How should the Dissident Right handle technology?

submitted by YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist from self.debatealtright

Let's say that suddenly and seamlessly, overnight a DIssident Right government comes to power in [Your country] and said government appoints you to decide their policy on technology. Should it be controlled, slowed down, sped up, reversed? Why?

The reason I pose this question is because emergent and extant technologies have had interesting and often double-edged effects on society that those in the dissident right often have an opinion on. Technologies often have great uses but also not-so-great ulterior uses or cultural impacts.

For example: 3D printing and robotics can make producing products and even buildings much cheaper and faster, ultimately helping the average person/family (and lightening the load on the government as well, possibly), but such technology also allows degeneracy and could allow dangerous people to come into possession of powerful weaponry, armor, etc. or allow subversive groups to hide their activities more easily.

Or take the television: A great tool for entertainment, information, and early warning systems, but also a powerful tool for propaganda, subversion, and exploitation.

What are your ideas on technology in general? Specific technologies you think should be restricted/banned or encouraged?

all 21 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm very anti-tech but taking action against tech that will actually do something useful would be the political equivalent of cutting your own legs off. You'd quickly fall behind economically, militarily etc then your state can be preyed on, just as a legless man can easily be victimised.

The best we can do really is regulating the media and shit like that which will help reduce the negative effects somewhat.

[–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Indeed, it's a very good idea to limit and aggressively combat destructive elements of technology, but at the same time we must still stay competitive and retain the ability to improve the lives of our citizenry.

As appealing as some ideas like fully returning to a previous state of society are, they simply aren't feasible or even possible. Similarly, hyper-accelerating our technology is extremely dangerous and woudl almost certainly make our issues worse, not to mention sharing extreme difficulty as you can't really force or simulate innovation out of thin air.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Controlled, become masters of technology rather than slaves. This would entail recognizing that "bad" technology is not only weapons of mass destruction.

[–]SamiAlHayyidGrand Mufti Imam Sheikh Professor Al Hadji Dr. Sami al-Hayyid 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Literally the only pro-tech argument that I can think of from the top of my head is that rapid de-technologization would drastically increase the chances of invasions of our homelands. For example, if America ceded its nuclear arsenal then China could simply obliterate America while the rest of the world meekly watches in horror of what China could do to all of the lesser powers.

Removing these practical considerations I'm overwhelmingly partial to Gemeinschaft over Gesellschaft, i.e. modern society. The proliferation of technology has been one of our biggest problems. Ideological multiracialism wouldn't exist without planes and modern ships "shrinking" or "connecting" the world. No Ebola, HIV, Spanish Flu or Covid, either, all of which are imported. Life expectancy in Africa was around 30 precolonialism, but is prolonged by that racist White man medicine, which now means that four billion blax is a serious possibility. People wouldn't dream of "seeking a better life in the West" because they only develop these ideas through comparing what they see on television or the internet (through phones and computers) to the cesspool around them. It goes without saying that most of these inventions are overwhelmingly products of White ingenuity used in ways which harm and will continue to harm the descendants of their creators.

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

It's true that modern transportation was an absolute necessity for non-white mass-immigration to be a thing, but that doesn't mean modern transportation inevitably has to lead to non-white mass immigration. Non-white mass-immigration wouldn't be a thing even despite modern transportation if the old (pro-white) immigration laws would still have been in place, and if we had strong border enforcement.

Colonialism and bringing Western living standards to the third world also wouldn't have had to lead to the current population explosions among non-whites, if rigorous eugenics programs combined with general restrictions on the amount of children one can have would have been forced upon the colonized. Non-white mass-immigration isn't a logical, inevitable consequence of colonialism either, but rather a result of decolonization combined with the earlier mentioned repealing of old (pro-white) immigration laws. During the entirety of European colonialism, there was practically zero non-white immigration into white countries, this only started after we already lost our colonies and the hostile and traitor elites opened the doors to non-whites by changing our immigration laws.

The internet for sure has played a large role in facilitating the woke shitshow we're in today, but at the same time it also played an essential role in the rise in nationalistic, pro-white views among a much larger segment of the white population, and the devolution of the internet into the woke, anti-white mess it's today was really accelerated by the mass-deplatforming of our views and the forced promotion of woke content. If we'd be in charge we could simply do the same with the internet as the current elites have been doing but in reverse, deplatforming anti-white, pro-LGBTQ and other woke/degenerate content and making the algoritims force our views (and white voices in general) to the top.

[–]SamiAlHayyidGrand Mufti Imam Sheikh Professor Al Hadji Dr. Sami al-Hayyid 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Whites don't really have it in them to "do eugenics" on such a scale. They're the world's least ethnocentric people and have always found universalism appealing, whether Roman, Christian or liberal. It is this same universalism that animated the "White Man's Burden", based on the absurd assumption that racial equality should exist and that where it is lacking (that is, everywhere) it is our moral responsibility to save other peoples from "poverty", "eternal damnation" or whatever. A secularized version of this mindset obviously still exists today, but is derisively referred to as the "White saviour complex".

It is just that the "larger" world made pseudo-diversity more difficult. We are lucky that Africa wasn't Romanized and that the Romans did not import masses of "Dindus Nuffinus" and "Gibsus Medatus" on the ships they already had thousands of years ago. Foreigners practically applied the killing blow to Rome as it was - the Goths were literally refugees fleeing the Huns, who later turned against Rome. The Huns themselves genocided their way across Europe until they themselves were exterminated. European Colonialism was always relatively benign, thus the third-world has a massive and highly unmixed population that would be much smaller and much more mixed if colonialism was even half as severe as ignorant leftists claim it was. The only place that is something of an exception to this rule is the very mixed Americas. Most of Africa is still 99%+ black despite a few numerically insignificant mixed groups like the assimiladoes, basturs or Americo-Liberians. These groups wouldn't even be a million combined, out of Africa's billion plus population.

The internet is a tough one, because at face value I find it generally negative. It's chock full of stuff that is degenerate or just plain banal. Selfies, social media, porn, cat videos. "Smartphone zombies" everywhere. It didn't usher in the techno-utopian age many thought it would.

You're obviously correct in that much of this isn't intrinsic to the internet, and if people like us controlled it instead, well, it couldn't be any worse than what it currently is at the very least. It would, for example, have a much more educative emphasis rather than being a time sink and entertainment source that seems to make people dumber while the only things that seem to get "smarter" are the phones they use to access it.

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Whites don't really have it in them to "do eugenics" on such a scale. They're the world's least ethnocentric people and have always found universalism appealing, whether Roman, Christian or liberal. It is this same universalism that animated the "White Man's Burden", based on the absurd assumption that racial equality should exist and that where it is lacking (that is, everywhere) it is our moral responsibility to save other peoples from "poverty", "eternal damnation" or whatever.

I'm not sure about this. You have to keep in mind that there was a very strong eugenics movement in Northwestern Europe and the colonies (Canada Australia, South Africa and the US), which the majority of white people supported (and even significant minorities of blacks and Jews). This eugenics movement had the most support among (classical) liberals, social democrats and mainline (Anglo-Germanic) Protestants, and faced the most fanatical opposition from the Catholic Church (the majority of whose followers were already non-white Latin-Americans), Evangelicals and Jewish marxists.

Of course, if I or people who think like me were in charge, people with completely shit political views would also get removed from the gene pool through eugenics (by means of prohibiting reproduction or if necessary forced sterilization), starting with overt anti-whites and fanatical anti-eugenicists, not just violent criminals, low-IQ people and the mentally ill.

Even I (and I guess most of the modern dissident right) am much more moderate than the more extreme segments of the eugenics movement back then, considering even calls for the total extermination of all non-whites on the planet through sterilization or euthanization (a proposal which even I find disgusting) weren't unheard of.

[–]SamiAlHayyidGrand Mufti Imam Sheikh Professor Al Hadji Dr. Sami al-Hayyid 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There was also a very large eugenics movement in Bismarckian Germany. Many things that people associate with "far-right" politics long predate fascism and often have leftist origins. In Germany both the SPD (literally an explicit Marxist party until as late as 1959) and the "Christian democratic" Zentrum funded Germany's own eugenics institute.

It's hard to say why there's such a discrepancy between the more universalistic times of Christian-dominated Europe and the Roman or British Empires and these more eugenicist times like that of Sparta, the last of which was during Darwin's time up till the postwar period. The whole taboo around eugenics from a non-Christian perspective only really picked up mid last century.

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

There was also a very large eugenics movement in Bismarckian Germany. Many things that people associate with "far-right" politics long predate fascism and often have leftist origins. In Germany both the SPD (literally an explicit Marxist party until as late as 1959) and the "Christian democratic" Zentrum funded Germany's own eugenics institute.

Yet another example of why the "left" vs "right" dichotomy is basically nonsensical, and only derives meaning from its usefulness, because people generally know what you mean with "left" and "right" in the modern sense ("left" being woke anti-whites regardless of economic views, and "right" being people like us regardless of economic views).

.

The whole taboo around eugenics from a non-Christian perspective only really picked up mid last century.

I don't think most of the modern-day so-called "Christians" who are opposed to eugenics and are in favor of mass-immigration genuinely do so on religious grounds either, their brains just run on the modern Jewish woke firmware and software just like with politically like-minded atheists, and most of them only abuse their religion as a post-hoc justification for those ideas to bully other (actual) Christians into internalizing those ideas by threat of hell. Same shit as those progressive "Christians" who are pro-LGBTQ and pro-abortion, and abuse their religion to back up those views even though they obviously didn't orginially derive those views from the Bible.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

You need to study evolution some more. This is a very basic understanding.

Optimizing the population gene pool is 100% not going for the local maximum. If we want to optimize our gene pool, we need retards, schizos, etc.

The strength of a population is determined by how many divergent retards it can sustain. This might seem illogical, but one of these divergents might develop a trait that is beneficial in 1000 or 10000 years.
This is also why we want diversity and why we are against mixing races; mixing destroys diversity.

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If we want to optimize our gene pool, we need retards, schizos, etc.

The strength of a population is determined by how many divergent retards it can sustain. This might seem illogical, but one of these divergents might develop a trait that is beneficial in 1000 or 10000 years.

Who told you this utter horseshit? Your Jewish university professor? We absolutely don't need retards and schizos in our gene pool. For tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years retards and schizos have been weeded out of the gene pool of what would eventually become the white race through natural selection, and for the better.

Ironically enough, a society that could sustain the most retards and schizos without collapsing would actually be one with a gene pool that consists of as little schizos and retards as possible, hence why making sure retards and schizos can't reproduce is essential to being able to take care of them sustainably and long-term.

.

This is also why we want diversity and why we are against mixing races; mixing destroys diversity.

No, we're against race-mixing because it further contributes to the decline of the white population, and dilutes the white population with non-white admixture, making it less white. More race-mixing would actually genuinely create more diversity, since it would result in thousands of unique mystery meat mixtures between all sorts of different races that would essentially form new little races of their own, but we don't want that because it harms the interests and the genetic integrity of the white race.

More diversity doesn't equal better: A world that's homogeneously inhabited by only whites and/or East-Asians would be infinitely better than a world that's inhabited by thousands of completely distinct little races that almost all are R-selected, sub-85 IQ, violent and high time preference.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You are simply wrong.

https://saidit.net/s/debatealtright/comments/82u0/eugenics/

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're moving the goalpost. First you said we specifically need retards and schizos, now you're saying we need "divergent" whites. There are plenty of "divergent" whites who don't have a low IQ or harmful mental illnesses, and there's no reason why the same type of potentially beneficial mutations couldn't also develop from them. Both harmful and beneficial mutatations will always keep arising within a population regardless of what eugenic programs you have, so whatver beneficial mutations will arise can simply be made more prominent through eugenics while discarding the harmful mutations (like the ones that cause mental illnesses). Not all types of "divergency" are equally valuable. No offense, but this all just seems like a big cope to me.

[–]Alan_Crowe 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Explanation of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Technology has one inevitable conclusion, and that is the complete and utter destruction of modern civilization.

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

The most important equation for the next few hundred years is: life-span = health-span + grim-span.

Medical advances are adding 3 years to the grim-span for every year that they add to the health-span. Maybe I need a citation for that three to one ratio. On the other hand think about the new Alzheimer's drug Aducanumab. Maybe it does nothing at all, but we can see the trend; drugs for Alzheimer's will make dying take longer, adding years to the grim-span only. 3 to 1, 4 to 1, it is only going to get worse.

Gradually all of human life will be directed to making dying take a really long time, by "caring" for the frail elderly. To counter this, my government would redirect medical research towards cures and rejuvenation.

Talking of technology more generally, I notice that people make a two way split. Either common ownership of the means of production, or private ownership of the means of production. But the key question is whether to have fragmented private ownership of the means of production, or concentrated private ownership of the means of production.

That looks like a three way split. But what "common ownership of the means of production" means in practice is rule by the bureaucrats in the Ministry of Planning, under the direction of the political elite. It ends up as a euphemism for oligarchy. Meanwhile, concentrated private ownership of the means of production puts so much political power in the hands of a few super-rich owners, that it too is a version of oligarchy.

In the end there are two competing options: one is fragmented private ownership of the means of production. The other is oligarchy (with a choice of two paint jobs). If government (somehow) blocks and undoes the consolidation of industry, that combats the problem of tech giants. A direct policy on technology might not be necessary.

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

counter this, my government would redirect medical research towards cures and rejuvenation.

Utopian much?

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

Half and half. There is a utopian aspect in hoping that cures and rejuvenation therapies might be found. But the other half is simply anti-dystopian. We are very slowly sliding into a dystopia in which half the population lives to over one hundred years old, but medicine is all about dragging out the process of dying, and nobody enjoys being that old and frail. Meanwhile, "care" becomes most of the economy and sucks the life out of civilisation. The anti-dystopian aspect merely involves saying "No!" to the bad kind of medical advances. It is still valuable, even in the absence of the good kind of medical advances.

[–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

In my opinion a nuanced middle ground is required. Some technology is a Pandora's box that can't really be ignored or done away with, such as computers/the internet or automobiles. That being said, many outwardly harmful technologies must be restricted or banned. Things that make degeneracy like drug use or other addictions easy must be restrained. Ideally the internet should still exist but the State should restrict it. Seeing as how the United States basically controls the internet, if the US became controlled by the DR, we could easily ban porn and other content effectively worldwide since we hold the "brain" of the internet, more or less.

However, certain technologies such as 3D printing (especially large-scale stuff) can be especially powerful as a tool to provide cheaper and faster housing and buildings/components in general (of course with limitations) making these things much more accessible to even the poorest families and significantly increasing the speed at which things are built. Of course these things may be partially mitigated by returnign to more traditional forms of architecture, but even with this fact, components or shapes used in these buildings (or even theri designs as a whole) could be minimized and standardized to make them very cheap regardless. This is a more moot point in regards to things like government buildings or other large, utilitarian structures such as warehouses or factories that have looked relatively similar since their inception (big blocks with relevant facilities for storage, exhaust, power generation, etc.).

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

Ideally the internet should still exist but the State should restrict it. Seeing as how the United States basically controls the internet, if the US became controlled by the DR, we could easily ban porn and other content effectively worldwide since we hold the "brain" of the internet, more or less.

I don't think the United States has much control over the internet anymore other than the biggest online companies are registered in the United States. They used to have influence over ICANN which manages the whois database and the domain name list but they gave that up in 2016. The only way to have full control of the internet I think is to build a closed off intranet like North Korea which is a separate internal network that cannot connect with the global internet. The China firewall system allows Chinese to bypass the firewall if they use a vpn.

[–]SamiAlHayyidGrand Mufti Imam Sheikh Professor Al Hadji Dr. Sami al-Hayyid 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep. Iran also talks from time to time about building an intranet but never gets around to it. Yet we all know that if the Islamic Republican regime gets overthrown the internet will be a big part of the cause, i.e. because it facilitates organization as it did in the Egyptian uprising and because it assists the proliferation of liberal or other unwanted ideologies and propaganda. Such regimes clearly underestimate how virus-like Westernization actually is, one that can only be resisted through self-imposed isolation, through quarantine, and the internet is easily the biggest medium through which it spreads.