How does the Alt-Right separate genes from free will? And high IQ oppressing Low IQ groups?

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

So my last thread was controversial, but managed to spawn a variety of topics I thought were interesting. The one that interests me most however, was the belief in genes in determining human destiny. And that genes are so powerful, we should be able to breed humans to alter their behavior (like breeding "dogs", we could breed humans to make them more obedient over time, I was told).

Now I said last thread, I don't actually disagree with the Racial IQ tables, but I notice something very sinister about this science. If genes really predict from birth to death how successful people can be, how does personal accountability exist? Did this thread get created because my free will prompted me to do it, or was I born with genes that told me to find this website? When a murderer kills someone, did he/she really have a choice in committing that act, especially if they were tested and found to have a low IQ? What if they killed someone but had a really high IQ? Is there still a punishment for murder if people are born unable to control their actions? There's a myriad of scenarios to play with but ultimately, accepting IQ science, especially Racial or Gender based ones, seems to support a Dystopia scenario where Human beings are treated like animals, and the only explanations for this can come from a "superior" group who believes they know what is best for people.

For example, imagine if Doctors/Scientists invented an instrument that can find your child's IQ before they're born. Would you terminate your newborn child if science determined he will be born below 100 IQ or has a 50% chance of being a rapist? Or do we let these babies continue to be born and take the chance they might commit crimes or not? What if science found you are carrying genes right now that 99% make you a terrorist? Do you voluntarily imprison or kill yourself for the good of public safety, even if you lead a complete life of non-violence?

I think this is a real concern for the alt-right in perhaps why society or even just ordinary people, refuse to adopt Race & IQ as public policy. It's easy to see how someone can abuse this science to disenfranchise or enslave entire groups, because it assumes automatic superiority exists at birth, and that none of the "lesser" races are allowed to change their fate. And history has shown how these atrocities were carried out.

Even today, many third world countries get labeled "low IQ" for why their development lags behind so much. Yet, even the "high IQ" countries have found ways to exploit this. Whether it's drawing up fake borders in Africa and pitting generations of people into endless civil war, or when Western governments overthrew foreign countries and installed dictators who held back progress. Despite the fact, Africans, or South Americans or Middle Easterners never voted to be oppressed, yet they are still called dumb or seen as hopeless when they try to fix their own nations.

all 33 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]asterias 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

To answer the first part, upbringing and life in general have an impact upon a person, and that impact might even manifest upon his DNA.

As for dystopian turn of things you described, currently western society actually oppresses high IQ groups.

I don't know what "Alt-Right" officially thinks about this, as it's mainly an American movement, so my opinion reflects just my opinion.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

To answer the first part, upbringing and life in general have an impact upon a person, and that impact might even manifest upon his DNA.

I've heard this argument before, but it's not really an Alt-right position. Especially when they believe it's 80% genetics that explains human behavior, and only 20% environmental factors. But even if I accept your answer, what are we suppose to do with people who commit crimes? Someone could grow up in a bad environment, but how many children below the age of 18 ever had a choice in where they live? That's almost always up to the parents....

As for dystopian turn of things you described, currently western society actually oppresses high IQ groups.

Can I get some hard examples of this? High IQ groups clearly dominate the most affluent aspects of society so it sounds to me they're writing laws that hate themselves? Even the most hardcore affirmative action policies doesn't demand the U.S President must be replaced by someone who can't even tie their shoes together...

Edit: An example of high IQ groups oppressing other high IQ groups are universities. It's not dumb professors who wrote rules that limited Asian American applicants. They both possess similar backgrounds and equal status. But it's more likely to be a nuisance since Asian Americans are not being forced into bankruptcy or experiencing violence from low IQ groups for going to school.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Especially when they believe it's 80% genetics that explains human behavior, and only 20% environmental factors.

No, it's 80% genetics that explains IQ. This does not equal human behavior.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

So what do you believe IQ correlates with? For example, someone who was born with a 60 IQ goes on to kill someone. What is the appropriate punishment if they have a hard time understanding laws? Or you have a really low IQ person who resorts to stealing. Would their mental capacity not put them at a disadvantage to understand right from wrong?

[–]SoylentCapitalist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So what do you believe IQ correlates with?

Income and success. I'm not gonna go over everything IQ correlates with, do your own research.

For example, someone who was born with a 60 IQ goes on to kill someone. What is the appropriate punishment if they have a hard time understanding laws?

Prison. I don't have empathy for criminals just because they're stupid.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Income and success. I'm not gonna go over everything IQ correlates with, do your own research.

So these people were condemned the day they were born then because they were never going to enjoy the same success that the Elites have.

Prison. I don't have empathy for criminals just because they're stupid.

Imagine being born with a disadvantage that denies you certain opportunities to resist crime? And then going to prison despite not having many other choices in life? You don't have empathy for a self perpetuating cycle that was out of someone's control since birth? It was mentioned before that growing up in a bad environment might push these people into crime, but what if the Elites or Higher IQ take pleasure in these scenarios? For profit prisons become a permanent institution if all you need are low IQ humans to stay in business for example.

[–]Minedwe 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

For profit prisons become a permanent institution if all you need are low IQ humans to stay in business for example.

I mean, that's the entire point of for-profit prisons and the brainwashing kikes put kids today through with rap and "BLM" and all that bullshit.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes. We should find common ground that an elite group are therefore profiting from human suffering.

[–]Minedwe 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think that's a good way to start redpilling leftists. You clue them in to the elite and their pandering, then start about what tribe those elites belong to, and their support for shit like BLM and curtailing of rights/priveleges long afforded to the people.

[–]asterias 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Someone could grow up in a bad environment, but how many children below the age of 18 ever had a choice in where they live?

One of the 25 points of NSDAP was that gifted children of poor parents should be offered the opportunity to have a proper education.

Can I get some hard examples of this? High IQ groups clearly dominate the most affluent aspects of society so it sounds to me they're writing laws that hate themselves?

In certain European countries, society looks down on scientists and favors nepotism. As a result, the educated are virtually forced to immigration and are constantly substituted by low IQ "refugees" from the third world, who are considered more valuable for the economy. And that's because society sees value only in manual labor.

An example of high IQ groups oppressing other high IQ groups are universities. It's not dumb professors who wrote rules that limited Asian American applicants.

That's an example of a high IQ group oppressed by a group that can't compete, so it creates rules to keep out any competition.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

One of the 25 points of NSDAP was that gifted children of poor parents should be offered the opportunity to have a proper education.

That's a good idea I can agree with.

In certain European countries, society looks down on scientists and favors nepotism. As a result, the educated are virtually forced to immigration and are constantly substituted by low IQ "refugees" from the third world, who are considered more valuable for the economy. And that's because society sees value only in manual labor.

Ehhhhhhhh, I really find it hard to believe High IQ Europeans are oppressed. When exactly did low IQ take over all their jobs and tell them to leave? Off the top my head: Ubisoft, Ferrari, CERN, HSBC, BMW. All these Euro companies are ran by Low IQ and created an environment where only they can thrive or make the most money? Or go to Euro bank and every smart person is going to be denied a loan?

That's an example of a high IQ group oppressed by a group that can't compete, so it creates rules to keep out any competition.

Alright then.

[–]asterias 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Ehhhhhhhh, I really find it hard to believe High IQ Europeans are oppressed. When exactly did low IQ take over all their jobs and tell them to leave? Off the top my head: Ubisoft, Ferrari, CERN, HSBC, BMW.

Europe is not a single country but several countries with vast differences. That's why I said "in certain European countries".

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Ok, then can you name me one of these countries where Low IQ people run society and the smarter people are struggling to move up in life? It should, for example, be very easy to show smart people mostly filling up prisons, or being forced out onto the streets, if life for them was somehow unbearable or less than perfect.

[–]asterias 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

In European South, thousands of people were beaten and persecuted for demonstrating against the state of corruption and nepotism, thousands of scientists immigrate or are forced to work as waiters while substituted with "refugees", every day you hear about people committing suicide or ending up homeless.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

In European South, thousands of people were beaten and persecuted for demonstrating against the state of corruption and nepotism,

Not to downplay any public beatings, but I don't think these activities are exclusive to just one group. Like, I've equally seen protests from immigrants as well whenever they feel they're not being treated right. So there's evidence of a social problem, but not High IQ people are the only targets...

thousands of scientists immigrate or are forced to work as waiters while substituted with "refugees",

Can I have the name of this company that is doing this?

every day you hear about people committing suicide or ending up homeless.

See my comment about the protestors. I bet I can look online right now and find homeless refugees or immigrants being forced to live in camps.

[–]asterias 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You are making assumptions about situations you know nothing about. So keep on "looking online for refugees".

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You are making assumptions about situations you know nothing about.

So educate me by at least providing me a source?

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Ah, it's you again, with another "if X how come Y, checkmate alt-right" type post.

Your post seems to be based on a huge strawman, namely, that we believe genetics fully determine everyones behaviour and outcomes in life. While genetics have a large influence over the type of brain and thus the set of personality traits and intelligence you're born with, environmental circumstances throughout your life also have a large influence over how this brain and its intelligence then develop themselves and how its set of personality traits expresses itself. There's no reason why both can't be true at the same time.

.

When a murderer kills someone, did he/she really have a choice in committing that act, especially if they were tested and found to have a low IQ? What if they killed someone but had a really high IQ? Is there still a punishment for murder if people are born unable to control their actions?

Regardless of whether true free will actually exists or not, the murderer should still be removed from polite society, in order to protect the innocent from becoming the murderer's next victims (at least until the murderer has been sucessfully rehabilitated into a better person, if not permanently), get punished to deliver justice to the victim's friends and relatives (and society at large), and should definitely get forcibly sterilized so he can't (further) corrupt the gene pool.

There's a myriad of scenarios to play with but ultimately, accepting IQ science, especially Racial or Gender based ones, seems to support a Dystopia scenario where Human beings are treated like animals, and the only explanations for this can come from a "superior" group who believes they know what is best for people.

Funny that you mention a dystopia where human beings are treated like animals, because if you're strongly opposed to such a society (which I am), you should actually be supporting eugenics, and racial homogeneity, rather than opposing them, since improving people so they become smarter and less prone to commit crime, and not importing foreign peoples with conflicting group interests, would actually reduce the need for an extensive, totalitarian police state to keep society safe and stable.

.

For example, imagine if Doctors/Scientists invented an instrument that can find your child's IQ before they're born. Would you terminate your newborn child if science determined he will be born below 100 IQ or has a 50% chance of being a rapist? Or do we let these babies continue to be born and take the chance they might commit crimes or not?

Killing babies is evil and disgusting as fuck regardless of the reasons and circumstances, but if if they detirmined my future child would be genetically prone to have a low IQ and/or be a rapist in the early stages of my wife's pregnancy, I'd definitely get her to terminate the pregnancy. Likewise, I think people who are genetically prone to have low-IQs and/or be rapists (but haven't acutally raped anyone) shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, but they should still be treated humanely, and get taken care of if needed. So if it was up to me, we shouldn't allow those babies to continue being born, but for those who have already been born it isn't their fault so they should be treated with dignity just like everyone else (just not allowed to reproduce).

What if science found you are carrying genes right now that 99% make you a terrorist? Do you voluntarily imprison or kill yourself for the good of public safety, even if you lead a complete life of non-violence?

That would be highly unlikely, since I'm not a terrorist, but if it indeed got detirmed I would be so genetically prone to terrorism, I would definitely refrain from reproducing so the gene pool wouldn't get corrupted with my genes, and instead encourage my close relatives to reproduce a lot.

.

I think this is a real concern for the alt-right in perhaps why society or even just ordinary people, refuse to adopt Race & IQ as public policy. It's easy to see how someone can abuse this science to disenfranchise or enslave entire groups, because it assumes automatic superiority exists at birth, and that none of the "lesser" races are allowed to change their fate. And history has shown how these atrocities were carried out.

There's no reason to believe that scientific racialism and eugenicism are uniquely prone to make a society commit large-scale atrocities, since almost none of the countries where such beliefs dominated (except for nazi Germany) carried out large-scale atrocities, and almost none of the societies which historically carried out large-scale atrocities held such beliefs. Almost any ideology is capable of making a society carry out atrocities.

Edit: In fact, the ideology opposite of genetic essentialism/determinism, pretending that everyone is born equal, genetic differences (except for those that aren't politically sensitive, like skin color) don't exist or are minimal, and differences in outcomes between groups are entirely due to environmental circumstances, is just as (if not more) capapable of making people carry out atrocities, because it makes people assume that whenever certain groups of people are doing really good (like whites and East Asians) while others are doing much worse (like blacks and Hispanics), this has to be due to due oppression and/or theft and exploitation (while in reality, it's just a meritocratic system), a narrative that can lead to atrocities from the percieved oppressed group(s) (and/or another, more intelligent group, like Jews, riling up the percieved oppressed group(s) for its own benefit) against the percieved oppressor(s), which has already demonstrated itself in the early Soviet Union (with all the Kulaks getting massacred by the bolsheviks), and in South Africa and Zimbabwe (with the white farmers getting kicked out, massacred, and the remaining ones brutalized up to this very day by the black majority), all also resulting in famine and a general worse quality of life for the average person by the way.

.

Even today, many third world countries get labeled "low IQ" for why their development lags behind so much. Yet, even the "high IQ" countries have found ways to exploit this. Whether it's drawing up fake borders in Africa and pitting generations of people into endless civil war, or when Western governments overthrew foreign countries and installed dictators who held back progress. Despite the fact, Africans, or South Americans or Middle Easterners never voted to be oppressed, yet they are still called dumb or seen as hopeless when they try to fix their own nations.

During World War 2, Germany was completely bombed into in ruins, and directly after World War 2 it got occupied by the allied forces. Yet it didn't become a shithole. Quite the contrary, within only a couple of decades, West Germany became one of the most prosperous and advanced nations in the world, and even communist East Germany became much more prosperous and advanced than most of the third world is today. What's holding most third world countries back from following in Germany's footsteps? Is it historical colonialism by da evil whitey, or might it be because its people just aren't as capable as the Germans are? Something doesn't add up here.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well said.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Ah, it's you again, with another "if X how come Y, checkmate alt-right" type post. Your post seems to be based on a huge strawman, namely, that we believe genetics fully determine everyones behaviour and outcomes in life.

I've only seen the Alt-right take a hardline approach that genes are in fact destiny. People who are moderate or skew towards the left believe in both genetics and environments, but that IQ itself is malleable. And historical evidence absolutely does point to such cases. Flynn effect shows we are in fact smarter than our ancestors, even if the same ancestors were capable of building giants castles we don't quite see anymore. Asian countries like China & Japan were still significantly lagging behind Europe in development but come the 21st century, Japan has in many ways surpassed the West and China is basically second world where it rivals the west in being both better and worst in some ways. Yet the Japanese or Chinese didn't magically inherit White peoples genes all these years. You could argue their diets could have changed or something but do a DNA test and show me if their results skew towards being nothing like their ancestors, or still containing the same traces of it?

Regardless of whether true free will actually exists or not, the murderer should still be removed from polite society, in order to protect the innocent from becoming the murderer's next victims (at least until the murderer has been sucessfully rehabilitated into a better person, if not permanently), get punished to deliver justice to the victim's friends and relatives (and society at large), and should definitely get forcibly sterilized so he can't (further) corrupt the gene pool.

So assuming these people don't understand the harm of their actions, you believe in a smarter group of society dealing appropriate punishment? Why stop at the subject murder and not say, apply this to everything?

Funny that you mention a dystopia where human beings are treated like animals, because if you're strongly opposed to such a society (which I am), you should actually be supporting eugenics, and racial homogeneity, rather than opposing them, since improving people so they become smarter and less prone to commit crime, and not importing foreign peoples with conflicting group interests, would actually reduce the need for an extensive, totalitarian police state to keep society safe and stable.

If you and I supported eugenics, it also means we're taking the chances with being born. Regardless if you are healthy, some doctor or political organization could have looked at your mother's womb, say "naw, abort the kid" and you would have never known life. Even though I understand the arguments that eugenics could be used to eliminate certain diseases, what if being liberal is considered a defect? Or Alt-right? It's labels like these that are perfect for an Elite group to reshape society as they see fit.

Killing babies is evil and disgusting as fuck regardless of the reasons and circumstances, but if if they detirmined my future child would be genetically prone to have a low IQ and/or be a rapist in the early stages of my wife's pregnancy, I'd definitely get her to terminate the pregnancy. Likewise, I think people who are genetically prone to have low-IQs and/or be rapists (but haven't acutally raped anyone) shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, but they should still be treated humanely, and get taken care of if needed. So if it was up to me, we shouldn't allow those babies to keep being born, but for those who have already been born it isn't their fault so they should be treated with dignity just like everyone else.

Interesting opinion. Once again, I'm open to respecting other people's viewpoints.

That would be highly unlikely, since I'm not a terrorist, but if it indeed got detirmed I would be so genetically prone to terrorism, I would definitely refrain from reproducing so the gene pool wouldn't get corrupted with my genes, and instead encourage my close relatives to reproduce a lot.

Now here's something I want you to think about. What if the same genes for terrorism are tied to genes for empathy? Or the genes that could make someone rapist are also connected to being a great singer? Human DNA is extraordinarily complex, that maybe now you can understand my fear of reducing people or groups to single labels? Especially if we learned all this time Humans have the ability to resist their own nature despite it being hardwired in us?

There's no reason to believe that scientific racialism and eugenicism are uniquely prone to make a society commit large-scale atrocities, since almost none of the countries where such beliefs dominated (except for nazi Germany) carried out large-scale atrocities, and almost none of the societies which historically carried out large-scale atrocities held such beliefs. Almost any ideology is capable of making carry out atrocities.

Not true. South Africa pushed many atrocities under Apartheid. WW2 Japan enslaved or slaughtered many other Asians in the name of superiority. In the USA, the defense of the slave trade stemmed from pseudo-scientific ideas that Africans were born to serve White people (there's a famous scene from the movie Django Unchained, where a slave owner brags about his African slaves having different shaped skulls as to why they wont fight back). Correlation does not imply causation however, so you're right that the study of race doesn't have to be villainous. But at the same time, it did lead to huge amounts of suffering that could have deliberately been avoided. Like Nazi Germany for example, Hitler didn't have to create death squads whose only purpose was exterminating Jews,Russians,Gypsies etc and resettling conquered areas with only German people. Or Japanese scientists would also capture Chinese civilians and cut them apart to study their bodies. Race Science took inhumanity to a whole new level.

In World War 2, Germany was completely bombed into in ruins, and directly after World War 2 it got occupied by the allied forces. Yet it didn't become a shithole. Quite the contrary, within only a couple of decades, West Germany became one of the most prosperous and advanced nations in the world

The allies were not going to let West Germany fall behind. The Marshall Plan was specifically created to get many European countries back on their feet and counter the new Communist threat. Meanwhile, you left out East Germany which was in fact a shithole and ruled by a dictator.

What's holding most third world countries back from following in Germany's footsteps?

France demands many former African colonies still pay a special tax to them. Or how about the many foreign sponsored wars in the Middle East? It's hard to rebuild your country when predator drones are flying outside your house and they just blew up the only hospital in the province. So yes, it's fair to say foreign intervention is holding many places back.

[–]asterias 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Yet the Japanese or Chinese didn't magically inherit White peoples genes all these years.

Japanese and Chinese had an advanced civilization and the Chinese go back thousands of years. Just because they were late into the industrial age (because they had chosen isolation from the rest of the barbaric world) doesn't mean they were inferior.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

If you can accept Civilizations can be late to the party, why bother with inferior and superior labels? I don't deny the third world are clearly underdeveloped. But there's no evidence that says it will always be that way forever. Especially as more foreign investments are pouring into these downtrodden nations, there is a renewed incentive to get people out of poverty and into the workforce.

And it strikes me as a little bit suspicious that an "advanced" nation would isolate itself, when the negative effects rear itself immediately. A modern example of this is North Korea. They've closed themselves from the rest of the world and as a result, their society still resembles the 1960s instead of looking like their more advanced neighbor, South Korea. It would not be wrong to assume there are parts of Brazil or South Africa that have more advanced infrastructure than North Korea does.

[–]asterias 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The Chinese didn't need anyone to pour funds into their country; they did it with their work and intelligence, and this after Mao left nothing but ruins. The Japanese saw their country completely devastated by nuclear bombs.

In the meantime, South Africa regresses back to third world and the thought of Africans creating a new civilization doesn't sound too plausible to me.

The concept of isolationism didn't come out of nowhere. These nations had good cause to prefer it, but obviously American and British intervention denied them this right.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The Chinese didn't need anyone to pour funds into their country; they did it with their work and intelligence, and this after Mao left nothing but ruins.

Sorry, but I have to call you out on this. China from 1900 ~ 2000 was suppose to be all brains? No. They absolutely got help from Germany, where even Hitler at one point wanted to make China their ally but funnily enough, even with Germany's help, they were getting destroyed by their neighbor Japan which ultimately lead to Germany switching partners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-German_cooperation_(1926%E2%80%931941)

Mao Zedong, THE COMMUNIST, didn't just operate alone. He had big time help from the Soviet Union who provided him millions in loans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_Treaty_of_Friendship,_Alliance_and_Mutual_Assistance

The Japanese saw their country completely devastated by nuclear bombs.

Yeah they did, but you deliberately ignored America was not interested in letting Japan rot after the war. Just like West Germany, it was part of the post WW2 agenda to have another ally against the Soviets. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/japan-reconstruction

In the meantime, South Africa regresses back to third world and the thought of Africans creating a new civilization doesn't sound too plausible to me.

Modern South Africa still has a higher GDP per capita vs the end of Apartheid. They're actually more rich, despite their government being corrupt. But it's just one African country, which is really bizarre to judge an entire continent. Like I said in the last thread, imagine using Ukraine to describe all of Europe? It's just not scientific... The past decade has actually shown African countries are beginning to undertake some more ambitious projects. Ethiopia has already met their goal of constructing a new hydroelectric dam. Rwanda has also seriously stepped up its urbanization efforts (which is important, since city's play an important role in driving economic growth). https://www.designindaba.com/articles/point-view/planning-impossible

The concept of isolationism didn't come out of nowhere. These nations had good cause to prefer it,

And they paid the ultimate price for it when European powers marched inside their borders and basically stole territory from them. China wouldn't regain control of Hong Kong until what? 1997? And that was after they were forced to sign a humiliating contract that let the British own it for 99 years. These countries are always free to go back to being isolationist again. But they can enjoy sitting next to North Korea and completely stagnating.

These nations had good cause to prefer it, but obviously American and British intervention denied them this right.

This sounds like a defense of the current third world situation. The British and USA are still screwing with them to this day with foreign intervention. It's more important these countries catch up economically so they can reassert their sovereignty.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

By the way, about the Japan question, there's a huge misconception about how they were punished by the end of the war. The atomic bomb attacks were detonated in the air so there was less radiation on the ground (important for soldiers to come by and inspect the damage). The city of Kyoto was left completely untouched despite Japan hosting most of their war factories there. The Emperor was never convicted and many Japanese scientists who worked on the horrific United 731 projects were given immunity. That's not to say the country still wasn't left in ashes after the war, but Japan's fate was very generous when you remember the USA never launched an all out land invasion, like what happened to Germany.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My understanding is that the bomb was released in the air to maximize destruction. How would releasing a nuclear weapon above the ground reduce radiation?

This all might be moot. Nuclear weapons IMO are a big LARP. I doubt they are as destructive as the US military says they are if they even exist. I don't deny that nuclear weapons are real but I am a skeptic. The US government lies about everything and I wouldn't put it past them to lie about nuclear weapons.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How would releasing a nuclear weapon above the ground reduce radiation?

Unfortunately, the only source I could find doesn't go into explanation of why it does this. It only says the U.S Army used an airburst because they planned to occupy the city [with ground troops] soon after.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=0ytxDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT237&lpg=PT237&dq=to+achieve+maximum+blast+effects,+and+to+minimize+residual+radiation+on+the+ground+as+it+was+hoped+U.S.+troops+would+soon+occupy+the+city&source=bl&ots=1EomaP0a4v&sig=ACfU3U2h0OWPOESCSJDv4A4va0AlZQXoFw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwio68_OzenuAhUFHs0KHaiKDOgQ6AEwAHoECAcQAg#v=onepage&q=to%20achieve%20maximum%20blast%20effects%2C%20and%20to%20minimize%20residual%20radiation%20on%20the%20ground%20as%20it%20was%20hoped%20U.S.%20troops%20would%20soon%20occupy%20the%20city&f=false

[–][deleted]  (10 children)

[deleted]

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

    Even though your genes even influence how your brain / body reacts to other influences, I would not claim everything is just genetics. Take Wernher von Braun as an example. If he was born and raised in some African village, then he would not have become this famous engineer -

    When I read this statement, I get a really strong Western bias from it. And I don't fault you for this. I grew up with similar views. But your comments about African villages reveals a certain ignorance. When these people are forced to fight for their survival everyday, how exactly do we measure their intelligence? The pressure to find food or clean drinking water is more important than trying to build a Spaceship in your backyard. And on top of that, the media in general doesn't highlight the success stories that take place in these warzones. A great example of this is the Malawian boy William Kamkwamba. He grew up surrounded by poverty, yet he was somehow able to build a windmill for his village. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kamkwamba Racial studies should predict that could never happen yet even in extreme conditions, a poor African managed to overcome his genes, or environment, or both.

    A criminal is guilty for what he does and thus should get punished for it. Dangerous criminals should not reproduce, but a baby should not be forcefully aborted, just because some test claims, that the baby has a high chance of becoming a criminal. By the time we get to the point where we have an accurate method to tell which genes make you a criminal, we will probably also have the technology to change these genes and thus make the baby a law-abiding human being. Should this change become mandatory in this scenario? Assuming, that gene editing is happening in our country and that there are no important side effects of those genes, then yes, there should be a mandatory system, which alters your genes in this regard.

    Fair point about removing the genes that make you criminal. However, would you agree or disagree that nature might have gave us these traits for a certain reason. For example, we remove the genes that stop murder. Ok, now no one kills. But the President or Head of the Military decides to keep his and orders a genocide. No one could stop them. Or what about killing in self defense? You could go to jail because other people thought what you did was unjustified. So see what I mean about trying to have pity for criminals? If we are to believe certain actions are outside of our control or are subjective, why let an Elite group decide what is moral for society and what is not? Maybe it doesn't have to be murder, people start going to jail for their political views. Would you support a eugenic future where everyone can only be born liberal, or conservative and the punishment for changing these genes is prison?

    [–][deleted]  (8 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

      Sure, you have more pressing challenges under these conditions. Some centuries ago, Europe experienced similar conditions, but still had more breakthrough inventions. Hence, I agree with you to some degree, but believe you are somewhat oversimplifying the situation.

      Without having IQ Test information from thousands of years ago, I think it's entering dangerous territory to compare intelligence levels of people from the past with that of the present. In fact, it creates many contradictions. For example, lets pretend that ok, Europeans were always geniuses and they had a IQ of 100 or more. Why would IQ levels ever improve at all, especially when education, sanitation, public nutrition have all gotten dramatically better over the years? Even notorious IQ scientists like Richard Lynn admitted as much when he compared test scores of East Germans in 1992 and in 1998, and found differences as big as 50% when Germans were freed from Communism. https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/roivainen.pdf And I don't like using Lynn as a reference, because he is an extremely dishonest researcher (i.e, he was once caught using the scores of disabled Spanish children and writing them in for African countries). But back on topic, East Germans can't be dumber than their own ancestors given the type of development that still existed (cars, jets, assault rifles. They didn't regress into Cavemen...)

      Obviously, our media talks more about the situation here and thus, we often do not hear about African inventors. I am not sure, why you think, this should be impossible for Africans. An average does not mean, that everyone has the same skills.

      When the media prefers to show the worst parts of the third world , it creates a self perpetuating image that they have no hope or that they can't look after themselves. You don't see the media trying to cover Japan by showing only their worst slums for example. In regards to averages, the same IQ studies literally say that entire African countries fall far below mental retardation. Even that one example of the child living in poverty but building a windmill should raise eyebrows. How do we know what life is really like when I explained the media already has a huge bias against documenting these success stories? There could very well be many more African inventors out there, but the current obstacles of war and media bias make it hard to observe from afar.

      Yes, I fully agree with this. That's why I said "assuming [...] there are no important side effects of those genes". Sure, 100% certainty will probably never exist, but there might be a point at which we are certain enough to accept the situation.

      Fair enough.

      This is a serious threat, but not the system I advocate for. I advocate for becoming the President myself or at least have someone leading the country, who broadly shares my views. Sure, some evil guy might take control of the government and commit such horrible crimes, but this situation exists in every society. Even in the most liberal state, some bad guy might take power, change the laws and start committing genocide. I invite you to help us creating a system, that tries to prevent the takeover by horrible people.

      Fair enough.

      Every society needs some rules. Someone has to make the decision. Even if some actions are subjective or even outside our control (what I do not think). even then you need some rules. Some biological determinist might believe some people will kill others anyways. Even if this were right (and I highly doubt this), even then I do not see any good reason, why we should not imprison the killer. Sure, in this scenario it is not his fault, but he still is a danger to the rest of society.

      Punishing people that murder is fair. Evaluating the system that hands out these sentences is worth looking into. For example, if an Elite group decides life in prison is a fair sentencing, but science says that is not necessary to maintain a safe society, who do we trust? And even when shown the evidence and the Elite group reject calls to change the justice system, what then? You can start to understand my process of why healthy skepticism is always important, even in situations where another group believes all their actions are meant to keep society safe.

      Interesting question. China was once the world's leading nation, but stagnated for centuries due to too much homogeneity, especially with regards to speech. So no, I do not believe that anyone should get imprisoned for being a liberal, a conservative or whatever. His genes should not be changed. The only exception would be, if someone advocated for ending our own people. Then he might need a gene alteration, because this sounds like a serious mental illness. Ending here does not mean genocide in the sense of killing (this would be advocating for violence and thus a crime anyways), but more like saying everyone has to mix with foreigners, so that our genes are bred away.

      This may be a hard pill to swallow, but what if the majority of humans will always carry the genes for race mixing or diversity? Genetic purity was never really a thing for the millions of years human ancestry stretches back. Of course, there's nothing stopping the Alt-right from still trying to remove it, but think back to what I said about nature giving these traits a purpose. Race mixing could have lead to something advantageous, such as inheriting the minds of Neanderthals that is now found in Human DNA. There is also a such thing as hybrid vigor, which is meant to counter the effects of interbreeding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis

      Of course, I understand the opposite arguments exists as well. Race mixing could present dangers to lowing IQ or making bone marrow transplants more difficult. Ultimately, you are taking a 50:50 chance with these removing genes.

      [–][deleted]  (6 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

        I might have phrased this poorly. I would not alter the genes of someone engaging in race mixing. I was talking about racial self-hatred to such a high amount, that one wants to forcefully mix everyone else. This guy would be the problem, but not random guy dating an Asian girl or whomever.

        That's a fair point. I think the connection to racial self-hatred may actually be tied to self esteem issues. After all, people find many reasons to hate themselves and desire making changes about it. They may hate their hair, hate their nose, hate their body weight etc. Maybe the solution isn't even genes at all, but promoting an environment where people are not ashamed of themselves? It reminds me of those studies on women identity. Women aren't born to think less of themselves, but when they're exposed to media that pushes for a certain [unrealistic] standard, there's a high correlation of teenage girls trying to lose weight or vomit themselves into staying thin. Could probably make a similar argument for race. It's not genes that causes someone to hate other people, but behavior that was learned?

        [–][deleted]  (4 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

          I disagree here. Take fat people as an example. Should we encourage them to keep eating unhealthy? No, quite the contrary. We should encourage them to live more healthy.

          The truth is somewhere in-between. We shouldn't encourage people to junk themselves on food, but studies have also shown anti-fat campaigns have actually made obese people more likely to stay obese. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6565398/

          Yes, it is most probably learned behavior. So how would I solve these self esteem issues? Well, I am open to all kinds of ideas. Should we nudge people into behaving better? Should we shame them for bad behavior? Might some sort of "positive" social credit system be the answer? I do not know, but I definitely want to help my fellow people to live more healthy and solve their issues.

          I'll admit I haven't actually researched this topic in complete detail so don't treat this advice as being factual. But my solution for self esteem stems from improving the family structure. I look at Asian societies and I'm always impressed by the fact they are incredibly tight knit. They're not divorcing in huge numbers, their children always have access to some form of education or private tutor, it's very common to see children live with both their parents and grandparents. It's honestly the perfect model that ensures some kind of community happiness. And I just want to point out I don't think this family structure is linked to IQ. Everywhere on the entire Asian continent, you will see this type of community success. Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, India, Philippines, Thailand, Japan, China, South Korea, Pakistan. At the family level, all ethnic groups from this continent seem to understand the importance of looking after their own family and trying to ensure they're all happy.

          There is a major criticism to make about Western culture. The family unit has indeed been destabilized. Hyper individuality and perhaps feminism has lead to a bit of social rot when people treat having family as a commodity, instead of as a serious requirement for civilization. Regaining that nucleus I think is key to ending self hatred. Because brother and sister, or mother and father, they wont have knives pointed at each others back, waiting to betray them at any moment.

          Again, this is just my opinion that I haven't quite fact checked to see if everything has a scientific basis or not.

          [–][deleted]  (2 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

            I once again fully agree. The big question is, how do we restore the family? Do you know a bit more about these Asian countries? Sure, some of them are quite religious, but do you know some details?

            That's something I have to read up on. Sorry, I wish I had the immediate answer to this question. At best, I've come across the occasional news article going into detail about "multigenerational homes" and how Indians have had massive success with this tactic. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-54053091

            Which is not surprising, because it has lead to them having the highest income of any group in America.

            https://gulfnews.com/world/americas/indians-in-america-make-100000-on-average-highest-earning-ethnic-group-1.1569215954674

            [–][deleted]  (1 child)

            [deleted]

              [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              The problem here is that you're still trying to put things under "radical centrism" instead of fully accepting the truth of far right philosophy.

              I know this will sound like a "lame" answer, but the strength of centrism is that it keeps people skeptical. Reactionary politics from every spectrum absolutely make valid points. But then comes the danger when they turn into echo chambers. Everyone thinking the same or behaving the same sounds great at first, but come the moment the leader decides to invade a neutral country, or the ruling class take everyone's food away, and we end up in nightmare scenarios that are almost impossible to break free of unless people regain their sense of skepticism again.

              Personal accountability comes in when people do not use the room they've been given by their genes to reach their full potential or actively sabotage the system that brings order in the first place. I believe that, because of predeterminism, we should have a better understanding of those who are less gifted than us, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't act to control their negative behaviors.

              By design, these people live in a system that undermines their ability to do better. Great example of this? The stock market last month. Before the internet, the Elites were inflating stock prices and then cashing out when it crashed. But when Billy from the trailerpark tried to get in on the fun and buy Gamestop, it was immediately shut down by those richer than him. Now, Billy could still go to school and get a career that maximizes his success, but there are people who never even step foot outside of their house, who were already born extremely rich and can control markets that ensures poverty is a permanent thing. Again, how is this fair for the low IQ classes that pushes them to crime to even compete?

              Firstly, humans are animals. Secondly, "dystopia" is an accusation levied to any radical system that isn't afraid to use power. I'd support systems found in 1984 or Brave New World, because if you don't take the reigns of power, a more dominant group will. The real question you should be asking is why shouldn't people who have proven themselves as superior impose their will onto others? Because we'd see fewer lower quality people with less influence?

              Humans being animals is both true and false. We're biological, but we have a heightened sense of imagination no other species on the planet understands. It's this imagination why we can even debate this subject right now whereas for 99% of animals, they don't even have a philosophy. It's just eat, sleep and have sex for the next billion years.

              The real question you should be asking is why shouldn't people who have proven themselves as superior impose their will onto others? Because we'd see fewer lower quality people with less influence?

              If the alt-right fears what Jews do with this power, then I fear any group proclaiming superiority over me and trying to determine what is best for our species. In fact, the higher up you go in hierarchy, humans become far more dickish, and less empathetic. Joe Biden could level an entire village with bombs, yet will a President ever go to trial for it or pay damages? Nope. They're far too high up the ladder to be charged with crimes they thought was "justified", but an ordinary citizen who shoots up a mall is much more likely to be rounded up and imprisoned despite having interesting ideas for humanity. Ted Kaczynski comes to mind.

              Yes. r/Christianity is that away. <--- We're an explicitly eugenic movement, and it would be a crime to force mothers to bear the burden of incompetent progeny for the rest of their lives. You can see European countries completely exterminating Downs Syndrome kids - and every disability places them somewhere on the scale of desirability.

              Heh, I'm actually not Christian, or religious for that matter. But I still remain skeptical or exercise extreme caution at what gets labeled a disability, and the answer involves purging it from the bloodlines. Again, what if in the future political beliefs become punishable? Have a liberal baby? The government has determined all Leftism is a disease. But what if the opposite was also true? The baby has genes for Conservatism or Alt-right? He/she gets aborted...

              The State should eliminate such a person. But it isn't up to the individual to cuck himself for the good of others. We consider conflict to be natural and inevitable.

              Understood. But imagine everyone carried those terrorist genes, or the combination was tied to another human trait that's not even dangerous. Where exactly do we draw the line knowing humans may not act on violent impulses, but the government decides even premediated thoughts must be removed?

              All of human history has been a war between the superior and the inferior. You seem to lack a cohesive argument for the protection of these groups other than it would be very, very, very mean. However, these lesser races are allowed to change their fate - but it won't be at the voting booth, but the battlefield. If you want a nation to sacrifice power, you'll need to do it by force.

              That's a little too extreme for me. And not because I'm trying to make an emotional argument, but because humanity over time has found more peaceful resolutions to what could have been violent outcomes. Invading a foreign country to remove a dictator is one example. One could apply pressure by using sanctions instead, or crippling them economically. Violence is only appropriate, when it becomes a war of self defense.

              You have no evidence to suggest these people would have amazing nations if it weren't for the intervention of Western nations. In fact, colonization is correlated with higher wealth. Just look at Ethiopia. Better success than other African nations during ancient times, but because they weren't colonized, they became notorious as a starving nation. And while I'm against much of our interventions, I do not regret superior people having advantage over the inferior. Letting go of their reigns will just hand them over to the Chinamen.

              There's a difference between brutal colonization, and being in peaceful contact with another nations and maintaining trade. It's a fact for example, the devastating genocide in Rwanda could have been avoided if Europeans didn't give preference to one African Ethnic group, while subjugating the other. Or look at Israel & Palestine. Palestinians use to control 80% of the territory, but now most of them live in tiny enclaves surrounded by a foreign army that monitors their every movement. They may not be building futuristic space rockets, but they also wouldn't be getting shot trying to attend school or look after their farms.

              You're biggest problem is not understanding the nature and importance of power. Morality only comes in relation to a person's use to the State and in its ability to maintain it. Enemies are only afforded little since they are against the State. If you do not acknowledge power politics, you will lose it until you cannot maintain anything at all. Power is something to be strived for, right next to stability, with mercy carefully delivered on our own terms.

              Power exists and it's best if we understood this concept through more serious debates and dialogue. But handing power to one group, especially one that feels the need to defend others from gaining access to it with with expensive military weapons, spells disaster for the average man. Because people with too much power can become greedy and do things that bring more suffering than is needed.