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

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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