The wrong side won WW2.

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 →

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (60 children)

In all of human history, whenever another military invades a country and defeats them, it usually stems from the fact that they brought superior technology and civilization with them.

That is incorrect.

In fact, it makes me a bit annoyed when I read some DAR members who come out against Space exploration

I have no idea what you people see in space exploration.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

That is incorrect.

If you want to build an empire, you're typically going to need the smartest men you can get. Or it comes with a greater advantage instead of just sending Men with clubs to conquer the rival tribe who has the exact same thing. And yes, these civilizations with better technology did uplift the people they conquered.

When Spain & Portugal reached the new world, the Native Indians were still in the Iron Ages. It's only after getting conquered, did they now learn about firearms or how to build multi-story buildings.

Of course, this isn't ALWAYS the case, as I just explained that Germany lost WW2 despite how ambitious they were with new technology. But that should be seen as an exception.

I have no idea what you people see in space exploration.

Space exploration is another branch of science. What is science? How humans attempt to understand their surroundings. It's actually pathetic to see Space research shunned, when there could be so much out there that actually explains where we came from, instead of just growing old and dying on this floating space rock like every other human before us.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

I don't think space exploration is possible because of the vastness of it and how inhospitable it is for life.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

From 1945 to 1970, we saw the first Satellite launch, the first man in orbit, and the first man on Moon. All that happened thanks to a single German brain.

If all the money that was ever wasted on diversity was used to make multiple clones of Von Braun instead, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (14 children)

satellites are good tech ok but don't need to space travel for that just shoot those out into orbit. Man never went to the moon, it may be possible but they faked it just because they pocketed all the taxpayer cash at NASA and had to show something for it. Braun was brought over for his knowledge of missile tech, NASA was a cover.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Man never went to the moon, it may be possible but they faked it just because they pocketed all the taxpayer cash at NASA and had to show something for it. NASA was a cover.

A cover for what? Do you think Space is fake or something, considering we've sent astronauts before but some perished on re-entry?

I don't really don't give a damn about tax hoarding. Every government agency does that. If anything, be angry at the military industrial complex since they embezzle a lot more money, yet going to war with the Middle East has done nothing positive for us. As you said, at least NASA gave us Satellites which are good for something.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

hard to say with spoace but the proof that it's a hoax is the coverup, that's how it goes with a lot of conspiracies.

I wouldn't call it tax hoarding I mean I suppose it would be ok if the govt didn't do things detrimental to us. Are the sattellites 100% good? They are used to spy on us.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

China has successfully landed a rover on the moon so I'm not exactly sure why would they try to hide this?

"A white guy went to the moon? Oh shit, we better scrub all evidence of this so a Chinese guy can beat us to it instead"

Are the sattellites 100% good? They are used to spy on us.

And they can also spy on other nations too. I'm sorry, but the anti-space arguments are weak. We only have one life, and life itself is short. Every past generations of humans was given resources to understand the world, but now we're expected to learn nothing about where we actually came from? I can't accept that, sorry.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

lol is this a chinese shill. fun!

I can buy them sending robots to the moon and other planets but no humans are going. Or else show proof. Recently they supposedly had Bezos and Musk sending people into space but can't show footage.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

There's a segment of the far-right that appears to be on the low end of the bell curve.

Humans have already gone to Space since 1961. What exactly is the purpose of faking this achievement, when it's no different to getting in an air balloon or airplane and just flying really high?

Are you religious and scared that Men going to space would disprove the bible? Instead of being scared, I would treat it as a chance to possibly meet god or whatever supernatural beings have supposedly visited Earth. This beats getting on your knees and praying since that has no evidence at all!

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (34 children)

Let's waste endless finite resources to shoot metal into the black sky past the blue sky. They might even find barren rocks to put little RC cars with cameras on, AWESOME SAUCE.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Finite resources only exist on Earth. You are actually making the argument for why space exploration is important.

What happens when we simply run out of stuff here? We'll all just die and have to wait for the next billion years for an intelligent species to evolve again.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

How do you propose efficiently mining asteroids? Are you familiar with the basis of peak resources? There is a point where extracting a particular finite resource becomes untenable because it would cost more resources to extract it than what would be gained thus even if there's still 'billions of litres of oil' it doesn't matter because to extract 1 barrel would cost 1 barrel or more.

Any mining that requires materials and fuel to travel millions of miles through space, then be able to set up mines and transport stuff back isn't even going to begin being anywhere close to efficient. How are you going to power a mine in space? What technology is capable of automatically extracting the resources? Every kg of a metal somehow magically mined from the moon would cost thousands or 10s of thousands. It's legit just ridiculous.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

You need to think more pragmatic. I never claimed to hold all the answers to Space, nor did I say it would be solved in a day.

That's the job of private companies or a government agency. We pay people SPECIFICALLY, to brainstorm those problems and answer them.

Like today, the thought of mining an Asteroid might come across as cumbersome and expensive, but what happens 20 years from now when Elon Musk unveils an Asteroid mining machine that does it affordably? Do you just tell him to scrap it?

Humans still have some time left on this planet, so there is no need to RUSH things. Hell, it might even be 500 years before we do send more humans to try and live on another planet. Me and you will both be dead by then, but I rather die knowing some other human generation got a chance to do something cool that I never did, instead of everyone being forced to suffer in the future because we made no plans to ever get off this rock when it was too late.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

it might even be 500 years before we do send more humans to try and live on another planet. Me and you will both be dead by then, but I rather die knowing some other human generation got a chance to do something cool that I never did

How is living on another planet "cool"? Do you have any idea how inconvenient, difficult and unpleasant such a life would be? Not to mention that there is no purpose to doing such a thing.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Scientists have discovered Earth-like planets for a long time. Having a back-up option is good, since our planet could be hit by an asteroid, or a super volcano erupts and covers the entire planet in poisonous soot.

Or it could just be cool to try and live somewhere else. I would love to go vacation on Mars and see how different the environment is compared to our own planet.

Or stay in a Moon hotel. It makes life a lot more interesting knowing there's more to the universe.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

This might be impolite to say, but that sounds really superficial.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Well as I said before, we only have one life. Any chance at doing something you really like is limited to where you grew up, and how healthy your body is. But once you've hit your expiry date, you disappear from the universe forever.

Billions of humans have all come and gone without being as close to Space technology like we are. Why celebrate being the exact same as dead people, when they themselves would have been impressed at what is currently possible?

I really doubt the German scientists had built those long range rockets just for laughs. Had they lived longer, they would have created a Jetson's future for us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JJL8CUfF-o

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Billions of humans have all come and gone without being as close to Space technology like we are. Why celebrate being the exact same as dead people, when they themselves would have been impressed at what is currently possible?

This seems like a restless and unhealthy mentality to me.

I really doubt the German scientists had built those long range rockets just for laughs.

They built them to blow things up.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Like today, the thought of mining an Asteroid might come across as cumbersome and expensive, but what happens 20 years from now when Elon Musk unveils an Asteroid mining machine that does it affordably? Do you just tell him to scrap it?

You mean what happens when our resources have further been depleted making it even more relatively expensive lol

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Sunk cost fallacy.

Every business spends money without actually expecting a return on it.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That's not the sunk cost fallacy lol

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/the-sunk-cost-fallacy/

The Sunk Cost Fallacy describes our tendency to follow through on an endeavor if we have already invested time, effort, or money into it, whether or not the current costs outweigh the benefits.

There's already money being spent on Space research. Probably even more in projects that are hidden behind NDAs.

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

There's already money being spent on Space research. Probably even more in projects that are hidden behind NDAs.

Exactly, so you're into the sunk cost fallacy. I'm not at all concerned about the sunk cost into fake and gay space delusions.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Going to a planet isn't enough. In order for such ventures to be worthwhile, it has to be colonizable. The colony there has to be self-sustaining on its own, like the thirteen colonies and Britain. There are no planets which are taylor made for human habitation save for earth. We have no knowledge of any planets that even have life other than earth.

The nearest candidate is over 40 light years away. Even at a pace of 1% of speed of light(I don't think its practical to travel that fast in any case, it would take over 400 years to reach the planet. And that's just reaching it. You can't just drop people in there and expect them to walk free and develop agriculture.

You have to terraform which is a herculean process requiring the wealth and effort of a whole planet over thousands of years. And even then its dubious if any of the Keplar planets can be suitably terraformed. The fact is that the time scale is such that its simply not feasible for governments to spend untold trillions on 400 year space journeys.

A rival state that instead spends trillion on infrastructure, trade and their military would overtake such a utopian government in short order. Such projects are not feasible when you consider the lifespan of humans, the time of a generation and our general political/economic horizon.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Terraforming might not be necessary. Creating A.I that could survive in any harsh condition, is a much more realistic endeavor.

The human body evolved on Earth, and it still changed several times when the environment did. It would actually make less sense why would we carry on with an imperfect design forever, if we have the technology to improve it.

And I think this is where the Nazis would have solved this problem easily. No taboo over eugenics means future humans could select for traits that aim for the most intelligent and hardy bodies suitable for any environment. The Chinese are quickly catching up to this idea and as Jared Taylor has predicted, they will leapfrog Western civilization who was too scared to do it.

https://www.amren.com/videos/2021/09/evolution-goes-into-reverse/

All these questions or skepticism about Space make the fatal mistake of ignoring paradigm shifts that change the game completely. It's like trying to make cellphone predictions from the 1990s. Just because every phone back then was this giant grey box with physical buttons, did not mean we would continue using the same design 20 years later. Quite the opposite. Thanks to Moore's Law and a brainiac named Steve Jobs, cellphones actually changed where they became smaller, but more efficient and used a totally different interface (i.e touchscreen only).

The Humans who colonize planets light years away never had to be made of the same flesh and blood as modern humans. Fixing their genes in a lab that gives them super abilities could make them much more capable of colonization than anyone alive today.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

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

    Citation needed

    [–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

    That's more or less it, yeah. I just don't see the point. There's way more interesting and relevant stuff here on earth. There's literally nothing to do in space. Even if we create utopian sci-fi level technology while somehow magically avoiding all the possible threats posed by technological progress, I still do not see what could be gained by venturing into space. It's still just a big, empty void. Space colonisation wouldn't really make that much of a difference as a form of "insurance" either, but it would introduce endless complications to everything about our political and economic life.

    [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

    Splendid

    [–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    That's another thing I find strange.

    >there's a bunch of gas and some big rocks floating in space

    >therefore we are insignificant

    [–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    I've always thought of the insignificant part as a matter of scale, i.e. quantitative rather than qualitative.

    https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/t_share/MTc0NjQxMzA4OTY1NTQ1OTc0/the-size-of-the-sun-as-compare-to-the-other-stars.jpg

    [–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Sure, but how does that matter? We've got big rocks on earth too, but you wouldn't say they're more significant than us just because they're large.

    [–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Yes and no. We're far more relative in size to them than some of those astral bodies. The one on the bottom left, Sol, is our sun. I think some people are just in awe of how big some things supposedly are. Like if a man is 2 m, and a mountain is 20,000 m high, you can still proportion yourself to that. But say something is like 20B m in width, it's beyond our scale of comprehension in the same way that mountain is.

    [–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    I understand being impressed by the size of stars etc, I just don't see how that ties into questions of significance at all.

    Like if a man is 2 m, and a mountain is 20,000 m high, you can still proportion yourself to that. But say something is like 20B m in width, it's beyond our scale of comprehension in the same way that mountain is.

    I sincerely doubt this. Can you really imagine something 10 000 - 15 000 times taller than you? Objects that large are already treated only abstractly by the mind, same as the astral bodies.

    [–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Can you really imagine something 10 000 - 15 000 times taller than you?

    Maybe not taller cause I don't travel vertically that often, but imagining something that is 20 km away isn't so hard is it? I can run a 5k and then imagine what three more would be like.

    I'm just trying to put myself in a frame of mind and guessing where the insignificance thing might make sense. I guess I'm just going a few more decimal places where the imagination has a harder time scaling things.

    [–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Neil de grasse Tyson popularized this particular brand of stupidity.

    [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    I have no idea what you people see in space exploration.

    Within a couple of hundreds of millions of years from now, the Sun will become so bright that it will boil the Earth, guaranteed to kill all complex life on Earth. In around 5 billion years, when the Sun will start to reach the end of its life cycle, it will massively grow in size and literally swallow the Earth.

    So for people like me, reasons for supporting space exploration aren't just because "it's cool" or "I F*CKING LOVE SCIENCE!!", it's literally about survival. If you want the white race, or the human species as a whole, to survive long term (which I do), developing interstellar space travel, and the subsequent colonization of Earth-like exoplanets, will be an absolute necessity.

    Alternatively, we could try to develop highly advanced technology to move the Earth further away from the Sun, and try to harness enough energy from the Sun (with a Dyson sphere or something similar) to be able to actually power this technology, but given how unfeasible this would be even compared to something like interstellar space travel, we're probably better off continuing to focus on developing more advanced and efficient space travel technology in the hope that it will eventually enable us to reach for the stars and spread our posterity all throughout the Galaxy.

    [–]TheJamesRocket 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Within a couple of hundreds of millions of years from now, the Sun will become so bright that it will boil the Earth, guaranteed to kill all complex life on Earth.

    To be more specific, its more like 600-1000 million years.

    When considering how quickly humanity has advanced technologically in the past several centurys alone, it is difficult to imagine what they might achieve in several millenia. Especially when realising that the Earth will be ruled by superintelligent agents by then. Civilisation is only about 2500 years old, imagine what it might achieve after 10,000 years. Technologys such as Dyson spheres are utterly impossible with our current technology, but who knows what might happen in several millenia.

    If a civilisation can build a Dyson sphere, then they can influence the evolution of their own home star. There is a hypothetical process called star lifting whereby a portion of a stars mass can be removed from its surface, which lessens the gravitational pressure on its core, which consequently reduces the amount of hydrogen the star must burn. Star lifting could extend the lifespan of a main sequence star far beyond what would normally be possible. It sounds insane, but it doesn't violate the laws of physics.

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

    I highly doubt any of this would ever occur.

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

    As far as I am aware, according to the current data, the modern human species is considered to be about one hundred thousands years old. Doesn't it seem excessive to plan "hundreds of millions of years" into the future? It would be interesting to see if humanity can even reach a million.

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

    Doesn't it seem excessive to plan "hundreds of millions of years" into the future?

    I don't see why. If we're serious about the survival of our race and our species, and their descendants, I think there's no such thing as thinking too long term. I consider low time preference to be a very virtuous trait which whites (and also East-Asians) possess, and I don't think we should be ashamed to fully embrace it.

    Of course, all the nihilist propaganda by the progressive Jewish media would have us give up low time preference: "lmao why do you care if your great-grandchildren will be living as a hated minority in their own country, you'll be dead by then", "lmao why do you care about stuff that doesn't affect your personal life, we're all just stardust/molecules"

    It would be interesting to see if humanity can even reach a million.

    If the current psychopathic Jewish elites will remain in power for the foreseeable future, humanity (except maybe some East-Asian countries, because they're both intelligent and industrious like whites, but are more politically independent of the ZOG world order unlike us) definitely seems to be heading towards a path of "self"-destruction: Usury, plutocracy/kakistocracy, endless wars, forced dysgenics, forced racial integration, forced mass-immigration of low-IQ non-whites, a culture celebrating weakness, uglyness and insanity and demonizing strength, beauty and normalcy, etc.

    In the period roughly between the 1880s and 1960s, before the current Jewish elites managed to completely take over America (and therefore its satellite states in Western Europe), we were definitely going in the right direction: Eugenics, racialist immigration policies, rapid advancements in space travel (and technology in general), ever-increasing prosperity, increasing pan-European cooperation, etc. But somewhere around the 1960s and 1970s, we gradually saw an almost 180 degrees inversion of those things, and people who still supported those things were suddenly called "racist", "white supremacist", "nazi", etc.

    I hope that we as whites will manage to remove the current Jewish elite from power as soon as possible and replace them, so we can continue with what we were doing between the 1880s and 1960s, and eventually, in the coming centuries and millennia, create a utopian white civilization and establish the presence of our race and species throughout the Galaxy. If the path we were on between the 1880s and 1960s never got sabotaged and inverted by the current Jewish elites in the first place, we probably would already have managed to build a permanent moon base and put a man on Mars by now.

    [–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Within a couple of hundreds of millions of years from now

    The sun will be a red giant in 5 billion years. Life on earth has existed for 1 billion years. After a space of 100,000 or even 10,000 years, our descendants would be so far apart from us that they'd feel like a different species altogether.

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

    After a space of 100,000 or even 10,000 years, our descendants would be so far apart from us that they'd feel like a different species altogether.

    It doesn't really matter. However different they will be from us, they will still be the closest thing resembling us genetically and phenotypically compared to other races and species. Maybe you don't care about your descendants surviving long-term, but I sure do. Of course, assuming we will win, eugenics and human genetic modification can also do its part in "fossilizing" traits common in whites, while making beneficial traits in whites more prominent and dysgenic traits less prominent. But no matter how different our descendants will be from us in hundreds of thousands of years from us, this will be such a gradual evolutionary process that we won't even notice it. Whites from 10 000 years ago were pretty much the same as us genetically and phenotypically, so assuming we will manage to stop dysgenics by implementing eugenics and human genetic modification, whites from 10 000 years in the future will still be very similar to us, definitely similar enough to the point that they would be biologically classified as white by today's standards.