How should the Dissident Right handle technology?

submitted by YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist from self.debatealtright

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SamiAlHayyidGrand Mufti Imam Sheikh Professor Al Hadji Dr. Sami al-Hayyid 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 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.