>According to Sumner, those who feel an obligation to provide assistance to those unequipped or under-equipped to compete for resources, will lead to a country in which the weak and inferior are encouraged to breed more like them, eventually dragging the country down. Sumner also believed that the best equipped to win the struggle for existence was the American businessman, and concluded that taxes and regulations serve as dangers to his survival.
There's a certain truth to the whole Might Makes Right thing, with some simple caveats. Indeed, nature and human society often functions on the principles of Social Darwinism, however, civilized society is also built to some degree on sacrifice by and for one another, a little bit of altruism. A balance is needed.
Jack Clark
You should try tasting nigger penis. Specifically the foreskin for it is truly a delicacy of unparalleled satisfaction. Might I recommend sampling it like a fine wine as your tongue separates the skin from the shaft
Jaxson Turner
If we were to incorporate the ideas of social Darwinism not on an individual level, but on a racial level, do you believe the philosophy would work better? It would be reminiscent of National Socialism and the idea that kindness should be shown to the poor of one's own people and one's people only whilst the social Darwinist aspect justifies any cruelties and violence towards other races.
Isaac Martin
Darwinism is fundamentally predicated that society becomes better when the strong survive and the weak perish since it, over generations, creates a gene-pool better suited to an environment. The issue is that cheap junk food and cheap housing allows poor people (from Dindus to trailerpark trash) to survive AND reproduce despite being at the bottom of the social hierarchy. To have Social Darwinism work, you have to stop the poor's rights to reproduce but also cancel out excessive benefits to the offpsring of the rich and successful so that, among them, only the strong survive. We do neither of these things so it doesn't work. The Poor don't want to do it because they still value having a family in theory even if it doesn't always hash out well for the children in practice. The Rich don't want to do it because they have a sentimental attachment to giving their children an unfair advantage in the form of material and educational benefits that the poor do not receive.
John Smith
Bison on suicide watch
Aiden Nguyen
The most successful countries in the world are the least Social Darwinist.
People like Bill Gates or Steven Hawking wouldn't survive a week in a society where the strongest prevail. Only due to a framework of laws and regulations were they able to bring huge benefits to the whole society.
Kayden Edwards
Plz don't do this. I don't want to be wrapped in with the Trailer Park Boy-types from my hometown
Blake Baker
Social Darwinism is the laws of Darwinism applied to the environment of society. Hence, with Society's own rules about what constitutes superiority (Technical aptitude, creative aptitude, etc), a different group survives compared to Natural Darwinism
Henry Brooks
Yes, that's exactly what I think. We evolved altruistic behaviors to help our own, and that's where those urges should be directed. Aiding any other people without getting something in return is just foolishness.
Cooper Scott
Why, in the modern-era of advanced social engineering, should we direct our altruism only towards our own of race? Why not bar it at our own of direct family? Or, on the opposite direction, our own of regional attachment vs racial attachment? I never get why the line gets drawn around race and never something more or less extreme? Also, why just White? Why not Nordic vs Mediterranean? Germanic vs Scandinavian? Roman vs Germanic?
Joshua Cox
Stereotypes permeate through all walks of life. Would you rather debate and find the truth or feel comfortable about what you believe is true? Sort of like that pill thing from that movie people love.
William Diaz
In our current political climate race is far more important of a thing to band together over. I would rather any white person, be they German, Nordic, Anglo, or Cosmopolitan, ect. to be in control than a negro who identifies with a different people than I do.
Josiah Perez
No but I mean I would rather have social darwinism on the individual level where I can take advantage of being white without having to be leveled out on a systemic level with those of my race who are less than stellar. I'd rather be with the most successful people of each race as individuals apart from our race than work on the behalf of people whose only connection to me isn't a personal bond but an ethnic one.
Jonathan Cooper
Depends on the circumstances, I'd say. If whites worldwide are in a difficult situation like they are right now, a certain pan-whiteness would be ideal. In normal circumstances we should all simply be ethno-nationalist. I don't think just the family should be helped out, even the basest and most savage people help out their immediate family. We should be focused on building a nation or, better yet, a civilization, with clear, defined goals for the future and progress in mind.
Grayson Stewart
sounds like you've put some real thought into this
Connor Martin
But why is it a more important thing to band together over? I get that racial tensions are high but wouldn't it be better to disconnect from them entirely and move into fields that are more immune to that discussion (technology and science?)? Why band together over any arbitrary bond? Why not judge your allies based on their abilities rather than their ancestry? Also, is cosmopolitan some sort of slang for a race now? It typically just means a city-dweller who is worldly, last time I checked
Samuel Green
While that level of selfishness and egotism might provide you with great rewards, would you really want to exist with others who are as greedy and focused on personal gain as yourself? Wouldn't you rather be a citizen of a mono-cultural, mono-racial civilization in which you can help your own people survive and reap the benefits of being a celebrated businessman and philanthropist? Money is temporary, but fame is forever.
Grayson Cook
But I'm confused as to what difficult situation you're referring to. There are individual instances of BLM members attacking white people at the height of protests and riots but, for the most part, white people are doing fine in most sections of the US and the rest of the world. What it seems is that the world is more segmented than anything else. Reports of white people being disproportionately discriminated against occur in some of the most regressively leftist places in the civilized world but, inversely, in other fields, minorities are treated disproportionately poorly without much reason (The Baltimore Police Department was known to harass black people and come up, knowingly, come up with reasons to justify it in post) Seeing as how I'm doing well economically and in terms of my career without relying on my racial bonds, why should someone like me be persuaded into putting more of my stock in my ethno-group over my individual self?
Henry Morris
But I already interact with people of a mono-culture: Capitalism. I interact with people of Chinese, Korean, Dominican, Persian, and African descent on the daily who work at a similarly high-level as me. 'My own people' doesn't mean anything to me since I know I can pass down my own genes. Before there was the race, there was the individual organism at its most base level. A sense of the "Self" is the core defining trait from us as animals where we give up our sense of self for the whole. Money may be temporary but my goal isn't money: it's the research and development that money assembles. Would you believe me if I told you a firm under me is working to develop and inner-organism (like Mitochondria) that will repair DNA in such a way that you can adjust how you age, forward and backward? A person is not their books, their name or their fame. A person is their SELF, their individual consciousness observing the world and themselves and processing that information and observing themselves process that information. I am working to make the SELF immortal, not just a ghost of a memory
Levi White
Define 'weak' and 'inferior'
Eli Torres
Would you be happy with your grandchildren or your great grand-children being of a mixed race? Would you be satisfied if they became Moslem? The reason you should put stock in your ethnicity and culture is because without the idea of a culture, without the idea of a people who look the same and have similar values and similar faiths, we can not have a unified country with a government who represents the people. In a muddy pool of blended colors and cultures we will only have discontent and chaos threatening to overwhelm the very fabric of the nation you worked so hard to improve. For long term stability, you should invest in your team and help them thrive.
Jack Adams
>Yes, that's exactly what I think. We evolved altruistic behaviors to help our own, and that's where those urges should be directed
There is more to life than doing well financially and looking out for yourself. We derive much deeper satisfaction from feeling part of something larger than ourselves. This feeling is known as Gestalt in German, and it's a very profound one. I would rather walk forward arm in arm with people who share my blood to a future built on trust and shared goals rather than an every-man-for-himself chasing of wealth. If you base your society solely off of what an individual can do and the wealth and success he can manage, you won't have any support for when things go downhill, as they inevitably will.
Xavier Johnson
when im mighty yes
when im not mighty no
Oliver Baker
Came to post this
Sebastian Martin
But you're underestimating the power of social engineering. We can make people of any race believe any culture. So why not take those who, by genetic variance, have the greatest disposition to be great thinkers and creators of all races, and engineer them culturally to be the greatest paragons of human ingenuity. I'm not having kids of my own because I put my stock in mine and my company's and humanity's aims for immortality. Breeding inherently tells the world that you're done living because you've fulfilled your sexual-organic purpose of passing on your genes to the future. I plan to adopt a child based on their aptitude and raise them with superior cultural values of being open minded but testing the values they come across against their efficacy for self-betterment. Not to 'try anything' but to 'deny no road to power'
Adam Watson
It depends on what you define as might. If you look at earliest written law code in history, it starts with words: "to protect the weak from the strong, to bring about order in the land. Modern humans are obviously not the strongest, nor even smartest. They evolved to match only the conditions where they lived, and nothing else. If you look at extremes, nordics are great problem-solvers when it comes to taming nature's forces, but naive and suicidally altruistic to reflect constraints of living in cold climate with resources limited by nature, not other humans. Africans & Arabs are the exact oppositve, humans evolving in fierce social competition and abundance of crucial resources thanks to abundant sunshine hours throughout the year. So as the conditions are constantly changing, you can never know what people will be better fit to survive tomorrow, and this is where the might makes right concept defeats itself - it happens whether you want it or not, but you can't know which quality will be needed until it's too late.
Christopher Roberts
Looks like this faggot was crying about his frigid cunt of a woman didn't put out, or he had a low sperm count.
William Sanchez
Adopt based on aptitude? You would be forsaking your own genes to be a voluntary cuckold raising the youth of another man. If you truly believe you have the best idea of what to do, then why not seek a partner based on their aptitude and breed with them to produce superior offspring?
And on the nature of engineering youth to integrate in to a culture, this is only possible when the immigrants of a nation are raised by locals or exist in a minority. The larger the minority grows, the less the immigrants will have to change their ways and the longer their culture and values will remain intact grinding against the border of their host and raising levels of discontent. This also results in a society which is not mono-ethnic, and will eventually suffer from a crisis of identity like the United States.
Tyler Brown
Again, I don't believe in this pseudo-spiritual, Dionysian loss of Self. I would rather walk on my own, with the knowledge that my last day may never come and never say "How fair this day." I can have trust and shared goals but I will never lose my self. The core of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft as cultural values is the belief of a sense of self of the community and culture and society. However, these values are derived from the Individual's desire for individuality and division from others. I am not chasing after a transient goal, I am chasing after moving past my own human condition. To be human is to be constantly overcoming and changing your self for the better. What binds me to another person is our chemistry but, take it from me, blood is no determining factor of how much you can trust another. You may be bonded to your biological family but that can be explained as the combined product of pheromones you share as well as prolonged exposure that will forge bonds inevitably over time.
I do not plan to fall into the incinerator of history for the sake of my lineage. If that is being human, I reject it for the sake of the immortality of the individual
Cameron Baker
First, Adopting based on aptitude. Seeking a partner based on aptitude? As I mentioned, breeding and passing on your genes is telling the natural world that your existence has fulfilled its sole purpose and you can die then. We don't die but that's proof of the resilience of the self over our natural function. You say cuckold but I have no partner I'd be giving up, I'd be taking their children and, in all likelihood, ending their lineage by passing down my own belief about breeding.
I'd rather not be raising children at all but if we're talking about a situation where I have to, I've given you my answer.
On your comments on engineering the youth, I completely agree. You have to suppress the original culture or remove them from birth, Republic style. A crisis of identity in the US is not a shared crisis. Many on the liberal side (read: not leftist conservatives) accept that the US is of mixed identity. Those who are having a crisis of identity are those who believed this identity to be a static thing other than a changing thing. If you wanted to do away with this crisis of identity, you'd need to set a stronger sense of US vs Them than one's race. I would recommend an US vs THEM based on value where those who value strength despise those who value martyrdom, suffering and weakness. Where those who value self-betterment hate those who value unconditional self-love
Jordan Harris
Thanks for sharing all of your opinions here. I wish I had the time to give my thoughts on every point you've made but I have to be going. You've certainly given me a few new things to consider, although I would say I am still in disagreement with you for the most part especially regarding breeding. I hope you will also consider what myself and others have said. Have a great day.
Brandon Bell
You too. Thanks for the discussion. Have a good one, friend. I'll think on your words and view point.
Michael Sanders
This is the truth. This is how all the modern civilizations will fail.
Living creatures were never made to be compassionate, simple as that. We were made to hurt those who don't do as we say, or get hurt by them, depending how strong we are. This is how we are supposed to live our lives. Compassion leads to SJWs.
It's a simple fact, really: if you are not capable of surviving without assistance, you shouldn't survive.
