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.