Donnadogsoth

Now now, Gauss' contributions to mathematics are not outdated, even if they have been added to. So with Vernadsky and the concept of the three phase spaces of abiotic, biotic, and noëtic. Science has foundations, it isn't so revolutionary that today is totally different from and superior to yesterday. If that were so, why fight the Communists' Year Zero thinking--they're just a revolutionary way of thinking that totally supersedes the old, defunct Western way. I agree with your implications that we should maintain our national genetic integrity, and that genetics has a lot to do with IQ, but there is a commonality in the world, that of discoveries of principle that, however concentrated as original discoveries in the Western nations, are, as you concede, transmissible, and those transmissions are valuable for those people and for world security as a whole. The more we can make the Third World function--to play violin--the less people pressure it will put on us.

There is the possibility of increasing functionality culturally. Does anyone believe the British upper classes have genetic "better breeding" than the lower? "Whereas, the range of possible behavioral adaptations among the inferior living species, is bounded by the so-called "genetic" characteristics of specific breeds, mankind is distinguished as the only species which can invent and introduce the genetic-like cultural characteristics which distinguish one culture and its current stage of development from others. These distinctions remind us of the process of generation of the ostensibly abiotic periodic table, in the work of Mendeleyev, or the evolutionary emergence of classes and species of living types within the Biosphere. These willful changes in the relatively specific kinds of voluntary behavioral characteristics of persons or entire cultures, should be compared to the choice of a new, distinct set of "definitions, axioms, and postulates" of a synthetic physical geometry, such as that of Bernhard Riemann." --Lyndon LaRouche (boldface emphasis mine) The Spirit of Russia's Science

Love the Eyes of Ibab. Well done.

1.So, the IF is "one ought to pursue truth" and the THEN is that one will increase one's honour. No? 2.Does God have a monopoly on any universal principle? He created the principles, after his will.

Wuzzums got it: like almost everyone else, the Alt-Right lacks principle, in particular the principle of human creativity, of humans being individually made in the image of God. Without this principle and others like it, we are, in principle, merely vicious, squabbling, and warring animals, with nothing but our base passions to guide us, whether hate, fear, sadism, or that quiet desperation so prevalent among White people that welcomes death. The Alt-Right has an axiom, the 14 Words of White conservation. But this is not a principle, because it is not universal. The Alt-Right sees something valuable--the White race--being threatened with destruction and dissolution, and that invokes a mixture of fear, rage, and delight-in-possession (i.e., possession of elements of Whiteness, such as prototypically a White wife and children). But these are animal emotions, they lack the complexity and nuance that principled thought expects and induces. Blacks are human, that's the revelation. They may be "Blacks" in technical talk, but, they are, more strictly speaking, Black people, and recognising that is a problem for the Alt-Right, which views such recognition as weakening their mission. Alt-Right members may admit to a single human species on the side, but officially they don't have the confidence in their mission that a dedication to principle would give them. As one film character put it, "This is a Romantic movement, it always has been." That is the heart of its anti-Christianity which denies man is imago viva Dei, or made in the image of God. The question is, can the Alt-Right and its periphery, which harbours many goodhearted and useful people, survive the shift from one "operating system" ("steel-like romanticism") to another ("imago viva Dei") without being gutted of its purpose, its manpower, and its insights into the nature of human society, White society, and the ongoing "soft" genocidal push to wipe out the West.

"It's all connected!"

1.Then you're saying honour is your benefit. If justice brought you no honour why would you pursue justice? In case this is unclear, I am not being flip or facile here, I am pointing out that all human activity is done for some sort of reward. Even don Quixote himself, who performed the most dangerous and beneficial deeds for his fellow men and women, did so for the sake of a reward of the heart, the satisfaction of virtue. Without his heart, don Quixote is inconceivable--to have no reward whatsoever for one's efforts? Not possible, even for the insane. 2.God created man who partakes of universally preferable states of being, which are in accord with God's nature. Without God, there is no ultimate justice, no created world, and no standards. How did he decide to create the world he did? He created it according to his own nature, which human observers call "just".

1.“You ought to pursue the truth”--why? IF one wants to benefit, whether directly or indirectly through a benefit to others whom one loves or should love, THEN one ought to pursue the truth. There is always a benefit question. If morality has no benefit, even that of one gaining the satisfaction of having done the right thing by benefitting others, then saying one “ought” to be moral is empty. It would be akin to worshipping an evil God who will give his worshippers nothing good in return for their worship. 2.Vain fetishisation of the word “justice”. What is just is merely God's will, which coincides with our best interest, giving each what he deserves. If justice doesn't coincide with our best interest, it's hardly justice, is it? Ergo, God's will is just, which is giving to each what he deserves.

I say you should give the gay-greek-jewish-blackophile shitposter a chance.

1.“Ought” is always part of an IF/THEN couple. IF an Atheist wants to keep his options option in taking advantage of all that life offers THEN he should discard any obligation to be just. 2.God's justice is that which is the best possible justice. Without God we return to 1 or 2. With God we have the embodiment of justice, the universality of which is seen in the Crucifixion.

But, as Wuzzums said above, Stefan does say that a moral code to be a worth a damn cannot possibly condone murder and rape and it just so happens that UPB doesn't. The "worth a damn" part is an appeal to emotion. Aside from sheer force of habit, no one does good like a computer, just calculating out what is good or bad and then acting on it according to pure force of mechanical inertia. People do things for emotional reasons, and in sociopaths the emotional reasons are vestigial or entirely lacking. The only thing that can bring them to heel is to make an argument to one that living his life honourably, justly, truthfully, and charitably is more fun at the time, or will be more fun in the future.

1. Subjective, objective, hyperjective, it makes no difference. Most of the injustices for most people across of most of history will not be remedied, beyond which everyone dies in the end. Ergo, there is no ultimate justice in Atheism. 3. God himself is the standard. What God possesses, he is. So God has goodness and is goodness. Whatever he decides must therefore be good. To be clear: we get our best standard of justice from God's justice, and it is just because that is the nature of God; without God there is no hyperjective standard, just varying levels of impotent objective and subjective standards.

I've wondered recently why we should worry about culture and upbringing if people have free will. If people have free will and everything bad they do is entirely their fault, then why worry about giving them a good upbringing? They have agency, their actions are their fault. But of course this means free will is racist.

In the long term, MGTOW are like Democrats in that they have a low fertility rate and so require periodic infusions of fresh bodies to avoid disappearing. Or are there lots of MGTOW dads I haven't heard of?

I ask them to take a poem and hold it up to the light like a color slide or press an ear against its hive. I say drop a mouse into a poem and watch him probe his way out, or walk inside the poem’s room and feel the walls for a light switch. I want them to waterski across the surface of a poem waving at the author’s name on the shore. But all they want to do is tie the poem to a chair with rope and torture a confession out of it. They begin beating it with a hose to find out what it really means. --Billy Collins, "Introduction to Poetry"

Already, as Stefan has pointed out in his videos, Western society has evolved into a "free range" set-up for tax-farmers. The farmers didn't plan this to happen, and were probably content having their previous set-ups. History intervened and made the free range societies the most profitable way of skimming off taxes from populations. But taxation is only one way of obtaining money, and may not ultimately be the most efficient way. Look at Facebook for example, it is earning billions through its tax-less arrangement providing social services while selling its users' data to advertisers. It creates a virtual private property where users are subject to its rules but are free to leave at any time. In a capitalist anarchy, would it look any different than it does now? I call this Z-range society. Suppose that society is evolving towards the recognition that pure capitalism, anarchic capitalism, earns the most money for the elites. In other words, the ending of the State and the oligarchy as such, as rulers, will prove the most profitable for previously-Statist, ex-oligarchs. These people will simply become the heads of lucrative companies and enjoy their wealth without any need to interfere in the business dealings or private lives of others. Why not?

I believe Western man, especially men, has been bewitched. He is not naturally exceptionally stupid, insane, evil, or ignorant, he is the product of the finest cultural tradition in history, but his bewitchment has made him these things, like a handsome prince become a warty troll. As I wrote elsewhere: ...[T]he power of powerful men, through religion-state-women, deploys spellcraft against the ordinary man. Relevantly to today, we see the administration of a potion of universal solvent, called the Alcahest, to men. This potion is made very sweet to taste by the modern consumer economy and the sexual revolution, but within it is a brew of identity politics guilt, anti-principles thought-scrambling, and social, economic, and political shocks. It is refined and distributed by our mass media and our schools, which are basically covens at this point. Concocted and poured, this alchahest controls the minds of its partakers, bewitching them into voting for politicians who work to dissolve borders to capital and people, thereby dissolving the white race, the Western languages, Western culture high and low, and, in true baby-with-the-bathwater style, the hated Christianity itself. Thus power is transferred from ordinary men to the age-old, parasitic oligarchy that is benefitting and generally overseeing the dastardly operation. The traitors and usurpers have concentrated all their magical firepower against ordinary men in order to entrap them in a spiritual Alcatraz and so prevent them from acting to save their race, language, culture, religion, and territorial integrity. If that happens, we face a technocratic New Dark Age of which the present premonitions will seem gaily benign.

You say, “There is nothing wrong with the desire to preserve that which one considers unique, different, special, or good,” yet you also say, “There is, nevertheless, something particularly pernicious and wicked in promote [sic] one's preferences at the expense or exploitation of others. This is true regardless of one's race or racial preference(s)." What does “expense and exploitation” mean? It means, in the minds of academia, its students, increasingly-challenged mainstream media, political and pecuniary elites both cynical and idealistic, and plenty of left-progressive or just suicidally polite people, that the “desire to preserve” is illegitimate. If “desire to preserve” is illegitimate, it means that Whites, who naturally and unsurprisingly enjoy their own cultural hegemony in their own countries--which they built--just as other races enjoy hegemony in their own countries, have no right to such majoritarian hegemony, to enjoyment of their own kind preferentially to other races, or to advocate for their interests as a group at all. Having a White news anchor is “White Privilege”. Watching White movies is “White Privilege.” Living in a Caucasian neighbourhood and giving one's sons and daughters the chance to attend an all-White school and mix with and quite probably marry other White boys and girls is “White Privilege”. Your ideology leaves no room for any effective and meaningful resistance to the White phenotype being marginalised, submerged, and destroyed, and its associate culture with it. All that's left is our impotent and guilty “desire to preserve” which will be rooted out soon enough when prejudice-detector machines are perfected. Every step we might take to express preference would be decried by you and your thought-masters as coming at the expense and exploitation of Coloureds. The horrible thing about all this is that we did it to ourselves with our own genius for principle. We created a society based on the principle of man as imago viva Dei that says all men are created equal, without equally enshrining the principle that Nation-States exist to preserve the interests of certain Nations at once racial, cultural, religious, and linguistic, that every Nation merits respect but also a homeland and that migration between these homelands is controlled in a sovereign fashion by said Nations. Lacking that ingrained principle, we were vulnerable to parasitical ideologies like cultural Marxism and its elite backers who would use the “equality” principle to wipe out the White race step by step, as part of their goal to eliminate the Nation-State entirely and replace it with a globalist empire. That's what it is in the end: you are serving globalism. PS. 1. Imagine this playing out in a capitalist anarchy. If individuals refuse to allow immigrants on or through their land, on grounds of race, on grounds of Nation, are they not being "pernicious"? Who should punish them for their perniciousness? 2. If races are really just “races” as you put it, then genocide doesn't matter does it? There's only murder. And if we can wipe out an entire group of people who share a strong phenotypal resemblance, one saddled with the label of being “privileged” and “racist” and even a “cancer” without murdering anyone, then we've committed no crime, and that's very clever of us, isn't it?

The White race is predominantly viewed in academia as a mere illegitimate and pernicious social construct, and the fact that said race currently exists at a suicidal fertility rate is applauded when it is not ignored or denied by both faculty and the students they have trained. Europe: The Substitution of a Population America's dying whites: Caucasian death rate now outstrips the birth rate in a third of states. Will Whites Commit Race Suicide? From Wikipedia (anything under 2.1 is suicidal): The average total fertility rate in the European Union (EU-28) is calculated at 1.58 children per woman in 2014.[21] This ranges from 1.2 in Portugal to 2.1 in France.[22] In the non-EU European post-Soviet states group to 2015, Russia has a TFR of 1.78 children per woman,[23] Belarus 1.70 and Ukraine 1.50.[24] Emigration of young adults from Eastern Europe to the West aggravates the demographic problems of those countries. People from countries such as Moldova, Romania, Hungary, and Czech Republic are particularly moving abroad.[25] and the academic or academia-friendly commentary, which is currently effectively hegemonic in Universities: Walter Mosley: To End Race, We Have To Recognize 'White' Doesn't Exist Abolish the White Race – By Any Means Necessary This is not a scientific issue. Race is an artistic issue, a one of preferences. Just as people prefer the faces of their own biological kin—and adopted children often go to considerable or even great lengths and after many decades to find their biological parents and kin—so is racism a preference for biological kin, writ large to be Continental rather than Familial. I like how White people look. I like how they talk, and act, and even smell. I like their civilisation, not without problems, of course, but still better than any other civilisation ever created to date that we know of. I don't want that civilisation to disappear, which it will if the destructive forces are not stopped and replaced by constructive ones. The universal Western trend is to “diversify” which means that society and all its organs is “too white” and must be de-albinised. This will eventually mean that the old movies, television programmes, comic books, cartoon strips, and even the great art of Europe will be marginalised and hidden and even destroyed by bitter and vindictive self-hating Whites and their Coloured allies. This is evil. White people's natural affinity towards and preference of their own kind is both natural and good, and propaganda to encourage race-mixing and White self-hatred is sadistically wicked. As the others are, the White race is an artistic gift of Nature, to be preserved and made to flourish. PS. The Canadian aboriginal population, at least, is not dying off. Aboriginal population soaring, getting younger: survey And as per Wikipedia, the American Indians are effectively stable.

Environmentalism No one thought to add "The State"?

The Nazis told the Jews Jews don't exist? Those yellow stars they were made to wear meant nothing? Or are you referring to another genocide of Jews?

Touché, but then we face the hypocrisy of people who approve of measures taken to ensure the existence, culture, advancement, and self-consciousness of every race except Whites, who are headed for debasement and destruction in both media and the physical world. So the word "racism" is really a weapon used to hurt Whites by getting them to stop talking about, and stop thinking about, themselves as a race. It's a brilliant and audacious move; I can't think of any genocide in history in which the targetted group was told it doesn't exist. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Here's a secret: words do wear out. Eventually words, phrases, and ideas can become so over-played they become trite. At that point the culture moves on to fresher words, fresher ideas. Using a word too much is like bending a spoon back and forth, back and forth, until it breaks. That's my New Year's proposal to fight the SJW's and other political correctoids. Use the following word as often as possible, straightly or ironically, in various contexts, so as to encourage it to "break" and cynicalise all those who hear it/use it. It's not like the use of this words can get any worse for the West, but the danger is in the opposite: that it becomes a sacred word only used ritualistically by chosen high priests and their picked acolytes. The word is, of course: RACISM I would like everyone in the West to be sick of that word, to want to puke when they hear it because it is tied like a wiggling fly to a whole webwork's worth of anti-White connotation. This is racist, that is racist, everything's racist, we're all racist! I want the common response to the accusation of "racism" to be that old college standby, "meh." Can anyone else think of words that need bending?

My point is these machines will behave, at best, like suave savants, but they won't understand principle, just pattern and logical laws, and so putting them in charge of policy will be very dangerous. They may drive our cars and fill our pharmaceutical prescriptions, they may mind our children and even surgically operate on our bodies, but they can't be in charge of policy or we will end up with a dystopia or simply a plain old nuclear war. AI is a big sugartrap that will be hard to resist putting our last egg into. "Hooked into everything, trusted to run it all."

Methinks that eventually (meaning in the next few short years), even noticing someone's mental attributes will be verboten as well, because, as everyone knows, it's not a person's fault they have or lack certain neurological traits. So we will be reduced to saying, "I like everyone!--except haters!" On that clip, let's see the faults: The main character is White, even dressed in white, a man, young, good-looking, sensible hair-cut, clear-complexioned, good-natured, not bitter or difficult, no chips on his shoulder, not a criminal or a bully, obedient to his guardians, straight, culturally appropriating vaguely Oriental shirts, and his robots call him "master" as if they were slaves. He admires a young, beautiful White woman in distress who needs the help of a man (probably a White man, and probably older than she). Oh and he probably doesn't listen to Rap music, or know what transsexualism is. How much chance would A New Hope stand of being released as-is today?