actively degeneracy grows and spreads simply because it is easier, as I said, path of least resistance, and thus most people will choose it over non-degeneracy/health if the environment is right (if they are given the choice to do so without bearing the full consequences of their behavior). The rest of us, who value functionality, strength, and nobility, are a minority. I would say that for this reason it is our task and duty to impose our will upon the masses. Not purely for their sake, but for our sake too - to avoid the constant contamination degeneracy brings with it.

It did work. Third Reich worked. Fascist Italy worked. Ceteris paribus these were the most powerful countries at the time.

It took the entire world to defeat them and Japan and even then the allies suffered more than twice the military casualties even though they won the war:

That is precisely why all European, more precisely, WHITE nationalist movements are now shunned by Jews, while other races can take pride in their own and Jews’ Zionism is deemed good. They saw the power of the white man. They know what we can do and how functional and powerful we can become with an authoritarian, nationalist movement that cuts degeneracy in its roots, and they are doing their all in terms of brainwashing and propaganda to stop us from doing it once again.

The greatest problem is this part:

This is why I’m saying that the system needs to have in built unchangeable principles, to prevent this sort of stuff from happening.

USA and Europe as they are, are going to shit. I already gave some examples of fit societies which shun degeneracy - Third Reich, Fascist Italy. Maybe they weren’t perfect, but they were a decent enough example.

Degeneracy can be fought, it’s not that hard to do it physically, the most difficult part is overcoming memetic indoctrination which you are still obviously struggling with.

That is only a problem if you have no ultimate baseline, aka a guiding principle.

My guiding principle is the modified version of the 14 words - existence of our people and a future for white children - high quantity and quality of white people. This is not up to interpretation. The number of people, or how strong and intelligent they are, isn’t up to interpretation at all. Another quality which I value, beauty, might be said to be up to interpretation to an extent, but in the end we all know which one of these is beautiful, and which isn’t, regardless of how much we pretend it’s all mysterious. Even if it is subjective, apparently almost all of us, like 99% (all of us who are healthy is another way of putting it) instinctively know what is beautiful, and what isn’t, so let’s not bullshit each other:

Your appeals to moderacy, carefulness, skepticism, etc. are nice and all, but you don’t understand what kind of extreme sickness and degeneracy we are dealing with atm. You cannot argue with it reasonably, and pretending as if such filth is on our level is, in my mind, equivalent to conceding defeat and means you’ve already lost. I mean, these people will, with a straight face, tell you such extreme and obvious bullshit as “all races and sexes are equal and should be treated equally”.

How about this (idea loosely based on awesome political spectrum I read about in Daily Stormer which I can’t find anymore):

Extreme leftist position: Equality between kikes, whites, and niggers and sandniggers
Moderate left: Kikes expelled from white countries, niggers and sandniggers made into slaves, whites the superior master race
The most moderate of moderates (centrist): Race war now, gas the kikes
Moderate right: Persecute every living nigger, sand nigger and kike, and torture them before killing them
Extreme right: Persecute every living nigger, sand nigger and kike torture them before killing them, then build cloning factories, clone niggers, sand niggers and Jews only to torture and kill them all over again until the end of times

I mean, if that’s how the Overton Window was framed, sure I would be a moderate centrist, fuck I’d even be willing to compromise and settle for the moderate left position and I’d agree that both of the extremes are a bit excessive.

This explains a lot about your philosophy.

Void can’t get laid. Sex is like a beer, or a candy bar or a bite to eat. You just get it and move on with your day. Maybe like a back rub, or something like that. Dude’s a little backed up it seems. Probably because he’s got such controversial political opinions that he can’t be cool and keep to himself, so bitches think he’s weird. Very sad.

Hate speech is also protected under 1st Amendment (in US), even if it’s racist, anti-semitic, or homophobic.
(It becomes hate crime when it turns to physical action, or imminent lawless action, or contains “true threat”)

Brandenburg v. Ohio
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenbu … on_test.29
National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie
youtube.com/watch?v=V29rN-5FoDU

Pretty funny when I see someone deny that sex is a meaningful part of human experience. Guess the 99.99999% of people for whom this is true don’t particularly matter to you? Just because you’re castrated doesn’t mean everyone else is.

Lol. Castrated? As long as we are throwing shit on the wall, how many gerbils have you sexed to death lately?

At any rate, sure sex is nice and often meaningful. But to say something so pathetic as “sex is the most meaningful, valuable experience” sure does cheapen everything else you will ever say.

Pretty good thing that I never said that, then, isn’t it?

You’re a fucking clown who can’t even quote correctly. Shows you don’t care one fuck what you’re talking about.

Congrats. You’re retarded.

You literally said it. And I suppose you are right about one thing, I do not give any fucks about you. lol!

Wrong.

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.