Social Darwinism is Natural Selection Misunderstood

[Phil75231]

NOTE: Some may say this is science topic, but I think it's more accurately called philosophical notions drawn from science. In short, Social Darwinism isn't a scientific issue but a philosophical one.

Ever since Darwin, the catch phrase "survival off the fittest" has strongly resonated with popular opinion. It implicitly assumes that the “law of the jungle” is a proper model for human relations. In fact, we often use it to justify contempt for the weak, timid, stupid, slow, eccentric, or otherwise what society considers less than perfect. In extreme cases, it’s a justification to eliminate the “considerably less than perfect” or even passively letting them slide by the wayside (often with conscious knowledge). After all, it’s just the natural order of things, and besides it just makes us stronger, smarter, and just plain better than the non-survivors.

This kind of thinking is a barebones description of “Social Darwinism”. Darwin himself denied that his theory was applicable to the human world, for he saw humans as guided by behaviors going beyond mere survival. Still, he did recognize that altruism, kindness, and generosity, toward others were somehow born of the system of natural selection, yet completely outside of that system. He merely confessed ignorance as to how we came to be altruistic, kind, and generous – which is the scientific thing to do when confronted with mysteries with no answer. Therefore, anyone who seeks to use “survival of the fittest”, “law of the jungle”, “it’s a dog eat dog world”, and other catch phrases as a ready-made, off-the-shelf moral or “real world” justifications for holding onto a “weak vs strong” view of how the world ought to be ordered is not taking either the Theory of Evolution or the mechanism of Natural Selection in its proper context.

The phrase “survival of the fittest” actually came from philosopher Herbert Spencer – five years after Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species. He used it to justify disbelief in any kind of program to help the poor, the invalids, and the otherwise “unfit” (read “unworthy”) on the grounds that nature rolled the dice and decided that they were incapable of competing in the human world. This likewise justified any kind of defense of “the strong” (i.e. society’s elite) against having to show any concern for “the weak” – and hence not have to give any concern about the weak. In short, Spencer found in Darwin’s theory a simple, neat explanation to justify society keeping its least desirable in their place while at the same time keeping the powerful in their place.

Rather than pick apart “dog-eat-dogism” piece by piece, I’ll just list some general objections.

1)Simplistically projects the general animal condition onto the human condition; thereby ignoring the unique details of humans that separate them from all other animals. This is especially true regarding our greater capacities for creativity, anticipating, scenario planning, self-criticism, “thinking outside the box”, and questioning the truth of supposedly “common sense” facts. All this allows us to overrule our DNA and reptilian brain when need be.

1) Encourages in individuals short term resource-grabbing, power-grabbing, and personal domination at the expense of long-term well being of the species.

2) Confuses long term well-being of the species with the short term survival and reproductive success of its “fittest” members (usually meaning “the best at physical survival”, “social politics/skills”, and little else)

3) Ignores that the human world’s needs are vastly different from the animal world’s, even granted its fundamental commonalities (i.e. humans also require food, water, air, shelter, and other basic needs; but the way we acquire those needs is incomprehensively different from the animal point of view).

4) Tends to squash independent thought, self-criticism, and constructive criticism. The powers that be find it simpler to keep doing what’s been done instead of potentially sacrificing some of their power, resources, values, and ideas for the greater good of the species or even merely their society. Squashing new ideas and objections to the current system makes the society and powers that be less adaptable in the long run. This model prizes conformity over independent thought, which makes the society less intelligent in the long run precisely because it damages the society’s ability to self-criticize.

5) In its more modern forms, overestimates the heritability of one’s survival traits and underemphasizes the role culture and environment play in developing (or not) those traits.

6) Ultimately breaks the bonds of trust among society’s members – If dog eat dog is the rule, then its everyone out for their own self-interest and the interests of their genetic kin, plus those who support them, and little else. It’s hard to see how trust among ourselves can possibly be maintained in such a situation. Naturally, this causes society to break down in a multiplicity of ways. In short, “dog eat dog” assumptions poison more complex societies and in the long run hurt most people’s ability to obtain resources or even provide them. Put more simply, Social Darwinism is ultimately bad economics.

7) Dismisses any disconnect between one’s level of strength, intelligence, or bravery (or their opposites) and their ability to make valuable contributions (or not). Ignores that individuals can be tremendously strong, smart, or brave without contributing REAL benefits to society. Also overlooks that one can contribute immensely to society even if weak, stupid, or cowardly.

When all is said and done, Social Darwinist “dog-eat-dog”-ism may have a very common sense kind of appeal on the surface, on closer examiniation, it ignores too many traits of overall human nature to be a realistic, practical guide for running societies, or even everyday living for the individual. While evolution can often explain WHY human nature is the way it is, it should never be used to JUSTIFY human nature as it currently is. Any culture that has this meme deeply embedded in it is in serious risk of long-term ruin.

[Agrippa]

One should always distinguish the Liberal (Individualist, Capitalist) Social Darwinism from the collective (group and long term oriented) concepts, which include general Eugenic and Euphenic programs.

The worst thing of Liberal/Capitalist social Darwinism is, that some of the "fittest" in this concept are and act actually detrimental to the group's and other people's interest, while many valuable people which have good traits as individuals and for the group might be "highly underrated".

It gets worst if being all about money and earning money, without looking at other features a person might have, because then, it is just an excuse for exploitation and control of the rich in some kind of Plutocracy, with some of the most asocial behaviours being cheered about as "successful", while alternative ones being considered "aberrations", even if being more useful for the majority of individuals, group and mankind as a whole.

So social Darwinism has some merits as a theory, but should be put into the context of humans as a social and cultural species and the traits evaluation should be based on what's good for the individual carrier of this traits and the group, not what makes one more successful in a degenerated system like that of Liberalcapitalism alone.

[Breedingvariety]

Social Darwinism refers to group, not individual competition. Groups do not have to consist of nations. Nor do they have to consist of millions. Well organized & cooperating thousand can rule over disorganized and purposeless million.

Darwinism holds life as highest value. Fittest survive and those who survive are fittest. Then it is impossible to live and not be fit. That circularity and the very value of life means Darwinism doesn't point to principles for behavior and is purposeless.

As living beings, no matter how brilliant in whatever ways they might be, if their behavior contradicts to survival of their group, then these groups go extinct. Fundamental acceptance of this theory leads to realization that individual behavior can not be understood as motivated by individual motives. Selfishness should be redefined as sacrifice for ones group.

I talk about groups and not species, because humanity is not just another specie. Survival of humanity is not threatened by other species.

Social groups, whether they be more or less distinct social classes, ethnicities or races, arise within context of circumstantial pressures. They arise as groups, not individuals. There is a reason why some are rich and some are poor. The rich have an edge. Moral edge.

Edge is relative to flaw. Superiority established by edge is not dependent on common values of subjugators with subjugated. That's why I reject notions of usefulness, economic prosperity, progress. Only when you stop obeying rules that exploit your flaws, can you become rich subjugator. Even if all you have is a stick.

Every group has absolute right to change the rules and become rulers.

Principles of conduct must not be based on undetermined premises & possibilities. Not based on maybes.

[Agrippa]

Darwinism holds life as highest value. Fittest survive and those who survive are fittest. Then it is impossible to live and not be fit. That circularity and the very value of life means Darwinism doesn't point to principles for behavior and is purposeless.

That is right, but it must be properly understood and applied, as it seemt to be necessary, to guarantee the best results for the individuals, group and species.

Nature is a system of natural rules, which we cannot override, so we have to adapt to it, at best to very own favour and in an intelligent, planned and humane manner.


Selfishness should be redefined as sacrifice for ones group.

However, the individual behaviours are often the result of processes of genetic and memetic selection either.

So by favouring "selfish" behaviour in a way, which is detrimental to the group and other group members, you just make up a trend, which will lead to such a selfish and inhumane group and society.

If there is higher level individual and group selection, those groups would be eliminated. But if the populations and societies in question are large enough, there can be even a breeding effect for "human parasites" and the worst thing about Liberal Social Darwinism is, that it allows, even defends such parasitical behaviour, as long as it happens in the bourgeious construct they call their society and (Capitalist) system.


I talk about groups and not species, because humanity is not just another specie. Survival of humanity is not threatened by other species.

Indeed, but probably by its own degeneration (biological-genetic and cultural-memetic) incompetence.


Social groups, whether they be more or less distinct social classes, ethnicities or races, arise within context of circumstantial pressures. They arise as groups, not individuals. There is a reason why some are rich and some are poor. The rich have an edge. Moral edge.

That can be true, but must not. If you formulate that in such a dogmatic way, it is just completely false, because probably a rather parasitic element made it to the top, while more favourable elements suffer from it.


That's why I reject notions of usefulness, economic prosperity, progress.

Then you reject higher mankind and adore the animal.


Principles of conduct must not be based on undetermined premises & possibilities. Not based on maybes.

What's an optimal behaviour being determined by the circumstances in concrete situations, though.

[Troll's Puzzle]

Social Darwinism refers to group, not individual competition. Groups do not have to consist of nations. Nor do they have to consist of millions. Well organized & cooperating thousand can rule over disorganized and purposeless million.

Darwinism holds life as highest value. Fittest survive and those who survive are fittest. Then it is impossible to live and not be fit. That circularity and the very value of life means Darwinism doesn't point to principles for behavior and is purposeless.

this is incorrect, for a creature to have 'Darwinistic' success means it survives and reproduces, with the latter being more important in fact.

which changes things a bit

[Agrippa]

this is incorrect, for a creature to have 'Darwinistic' success means it survives and reproduces, with the latter being more important in fact.

which changes things a bit

That's right, otherwise Europeans and Japanese would do great, surviving, on average, longer than most other people.

There is just a minor problem with that: They get few or no children at all, and those which they get, they get too late (slow reproductive circle).

[Curtis24]

Yes, but one could argue that the destruction of many European lineages is a good thing - it is intense evolution, those unwilling to have children being weeded out at unprecedented rates in modern history. The European Europid race could emerge from this era stronger than ever before...

[Agrippa]

Yes, but one could argue that the destruction of many European lineages is a good thing - it is intense evolution, those unwilling to have children being weeded out at unprecedented rates in modern history. The European Europid race could emerge from this era stronger than ever before...

First of all, it is a sociocultural and memetic defect, so those affected are not genetically maladaptive generally speaking and secondly, this kind of cultural imprinting we have, works best at those variants which are higher level and desperately needed both for our own group and mankind as a whole.

Essentially, those to dumb, asocial or unadapted, with primitive or superstitious beliefs and meaningless lifes have on average more children in various areas of the world and meanwhile, dysgenic trends emerge on a worldwide scale.

What was build up, with blood and tears over many generations of positive selection being now destroyed because of the ignorance of the people, which should know better, but don't act, do nothing for stopping this contraselection.

You have always think about which genetic variants and phenotypes you will need for a good group in the future. If those breed well, things are fine, you probably can still make them better, but generally speaking, there is no serious threat around.

If those variants which are needed most breed the least, you have a problem and this kind of DEVOLUTION leads into a dead end of degeneration, on the longer run biologically and culturally.

Because those bloodlines lost now are often positive accumulated both for genetic and memetic traits. Also, for keeping up a higher level society and culture, you need more of those higher level variants, you can live with fewer of them, worse but still, on largely the same level. But once their numbers go below a certain proportion in the general population, things will deteriorate drastically.

Even worse if the genetic deficits of the population being accompanied by a bad societal and economic system, great heterogeneity in a fractionised and individualised group of people.

So, without a population policy and Eugenic measures:

The European Europid race could emerge from this era stronger than ever before...

The Europeans will just degenerate into something meaningless and finally disappear as a unity of importance, probably their rotten system, manipulated by the Plutocracy, will even take mankind as a whole with them...

[Curtis24]

But who says the good bloodlines are the ones being lost? If a woman can't bring herself to have a single child, because she doesn't want the inconvenience of it, or her standards for a mate are so high and unrealistic(as is her overvaluation of herself), is it really a bad thing if she doesn't pass her genes on?

[Agrippa]

But who says the good bloodlines are the ones being lost?

Because those variants were more successful when high quality demands in the higher level individual and group selection determined biological success and are still more often more moral, social, educated, intelligent, hard working, attractive, fertile, physically superiour etc., etc.


If a woman can't bring herself to have a single child, because she doesn't want the inconvenience of it

Most of them being raised with the idea that children are not necessary or that our planet is even so overcrowded, that it would be egoistic to give birth to a child which you can't raise "the best thinkable way."

Also, many of them have actually one, or at best 2 children, but that is not enough, since a RELATIVELY high percentage of them have no children, they get their children late, because of their educational, career and other "life plans", while the lower level subjects get their children earlier and more of it.

Just think about the reproductive rate of one group having about 1 children on average, giving birth around 32 and the other has 4 children, giving birth to the first child around 19.

How many generations do you think you need that the 2nd group becomes the majority, even if starting as a minority?

You just need to manipulate 5 generations into something like we have now, with Capitalism and Cultural Marxism with all its side effect like career orientation, consumerism, false ideals and goals in life, "plural society", "Multiculturalism" with the mass immigration of non-integrable, lower level foreigners etc., to ruin the quality of populations which were build up in thousands of years.


or her standards for a mate are so high and unrealistic(as is her overvaluation of herself), is it really a bad thing if she doesn't pass her genes on?

They were successful in the past and they are still socially successful now and will be desperately needed in the future, whereas the "crap reproduction", to say it blunt, will be always primarily a burden...

Now if you increase the burden and reduce the backbone of the group, sooner or later, it will break!

[Curtis24]

Because those variants were more successful when high quality demands in the higher level individual and group selection determined biological success and are still more often more moral, social, educated, intelligent, hard working, attractive, fertile, physically superiour etc., etc.



Most of them being raised with the idea that children are not necessary or that our planet is even so overcrowded, that it would be egoistic to give birth to a child which you can't raise "the best thinkable way."

Also, many of them have actually one, or at best 2 children, but that is not enough, since a RELATIVELY high percentage of them have no children, they get their children late, because of their educational, career and other "life plans", while the lower level subjects get their children earlier and more of it.

Just think about the reproductive rate of one group having about 1 children on average, giving birth around 32 and the other has 4 children, giving birth to the first child around 19.

How many generations do you think you need that the 2nd group becomes the majority, even if starting as a minority?

You just need to manipulate 5 generations into something like we have now, with Capitalism and Cultural Marxism with all its side effect like career orientation, consumerism, false ideals and goals in life, "plural society", "Multiculturalism" with the mass immigration of non-integrable, lower level foreigners etc., to ruin the quality of populations which were build up in thousands of years.



They were successful in the past and they are still socially successful now and will be desperately needed in the future, whereas the "crap reproduction", to say it blunt, will be always primarily a burden...

Now if you increase the burden and reduce the backbone of the group, sooner or later, it will break!


You are under the impression that white women are not having children, because they've been brainwashed. I'm not sure this is true. It is possible, that the reason they are not having children is because of genetic reasons. In other words, because they genetically, genuinely do not desire children.

Remember - for most of white history, women had not choice in having children. They were forced into it. So we don't really know if you could go back to the Middle Ages or whenever, and give them the choice, would they have chosen to have children? Could it be possible that a feminist lifestyle is simply more satisfying for many women?

Whites have clearly valued technical/professional competence over all other things. This could have had the result that many Europeans lost other skills, such as "emotional intelligence", child-raising skills, etc. Lost these things on a genetic level.

Just as an Indo-European steppe warrior would have focused on being a warrior to the exclusion of everything else, including child-raising and "trying to get along" with others, so his daughters would have inherited this. But, in ages past, they would have been forced to have children anyway. But now that they are not forced to do that, their true natures are revealed...

Consequently, the white race must now evolve itself to be more compassionate and cooperative - simply being a scientist or technical professional is no longer enough, since, as we see, many of those people are genetically inclined to be quite self-absorbed..

[Agrippa]

You are under the impression that white women are not having children, because they've been brainwashed.

That is not "my impression", but a fact, because if you have family records in which the same type of women went down from 10 to 0,8 children, you surely have the cultural influence and the biggest gap comes with the new contraceptive methods, 1968'er "revolution" and the other brainwashing effects I usually talk about.


I'm not sure this is true. It is possible, that the reason they are not having children is because of genetic reasons. In other words, because they genetically, genuinely do not desire children.

Whether they desire children more than others is irrelevant, they were better women to raise high level children in the past and as long as structures were healthy, it worked.

But they actually do desire, but supress it because of ideas of "how they must fit into" other concepts they being filled with, like first making school, then making university, then "living their life to the full", then making their career plans, if they more materialistic-superficial, they go on with parties, if they are more idealistic, they might do some "care work", this way or another and in between they being disappointed by similar minded men and relationships which failed, because being based on the superficial connections we have now usually, without family bonds-clan structures and - children.

I could go on this way and I can see perfectly that the very same woman and mother-type, which was so successful on the highest level among aristocrats or warrior-herders, being now such a "biological loser" because they being raised that almost everything is more important than children and nothing is more important than their "life plans", "independence" and "self-achieved social success."

Even if they love children, they might do more for other people's children success, even of the lowest kind, than their own. How many high level women work now in social institutions, schools and kindergartens and the like, caring for lowest level children, while having only one, at best two, almost never more if at all, children?!

Just look at it! Just look at it!


Remember - for most of white history, women had not choice in having children. They were forced into it.

It was their success story. A successful mother had a higher status, better life, more power, had to plan for the family and its success. They were truly important and successful socially AND biologically.

Once Cultural Marxism destroyed the healthy and normal correlation between female status and fertility, actually it started with Christianity already, in which bloodrules and offspring were denied, an important part of the "Western disease" was born.


So we don't really know if you could go back to the Middle Ages or whenever, and give them the choice, would they have chosen to have children?

Yes, they would have - DESPERATELY. Because if they had no children, they were at lower end of the hierarchy in society and the family. It was not just about "force", it was about their success in life. And the greatest success for a women is having many healthy children and probably even beautiful daughters and powerful sons.


Could it be possible that a feminist lifestyle is simply more satisfying for many women?

As long as they don't think about their life, probably, but as soon as they do and its too late to change things, it isn't.

Because what women finally want are stable relationships and being mothers.

If they aren't, healthy women get "problematic", but as I said, many women being hurt due to many relationships they have early on and the fact, that being a wife and mother is no value any more, but just something to look down upon in many areas of the European world - and - in meantime, even beyond.

Capitalism just exploited the female tendency towards social and caring behaviour, making them cheap labour and voters, easy to manipulate and exploit by the system, with their natural instincts and behaviour being abused and redirected into what the system wants.

We live in a feminised society and part of that is that on the very top some people knew exactly how to manipulate the women and put them into this new role, against their males, against their group's and finally even their very own biological interests.

You might just look at this, because Edward Bernays, a close relative (nephew) of Sigmund Freud, was one of the first to fully understand how one can manipulate the masses, especially the women - "public relations":

How to brainwash a nation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ8ZvYNlxiM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0OrT-8gXMs

They called cigarretes, which were considered masculine and vulgar, nothing for a decent woman, torches of freedom from the radical feminists perspective and so the tobacco corporations sold it, with the image of "a new freedom"!

That was their slogan and the people, as stupid as they are, accepted it!

Imitation:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=388623&postcount=8

Cultural Marxism:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17073


Whites have clearly valued technical/professional competence over all other things. This could have had the result that many Europeans lost other skills, such as "emotional intelligence", child-raising skills, etc. Lost these things on a genetic level.

That's ridiculous, they are still better at it, they just lost parts of the CULTURAL background for going for the RULE OF BLOOD.


Just as an Indo-European steppe warrior would have focused on being a warrior to the exclusion of everything else, including child-raising and "trying to get along" with others, so his daughters would have inherited this.

On the contrary, they were very blood and family, of course clan oriented also and had high birthrates rather!


Consequently, the white race must now evolve itself to be more compassionate and cooperative - simply being a scientist or technical professional is no longer enough, since, as we see, many of those people are genetically inclined to be quite self-absorbed..

On an instinctive level, Europids are higher evolved, the progressive ones in particular. But the higher evolved humans are, they more dependent they are on their nature and their culture fitting together.

So this must be solved and a population policy with Eugenic and Euphenic measures applied, because otherwise, degeneration and a false development, the failure of mankind will follow, because what we need is a rational planning for our future, not animal-like subjects.

Actually Europids care enough already, probably even too much, because what you assume is just false, namely that you get more children, because you are loving and caring. No, you get more children if you don't care at all!

If you care too much, you strive for perfection and that's part of the problem, if people say to you, it is better to have no or just one children, if things are not perfect, rather than getting 16 children like a moronic Gypsy, which will live in the dirt and hunger or die - but guess what, Europeans will help them out!

Probably even CARING and CHILD-LOVING stupid social workers, mostly women, which have themselves no or just 1 or two children!

You see the problem? They must care more for their OWN BLOODLINE and must see the value in it, something being weakened by Christianity and killed by Liberalism and Cultural Marxism.

Because for Western women, children are part of their "individual life plan" and no natural certainty any more, which is sick in itself and a devation from normal human culture and behaviour.

As for the beginning of this developments, look into this threat about the Medieval change:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12370

Europeans are more caring and childloving than others, EVEN FOR FOREIGN CHILDREN, too much actually, because they lost the sense for the USE and USEFULNESS of children! Which is part of the reasons for our low birth rates! They look too much at the individuals by now and forget about the bigger picture, because they were blinded by Liberals and Marxists, Neo-Christians and all those manipulated by the current system under the rule of the Plutocratic Oligarchy.

This system doesn't reward being the mother of many children, if you don't want to be "asocial", dependent or "backward", even compared to a breeding animal by envy women from the bourgeois perspective.

So mostly asocial and just a few really convinced people, many of religous sects, on a higher niveau, get more children, which are often one sided personalities and family cultures unfortunately.

Higher standing, normal Europeans, rarely have more than 3 children and 3 is pretty high for them, which is a cultural standard which was formed, in this crappy society and culture (crappy in this respect in particular) and is not "in their genes".

[Phil75231]

I'll say it again.

We are NOT dictated by our DNA. Influenced by it, certainly. There are environmental factors that influence our attitudes about children. In fact, there's even a gene for alcoholism, that doesn't mean everyone with that gene who drinks a little will turn into acutal alcoholics.

The truth is, we barely have a clue how much of individual human behavior is genetic and how much is environmental. Certainly we have brains developed enough to overrule our DNA/Environmental programming when necessary.

As for the other moral issues. What's "weak" and "strong" is a moving target - and 'grab all you can' selfishness by the rich won't quite make society sustainable. In that case, short-term (as in a few generations) success means to 'grab all they can' and nothing more. It's the successful (conning, cunning, cleaver, and sometimes forceful) grabbers who get ahead - not necessarily the ones who create new ways of bettering the human condition, or even individual wallets. In this case, the group is trapped in a one-dimensional way of thinking and cannot see another way out -- like cars stuck in deep tire grooves on a highway.

If conditions change (as they are now), when creating a new way of doing things counts for more in the long run than grabbing all you can, then "grabbing all you can" becomes maladaptive.

[Curtis24]

Agrippa: You raise many good points, but there are other factors, behind the breakdown of marriage, which you ignore.

1) Why do women initiate so many divorces? Certainly this can't only be because of the "brainwashing", but rather many women are genuinely dissatisfied living in a marriage.

2) Why do many women also engage in promiscuous sex? Once again, you can't pin this one on cultural marxism...

[Agrippa]

Agrippa: You raise many good points, but there are other factors, behind the breakdown of marriage, which you ignore.

Actually I don't.


1) Why do women initiate so many divorces? Certainly this can't only be because of the "brainwashing", but rather many women are genuinely dissatisfied living in a marriage.

First of all, it is not natural for humans to live together just because they like each other ALONE, but the natural background was that TWO FAMILIES MET with all commitments related and they had to form a working unit, they worked TOGETHER for their subsistence and were economically dependent from each other.

Also, they had to raise children, which again the woman could not without the father and his relatives - or her relatives in a matrilocal society.

And yet I'm not even talking about social and religious rules, which made the bonds much harder in most cases!

In any case there were many practical dependencies and the idea of a primarily "hedonistic marriage" or "hedonistic-materialistic" one is essentially an abnormity in all of human history.

Followed by that woman today are in many respects more socially mobile, they get constantly influenced by other people and don't live in the family as a natural unity any more - neither does the male. Working "out of the house" was unnatural FOR BOTH! The (historical) rule is working and staying together.

And women are very much, even much more so than males, "social adaptive", so they always try to be "in", to put it that way and don't "staying out". This comes from their strong dependency from other group members, especially during pregnancy and the early years of their children - being socially adapted was adaptive and "survival-important" for them.

Without the help and acceptance of others, they were dead.

So what "the others", their social environment in the widest sense, tells them, this might be peer group, colleagues, family, close friends, mass media, books, whatever can change something of the way they evaluate things based on their constant need "to adapt", they will eat, mostly without questioning.

If you tell them it is hip and chic to be a bitch, they will eat it, like they eat the mode: Be chaste and wear a scarve.

AT LEAST THE VAST MAJORITY.

So if you tell them what a man has to be and to do, how their life has to look, while at the same time most of the things partners had in common in the past, including their huge dependency from each other, vanished, what do you expect if allowing divorces, which essentially ALWAYS give the advantage to the woman and put down the male?

Women being HIGHLY favoured by our current legal system in virtually EVERY RESPECT, so it is much easier for them to make a divorce, actually even profitable in many cases.

And even if not as much, women are more likely to be flexible and adaptive, like they always were, so they are more willing to adapt to "a single life", which fits into the concepts of the current society, if seeing "problems with their relationship", than a (especially older!) male, which is, to say it blunt, more unflexible and lazy in this as well as in many other respects.

If males are used to something, they are used to it. Women even more so, but only as long as all people tell them, "that's alright".

F.e. many women had a happy marriage, until some asshole came along and told them what a happy marriage HAS TO BE.

So they HAD TO check, for being "up to date" to our societal rules and "realised" OH SHIT, MY MARRIAGE IS CRAP!

So they had to begin to try to change their husband and had "the rule of society" in their back, but the male was used to his way of life, so he didn't wanted to change: Easy way out, make a divorce and start living like your women's magazines told ya!


2) Why do many women also engage in promiscuous sex? Once again, you can't pin this one on cultural marxism...

Surely I can, because it was the rule in most of human history that women which behaved that way were considered OUTCASTS and dishonourable.

There was however always a minority of women, having the susceptibility for the "bitch mode".

This kind of behaviour comes from genetics and early experiences in life for the most part and being characterised by women not being obliged to one men, but trying to get the most of it by having sexual relationships with many men.

Now this is abnormal in the sense of a minority thing, usually such women would, if not being excluded from the group completely, become the "village bitch", the "street whore" or the mistress of one or more important males.

But these days, again the society and their conditioning tells the majority of women, which wouldn't have become bitches and whores in a normal society, that this is normal behaviour.

One simple example: You tell all the girls that they are "retarded" and "not cool" if being still virgins at 17.

This is a strong pressure you can produce, just by using the communicative channels of the mass media for example - from there it goes to the peer groups and from there in the brains of the young women.

With all those changing and uncommitted sexual relationships, many women get rather disappointed and wounded by their experiences with males, the same goes for the men, but to a lesser degree, because being promiscuous is more in their nature.

So with a more and more cynical way of looking at sexual relationships, women become less and less of an option for a long term relationship and so they go on with their promiscuous life, often dreaming about a "prince saving them", even as a 40 year old bitch without children or children from various males, while being at the same time dissatisfied and still in the mode the society demands from them: Don't give up your modern way of life, independence and "own mind" (filled witht the society's crap rules).

All of this being easy to explain and the result of our societies transformation from Christianity and Feudalism, to Liberalism and Capitalism, with a lot of very dangerous and poisonous Cultural Marxism being thrown in, to form our current, Plutocratic and Neoliberal society.

Women became the victims of this changes, sometimes without knowing it, but just dying out unhappy in the end, without having achieved anything of importance in their whole life.

Because unless they are a genius, what can be more important, fulfilling and successful than having healthy kids which keep up the bloodline and form a Gemeinschaft in which you live and die?

Anything of what they do and try to do, speaking about the average woman? Nothing! They are just small parts of the Capitalist world, totally unimportant and highly manipulated, but they still feel more "special", because being told so, as they are, like most humans, herd animals.

Truly responsible are those in charge which send this messages to the people and made up those structures ON PURPOSE, to gain more power, profits and control!

The Plutocratic Oligarchy and their menials!

[Curtis24]

In conclusion: we're fucked :(

[SwordoftheVistula]

In conclusion: we're fucked :(

Maybe not. People thought Israel was done for too, but natural selection actually favored the extreme right: the orthodox and especially ultra-orthodox had large families, which shifted the demographics against the liberal families who had 0-2 kids, and are now reaching the point where it is shifting the political nature of the country rightwards.

I think the legalization of abortion and other means of birth control are one of the main reasons the white population in the US has shifted rightwards. Unfortunately, unlike Israel, we also have a generous social welfare system which gives benefits to the nonwhite population and encourages them to have children.

[Agrippa]

Maybe not. People thought Israel was done for too, but natural selection actually favored the extreme right: the orthodox and especially ultra-orthodox had large families, which shifted the demographics against the liberal families who had 0-2 kids, and are now reaching the point where it is shifting the political nature of the country rightwards.

Backwards you mean, because the valuable and productive parts of the population being substituted by insane and superstitious, often degenerated elements which actually don't do too much for the state and community as a whole neither.

This is another perfect example of the "Western degeneration", in this case just affecting Jews.

The most valuable Israeli elements have a much too low birthrate and being overrun by the orthodox and non-Jewish elements in the state.

Again without a strict and planned population policy, including Eugenic and Euphenic measures, Israel will go down the drain, with an (strictly) orthodox and Muslim Palestinian majority (each) over secular Jews of a higher level - not talking about the lower level secular Jewish elements yet.


I think the legalization of abortion and other means of birth control are one of the main reasons the white population in the US has shifted rightwards.

And downwards. Idiotic ideas like Creationism, Evangelicals in religion and policy, seeing the state as a principle in a negative light and being against social programs in general is just part of the growing uneducated, dumbed down mass of people, which substituted the more valauble, yet unfortunately successfully brainwashed by Liberals-Cultural Marxists, elements.


Unfortunately, unlike Israel, we also have a generous social welfare system which gives benefits to the nonwhite population and encourages them to have children.

Which they would have anyway, because if living more traditional, you don't have the children just for economic reasons, it is "richness and wealth" in its own right to have many children and keep up the bloodline.

Since the Western culture discouraged, even destroyed that attitude, all people being more strongly affected by this new "Western values" have a breakdown of birthrates.

Among Westerners themselves, only very dumb, asocial, spiritually awkward and uneducated people are not as much affected, they have no higher blood rule, but are more animal like in their behaviour - unless living in the few more healthy social environments and families left, or truly making up their own mind regardless of what their surroundings say.

Because even if foreign and low elements would bring just 5 of 10 children through, all being sick and close to starvation, as long as they survive and procreate, they win - not talking about diseases, plagues, social unrest, criminality rate and all those "nice things" to get with uncontrolled poverty.

Even if you would let mothers with their children die on the street, without "social welfare", which is a joke in the USA anyway, you wouldn't turn the tide, NO WAY.

Actually often the lowest elements even among the poor will have greater chances to make it, organising themselves in semi-legal or illegal ways and doing "their job" against the rest.

If you don't interfere in this processes directly, with Eugenic and Euphenic programs, you don't make it.

Actually one has to pay or otherwise reward the lower level ones for having only a few to no children and giving the higher level ones more opportunities if having children. There MUST BE a direct reward system based on genetic and socio-cultural/memetic qualities of people.

Everything else can just fail or being utterly inhumane, most likely both.

[SwordoftheVistula]

A lot of this stuff throughout this thread is quite contradictory. For example this:


Backwards you mean, because the valuable and productive parts of the population being substituted by insane and superstitious, often degenerated elements which actually don't do too much for the state and community as a whole neither.

This is another perfect example of the "Western degeneration", in this case just affecting Jews.

The most valuable Israeli elements have a much too low birthrate and being overrun by the orthodox

If you evaluate people on 'value to the community and state' as opposed to individualism, you'd have to go with the orthodox, who place a high value on community, as opposed to the secular/liberal jews who are more individualistic.


And here:


Idiotic ideas like Creationism, Evangelicals in religion and policy, seeing the state as a principle in a negative light and being against social programs in general is just part of the growing uneducated, dumbed down mass of people, which substituted the more valauble, yet unfortunately successfully brainwashed by Liberals-Cultural Marxists, elements.

Liberalism/Cultural Marxism is against all of the above listed ideas. The key components of Cultural Marxism are to oppose religion in policy, especially fundamentalist religion, and promote the state and its social programs as an omniscient & omnipotent protector. The idea of Marxism being pro-Christian/anti-socialist is just absurd.

[Agrippa]

If you evaluate people on 'value to the community and state' as opposed to individualism, you'd have to go with the orthodox, who place a high value on community, as opposed to the secular/liberal jews who are more individualistic.

Pseudo-Individualist usually, as explained.

What you seem to ignore or misunderstand that there is to me not just the question of problem of Collectivism vs. Individualism, but WHICH KIND of EITHER!

If the community-spirit and collectivism, Gemeinschaftsgeist is highly irrational and degenerative, of course I oppose it and it is no good alternative.

And if you talk about positive Individualism of truly self-thinking and moral beings, which try to make themselves better and being more than just mindless puppets, well, that's nice also.

It always depends on the results and details. I mean a collective oriented society which thinks that the sun won't rise if you don't sacrifice the most beautiful virgins of the group every month would be something totally contraselective and degenerated, regardless of "how collective" and group oriented these moronic system might otherwise be.


Liberalism/Cultural Marxism is against all of the above listed ideas. The key components of Cultural Marxism are to oppose religion in policy, especially fundamentalist religion, and promote the state and its social programs as an omniscient & omnipotent protector. The idea of Marxism being pro-Christian/anti-socialist is just absurd.

That's a clear misunderstanding.

What I meant is that the biosocial middle class and elite, at least those which are not themselves part of the "higher order" in this Plutocracy, got brainwashed by Cultural Marxists and Libertarians, which resulted in their inability to form a healthy community and resistance, as well as strong families and bonds, give birth to many children.

That way their numbers go down, while the numbers of those too dumb or far away from such "educational" and "enlightened" ideological manipulation, being the victims of corrupted religious and political leaders, which teach them the nonsense mentioned above, anti-statism, Evangelicalism, pseudo-conservatism, Creationism, anti-social politics and so on.

That way they being largely neutralised, easy prey and cannon fodder for the system economically and for the military in the USA, unable to resist Neoliberalism, while at the same time being RELATIVELY to the higher level Americans "more fertile" in the sense of getting more children in this social environments.

This is a two fold strategy of tweedledee and tweedledum, essentially to control all whites, this or the other way, and offering no viable solution, but just slavery to the Plutocrats - either by being brainwashed or just completely dumbed down and being pushed into poverty and dependency.

[Curtis24]

I've asked it before, but what is the solution/s to these problems?

[Agrippa]

I've asked it before, but what is the solution/s to these problems?

Well, like I said before, there must be a positive and negative Eugenic, if you want do it in a humane way, it means the usage of prenatal Diagnostics and selection for all and positive rewards for higher level families if getting more, and for lower level families getting less children.

One has to re-connect the social success and status with valuable offspring for the group, that is absolutely fundamental! Today social status and success being totally disconnect from social success and social success too being often determined by factors, which produce detrimental results for the people and group.

So we need a new moral and reward system in this respect, a new community spirit and organisation.

Group orientation and a new moral attitude, a complete reform of the money system, with the current way of fractional reserve being abandoned and states having their own, debt free issued money, being also part of the "must have".

[Breedingvariety]

That can be true, but must not. If you formulate that in such a dogmatic way, it is just completely false, because probably a rather parasitic element made it to the top, while more favourable elements suffer from it.
Those you call parasitic elements take what they want. Those you call favorable elements sheepishly follow. To take is harder than to follow. And they will follow to their own destruction.

Looking at masses of people, I don't see how they are favorable elements. While parasitic is perspective judgment, which I would make as I'm part of the masses.

But I think the reason of their success was high organization, cooperation and long term planning. That can not be called "low level". And being reduced to slaves can not be called "high level".

But I think you are saying the more favorable slaves suffer and unfavorable slaves multiply. I agree.

...while more favourable elements suffer from it.
What is it?

Then you reject higher mankind and adore the animal.
Higher mankind is marked by higher spirituality and superior morality, not by how much stuff it has. Stuff is usually just a side effect.

Anyway, a lot of what is called progress is actually degeneracy.

What's an optimal behaviour being determined by the circumstances in concrete situations, though.
If behavior is determined by circumstances, then the behavior is not optimal. When behavior changes circumstances it becomes more optimal.

Situations require actions. Behavior is repeat of similar actions in similar situations.

I said: "Principles of conduct must not be based on undetermined premises & possibilities. Not based on maybes."

I was referring to Phil75231 saying we should treat all humans equally, because we don't know who is useful or not. Of course, it's not clear what useful is. Nor can we establish any policies, because we know nothing.

Phil75231 doesn't understand that every policy has an effect of favoritism.

So policies should be based on things thought to be known and according to and consistent with our philosophy.

[Agrippa]

Those you call parasitic elements take what they want. Those you call favorable elements sheepishly follow. To take is harder than to follow. And they will follow to their own destruction.

But they are parasitic, because they profit but not letting those profit, from which they take and also because they just exploited a weak immune system of the higher level people's structures.

The problem was just, that this defence system wasn't build up fast and effective enough, to prevent them from exploiting, still they are what they were, parasitic and hostile.


Looking at masses of people, I don't see how they are favorable elements. While parasitic is perspective judgment, which I would make as I'm part of the masses.

It is about a certain set of valuable genes and memes, without those, the parasites on their own wouldn't be as superiour at all, as I said, they just exploited a weakness and harming the host, which is a typical characteristic of the parasite.

If the would just rule, but rule for the host at least TOO, one could call it a symbiont, but because their interests and plans are directed agains the interests ans well being of the host, they are hostile parasites.


But I think the reason of their success was high organization, cooperation and long term planning. That can not be called "low level". And being reduced to slaves can not be called "high level".

It is low level, because they were little on their own. In the harder and higher individual and group selection, people of that sort wouldn't stand a chance and are not at all that group oriented and well organised.

They are just better in the chaotic world of the civilisations to exploit niches and weaknesses and form later alliances, because so they can profit individually even more, but are most of the time competitors among themselves as well.

It was a selection for the best manipulators and parasites.


But I think you are saying the more favorable slaves suffer and unfavorable slaves multiply. I agree.

There are two types of elites, the functional elite, this are the achievers, but they usually don't think "out of the box" politically-socially, they are not really those which you would trust if it is evaluating things and judging for the best of the group. They are just good at what they do, whatever it is, but they are "adapters".

Then there is the spiritual elite, those might not be as good as achievers even, but they think more independently and are good as leaders, philosophers, judges, making important and strategical decisions considering as many arguments as possible.

Now what the Plutocratic Oligarchy did, is corrupting one elite, namely that of England and supporting the expansion and success of this corrupted elite, while transforming its people and system. From there, they began to ruin other spiritual elites independent from them, sometimes from within, like in the USA, sometimes from outside, like in Germany.

Either way they destroyed the independent spiritual elite, which means that the body, good or bad, being headless and now they can put their ugly flesh on it, and using the high level people of the Europeans for their own purposes and against their very own interests.

There is enough potential in Europeans for forming such a spiritual elite on their own, even a better one, but the place being occupied by the Plutocrats and their menials first and for being effective, you need a tradition.

Because even if many people have the traits necessary, genetically, they need the sort of education a true spiritual elite member needs. Some can gain it on their own, by chance, will or personal drives - however, to form effective networks of such and having the true "knowledge of power", you need "a background" people of the Plutocratic Oligarchy have.

And of course, knowledge is nice, but you also need the tools and networks to rely on, first of all, for a Plutocrat these days, the control over large amounts of money.


Higher mankind is marked by higher spirituality and superior morality, not by how much stuff it has. Stuff is usually just a side effect.

But one higher mankind will always produce, because it is in their nature.


Anyway, a lot of what is called progress is actually degeneracy.

There must be a genetic and memetic purification, but still what the occident achieved is marvellous and otherwise humans would be just another meaningless animal species which will sooner or later go down the drain, without a higher potential and knowledge, anyway.


If behavior is determined by circumstances, then the behavior is not optimal. When behavior changes circumstances it becomes more optimal.

Situations require actions. Behavior is repeat of similar actions in similar situations.

Well, that is what a higher mind does, but consider, the higher human spirit and mind is able to adapt by THINKING about the problem and coming to an optimal solution for the SPECIFIC PROBLEM in question. That's what I meant.

Any kind of philosophy or behavioural limitation which would limit your adaptiveness to something which could get dangerous for survival on a higher level in a specific given situation is detrimental.

The survival on a higher level is the most crucial aspect.

[Curtis24]

Agrippa, what do you think about the idea of "hypergamy" and how it relates to our modern woes?


Hypergamy (colloquially referred to as "marrying up") is the act or practice of seeking a spouse of higher socioeconomic status, or caste status than oneself.[1]

The term is often used more specifically in reference to a perceived tendency amongst human cultures for females to seek or be encouraged to pursue male suitors that are higher status than themselves, which often manifests itself as being attracted to comparatively older, wealthier or otherwise more privileged than themselves.[2] Hypergamic behaviours can be explained in terms of genetic economic necessity, in which societies with high levels of gender inequality are more likely to have women who "marry-up" for the benefit of their children, and more likely to have men who "marry-down" to ensure that their mates have a higher incentive to remain faithful.[3]

[Agrippa]

Agrippa, what do you think about the idea of "hypergamy" and how it relates to our modern woes?

Well, hypergamy is a good mean for a group to expend over another, because in the end, it is always about the fight for the females, since they bear the children and determine how many offspring you have.

Essentially, if you have a polygamic society in particular, but don't allow the mixed ones to come up to the highest ranks, you can spread your genes in a foreign population that way very fast.

It really depends on the exact practise and details in realisation, of how it works for this or that group.

[Curtis24]

well, I have hard some say that women have become too hypergamous, this is why most men can't get wives, most women want to be in relationships with the "alpha males"

[Agrippa]

well, I have hard some say that women have become too hypergamous, this is why most men can't get wives, most women want to be in relationships with the "alpha males"

Ok, I thought about strict rules, like in the caste system or between the conquerors and conquered, aristocracy and common people and so on.

Well, that is a problem indeed, but you have to keep in mind that females might see different kinds of superiority in a male, so there are various options how a male can score.

Despite of that, this is a huge problem in the feminised Capitalist society, because the highest level women don't get enough male partners any more and usually behave in a way, which the potential mates won't accept quite often - so those males prefer an "easier wife" so to say and those "problem women" on the top get often even more men-hating throughout life, than their original Cultural Marxist-radical feminist "education" or better indoctrination taught them, so they are quite often rather hopeless cases for a stable relationship, because even women of their niveau are not supposed to be at such ranks - at least not in those numbers - exceptions are another cup of tea.

This is really part of the contraselective trend and a huge problem if looking at the partner selection.

It is however clearly a cultural problem, once again, because in the past, the single exceptions of women, which often turned into a rather male role, like one can often see in history, were not of importance biologically, whereas the current mass phenomenon of women of higher status in various fields in which they were often rather pushed even, is a problem from the Eugenic point of view.

There are various options for solving that problem, from bringing women of that class in a position in which they face higher status males, or to change their attitude and that in society, so that the male has IN THE RELATIONSHIP still the higher status, regardless of what the female otherwise is.

Or to directly connect the progress in education and career, social success, with reproductive success. For example: Until a woman of that kind has not founded a family, she will be discriminated in all fields of importance, while favoured if she is the proud mother of good group members.

This is to the me the crucial aspect: Lifting males position, but even more important, connecting the female success, like it was ALWAYS, with being a successful mother.

Today, in this Capitalist mess, single woman without children have more and better options virtually everywhere, this sick condition must be broken and changed to a functional rule system, in which getting children, especially for women of that status, is being rewarded.

Actually some of those women would wish so - others not of course.
I know that, because they often suppressed their wish for children and family, just to MAKE IT TO THE TOP and staying there. They made up their own calculation and the result IN THIS SOCIETAL CONTEXT is, that they "wait with children" - yet their hormonal clock ticks, their youthful idealism for relationships with males and becoming a mother vanishes biologically, together with their fertility, so the problem becomes bigger with every year and some make it late with one or two children, practically never more, because the companies wouldn't reward that neither, if they give birth and create life at all.

So this must be changed and broken: Social success = mother of valuable children.

If you go to a job interview as a woman: Do you have children and family? No - we have to prefer those which have.

You go for a stipendium: Do you have children and family? No - we have to prefer those which have.

You want to get promoted? ...

And so on!

Taxes? Of course, here too.

In the end, the women which has children must be proud and sure this was a good decision, honoured and rewarded by the group, while those without must get the opposite message.

This is how it always was and how it WORKS!

[SwordoftheVistula]

If you're going to do that, you have to make sure that any & all support is contingent on being married. All western countries today have generous support for are single mothers. This has got to stop or reversed.

Also remove police/government involvement in domestic/family disputes, and instead allow churches or similar organizations to resolve such disputes. This will ensure better mate selection instead of tattooed thug ex-con 'alpha males' that she calls the cops on every weekend and yet sticks with him, meanwhile the better genetically suited law abiding people are stuck with the tax bill for the police & justice system to manage these dysfunctional relationships.

Britain has had some success with delegating out family disputes to religious organizations, with good results for all involved, but as it typical in modern western societies this privilege is reserved for immigrants.

In general, lower taxes & regulations will boost the ability of the more naturally able to afford/have children, and removal of subsidies will eliminate the incentive of the less naturally able to have children.

[Agrippa]

If you're going to do that, you have to make sure that any & all support is contingent on being married. All western countries today have generous support for are single mothers. This has got to stop or reversed.

I won't let them down, because there can be many reasons for becoming a single mother and a single mother is better than a married woman without children.

However, while I don't agree with "all the support", I agree that stable relationships too need to be rewarded and respected, promoted in society.


Also remove police/government involvement in domestic/family disputes, and instead allow churches or similar organizations to resolve such disputes. This will ensure better mate selection instead of tattooed thug ex-con 'alpha males' that she calls the cops on every weekend and yet sticks with him, meanwhile the better genetically suited law abiding people are stuck with the tax bill for the police & justice system to manage these dysfunctional relationships.

In this case I'd say REDUCING the involvement, but not REMOVING it, that might go too far.

And the Eugenic and Euphenic measures might not solve such "issues" in one generation, but will drastically reduce it in a couple of, not talking about the systemic change as such already reducing it drastically.


Britain has had some success with delegating out family disputes to religious organizations, with good results for all involved, but as it typical in modern western societies this privilege is reserved for immigrants.

I'm not that fond of that idea, but I don't care whether its being done by the state or other organisations, as long as they spread reasonable moral and rationality.

I'm fully convinced however, that the CURRENT WAY of state intervention is a huge failure, that must be improved and social network and local organisations should look after the people, without having to call the police or judges for everything, which is just a lawyer business, ruins even more and costs a lot of ressources.


In general, lower taxes & regulations will boost the ability of the more naturally able to afford/have children, and removal of subsidies will eliminate the incentive of the less naturally able to have children.

In a Capitalist society, the connection between income and good traits must not always be present and many people which are rather decent and want to control their life might rather get less children, then falling into poverty - I'd say there is no way to chaotically come to as good results as with programs.

However, lower taxes means less of a re-distribution from the lower and middle classes to the upper classes, especially if talking about the interest for state deficits.

This payment goes directly to the high finance and plutocracy, largely from the middle class, without improving anything!

That must be stopped first.

[Breedingvariety]

Yes, but one could argue that the destruction of many European lineages is a good thing - it is intense evolution, those unwilling to have children being weeded out at unprecedented rates in modern history. The European Europid race could emerge from this era stronger than ever before...
Lineages unwilling to reproduce have always been weeded out. The very existence of lineages is contingent on reproduction. So to say not having children strengthens a race is a fallacy, because it eliminates possibility of race being weakened. And by such logic, the strongest race would be the race that stopped reproducing and gone extinct.

Consequently, the white race must now evolve itself to be more compassionate and cooperative - simply being a scientist or technical professional is no longer enough, since, as we see, many of those people are genetically inclined to be quite self-absorbed..
What are you definitions of:
-compassionate
-cooperative
-self-absorbed

I don't see scientist being self-absorbed. And especially not genetically.

Besides, genetics doesn't determine profession.

Your views seem illogical.

[GeistFaust]

Lineages unwilling to reproduce have always been weeded out. The very existence of lineages is contingent on reproduction. So to say not having children strengthens a race is a fallacy, because it eliminates possibility of race being weakened. And by such logic, the strongest race would be the race that stopped reproducing and gone extinct.

What are you definitions of:
-compassionate
-cooperative
-self-absorbed

I don't see scientist being self-absorbed. And especially not genetically.

Besides, genetics doesn't determine profession.

Your views seem illogical.


I agree with you breeding variety when we differentiate social perspectives from the natural order of things this only does us justice in so far as we remain realist about the human condition. Reproduction is necessary for our existence so likewise having a subconscious desire to do the same is natural. At the same time this subconscious desire to reproduce coincides or collaborates with a competitive instinct. The will to survive is a very keen instinct that is driven by forces that are much deeper then what science can understand. When one race is far advanced or more developed then another it would not seem right naturally to try to give oneself over to social concepts which try to be politically correct about things. It is not a matter of hurting feelings when someone just does not have what it takes to survive under certain conditions without the aid of another person. Natural Selection at its c core desires to produce the best of the best but this will not always be the case there are always going to be glitches and errors. The glitches and errors subsequently get rid of themselves because they lack a connection with that internal instinct which is so necessary to actually be inclined to survive.

Compassion is fine under the right conditions but naturally we are "shaped" to be compassionate because we have this internal need to survive. Compassion is secondary to survival and this will always be the case. Nature is cruel and not compassionate. It is also very unpredictable and the nature of unpredictably naturally causes a certain amount of angst or a one sided edginess which subconsciously drives fit humans on to survive. This one sided edginess makes humans feel a need to be competitive and it is competition which has led to the strongest gene pools and to the most advanced cultures. Conflict and competition are driving forces in keeping nature strong externally and internally its almost like a spiritual force.

That is what I hate about all these politically correct institutions trying to introduce social norms which might appear to be good or moral but which in actuality will only produce further evil and immoral activity. It is just a plain lack of responsibility and it is producing a generation of losers who have forgotten how to compete. This is why we have become sissified in the West we no longer have to go out fight for our survival as if death was imminent but rather we just take things for granted and we are fine with free hand outs. Compassion and Kindness are good as long as they are kept in check we need more of spirit and conflict this is the natural instinct which is imbued in every healthy individual.

Competition is something that just coexist with our the will to live if we are not in conflict with ourselves and others to a certain extent there is usually something wrong with us. I think we have forgotten how primitive and savage we are in essence and how these primordial instincts tend to impulse us to do everything we can to keep ourselves in existence. A certain amount of edginess is natural because it is necessary in order for existence to continue onwards in future generations. Modern Society and a lot of the Social understanding of evolution have greatly undermined both the competitive spirit of mankind and his natural instinct to survive. Its time we let take nature take care of itself and naturally eliminate the unfit elements that arise from it. And it is our duty to try to preserve nature and produce the best specimens possible this desire should only be natural.

[Curtis24]

which should know better, but don't act, do nothing for stopping this contraselection

Somebody posted a link to this in the chatbox. But seriously... what is there to do??? Nobody knows what to do, that's the problem. We're helpless.

[Curtis24]

This is why we have become sissified in the West we no longer have to go out fight for our survival as if death was imminent but rather we just take things for granted and we are fine with free hand outs.

Well, I disagree with this. The problem is the opposite - most young Westerners lack social ethic and are too selfish. They have become too brutal.

[Joe McCarthy]

I touch on this subject here:

http://www.westernrevival.org/ethnic_darwinism.htm

[KeinMitleid]

Social Darwinism is natural. Science backs it up, I'm sorry. And plus, its mere common sense. Why should we invest time in the inferior organisms when we can focus on the ones that will be productive?? This hearkens back to the Judeo-Christian spiritual disease which has established an idiocracy in essentially all human societies. We cannot allow the weak to poison our gene pool anymore. We cannot allow the inferior stock to continue replicating!!

[Teutone]

up

[Arsen_]

I may sound somewhat cynical but it is obvious that such a huge amount of biped tailless monkeys that have flooded this small planet is just outrageous and absolutely pointless.

In the foreseeable future a drastic depopulation of this planet will happen in any case and regardless of our desires. And the only question is whether this process will be more or less streamlined and regulated in a relatively reasonable way, or whether it will take place in the form of terribly destructive world wars with an unprecedented scale of casualties and losses, or in the form of colossal natural and technological disasters, massive total epidemics of a biblical scale and so on and so forth.