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 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 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 -  (2 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.