I do not believe in human rights. I do not believe what you're arguing is moral. I firmly believe letting low value humans die would lead to a much better world. Part of the problem today is that we're trying very hard to go against nature's selection. This forums brings up feminism and gynocracy a lot because they understand women's hypergamic nature. Many single men who add considerable value to society are not getting a good outcome in life because the whole system is designed to take resources from what they generate and give to lesser humans. Men as a whole would get a much better outcome in life if we stopped propping less competent people up with things like universal healthcare among many welfare and resource distribution systems. Let people truly get what they deserve based on their worth based on their contribution to society while designed society itself to be moral (not in the way you suggest but in promoting strength and superior ways to do things). Our society instead oppresses the superior in order to unjustly elevate the inferior. We push victim mentalities onto everyone because people know in order to get ahead you have to pretend to be lesser so society takes from the superior and gives to you. It's an entire system designed to destroy itself by its own scam. A bunch of lazy entitled worthless humans that think their existence means they deserve things. We need to take that away from people and promote a just system that removes concepts like humans rights away entirely. Just because you exist doesn't mean you are guaranteed anything by society. You have to earn your way in life. You'd actually see depression decrease and people would become much happier under such a system that actually promotes people to accomplish things. Much of the problems of the gynocracy would end overnight if we stopped promoting things like humans rights and socialistic resource distribution policies. Make people work to earn their place. All of a sudden women's value plumits and so too do all the worthless leftists in this society. If you can't earn your way in this society you probably shouldn't have even been born. It's true, most people shouldn't have been born and it's not on society to correct for their parents mistakes in having them. When whores are fucking drug dealers and having 8 different kids from 8 different fathers who're in prison, yes those kids may end up dead and that's a good thing. We should not be encouraging people to continue this behavior by incentivizing it with socialism. They get stabbed in a gang fight over selling drugs and can't afford healthcare? Good.
You think I deleted my post? No, it was removed by the mods.
Unfortunately, we will always disagree on this. I do not believe a person has value simply because he is white. Does the person have a higher predisposition toward being value because he is white compared to black, yes. I do believe that. However, a white person can still be worthless. If there is ever a war fought tomorrow over establishing a new imperium and a white guy was standing in my way by promoting a gynocracy and Jewish degeneracy, I would kill him in an instant. His skin color is worthless then.
Well, you use white to describe race so it gets mixed in the message. Perhaps you could start using Aryan? You likely don't because you probably aren't Aryan but you are white. Truthfully, white people should start using the proper race in discussions. Since race and color are so intermixed, I butcher it all the time. I understand the differences between races better than most.
Believe it or not, in a society without growth, you run into a problem where people truly do have no value. Growth is actually what has been hiding this problem. As growth has been shrinking, we've seen a contraction on resource distribution and this is impacting people's quality of life. The "conspiracy theorists" discuss how the richest in society want to kill billions off because they don't see the value in these people and that could very well be true.
If you are in a community of 20 people where only 10 people own 20% each of the resources and 10 people work for the 10 other people, then you develop technologies to require only 5 people to work. Why employ the other 5? Worse yet, imagine those 5 people have 20 kids between them and now you have 25 people that you don't need in your society. Why should anyone have to support them? Your system forces land-owners to have to give up resources to others on no basis other than quantity of people. You say people have value for their mere existence but this is simply not true and it's unjust to force the existing owners to have to share what they own with others simply because those others exist. The proper thing to do is create incentives in society that stop those 5 people who have no reason to exist from procreating. I of course would rather the land-owners be white people rather than Jews but the Jews are currently working a system where they are the owners. Still, if we had full control over our societies that would still be the ideal. More people for the sake of more people isn't necessarily better. Why share resources with people who do not do anything to earn those resources? It's entirely unjust.
Capitalism doesn't have to necessitate growth if you control the system. Our current capitalist system does indeed promote growth because most people are nothing more than slave labor for the capital owners and given the resources on our planet, more people was in fact better and may in fact still be better to promote the growth of resources but the growth of resources does not have to be the rules of the game. There's nothing to stop socialism from promoting growth of resources either. If those who ran the socialist system wanted to put resource maximization at the forefront they would do so and many socialist countries do in fact do this, at least resource maximization for the people in charge while the rest of society suffers worse than capitalism.
It is very simple to implement a capitalist system and literally ban immigration. There done.
That chief of diversity does have value to the current system in place. Our moral values are setup wrong. The fact we promote diversity is a problem. We're living in a theocracy where the religious dogma is diversity and inclusion, so yes from the perspective of this moral value system, they do have immense value. The problem is the moral value system which needs to change. Once you change such a system to actually be holy and not degenerate then chief of diversity won't exist because non-whites will be deported and immigration will be banned. Under such a system he will no longer have value of though I suspect if he submited to such a system he would have value in promoting the dogma of the new moral value system.
You're arguing we need socialism because society is immoral. I am arguing we need to make society moral. You seem like the one who is coping and doesn't actually want to improve society.
I do not believe in human rights. I do not believe what you're arguing is moral. I firmly believe letting low value humans die would lead to a much better world. Part of the problem today is that we're trying very hard to go against nature's selection. This forums brings up feminism and gynocracy a lot because they understand women's hypergamic nature. Many single men who add considerable value to society are not getting a good outcome in life because the whole system is designed to take resources from what they generate and give to lesser humans. Men as a whole would get a much better outcome in life if we stopped propping less competent people up with things like universal healthcare among many welfare and resource distribution systems. Let people truly get what they deserve based on their worth based on their contribution to society while designed society itself to be moral (not in the way you suggest but in promoting strength and superior ways to do things). Our society instead oppresses the superior in order to unjustly elevate the inferior. We push victim mentalities onto everyone because people know in order to get ahead you have to pretend to be lesser so society takes from the superior and gives to you. It's an entire system designed to destroy itself by its own scam. A bunch of lazy entitled worthless humans that think their existence means they deserve things. We need to take that away from people and promote a just system that removes concepts like humans rights away entirely. Just because you exist doesn't mean you are guaranteed anything by society. You have to earn your way in life. You'd actually see depression decrease and people would become much happier under such a system that actually promotes people to accomplish things. Much of the problems of the gynocracy would end overnight if we stopped promoting things like humans rights and socialistic resource distribution policies. Make people work to earn their place. All of a sudden women's value plumits and so too do all the worthless leftists in this society. If you can't earn your way in this society you probably shouldn't have even been born. It's true, most people shouldn't have been born and it's not on society to correct for their parents mistakes in having them. When whores are fucking drug dealers and having 8 different kids from 8 different fathers who're in prison, yes those kids may end up dead and that's a good thing. We should not be encouraging people to continue this behavior by incentivizing it with socialism. They get stabbed in a gang fight over selling drugs and can't afford healthcare? Good.
You think I deleted my post? No, it was removed by the mods.
Unfortunately, we will always disagree on this. I do not believe a person has value simply because he is white. Does the person have a higher predisposition toward being value because he is white compared to black, yes. I do believe that. However, a white person can still be worthless. If there is ever a war fought tomorrow over establishing a new imperium and a white guy was standing in my way by promoting a gynocracy and Jewish degeneracy, I would kill him in an instant. His skin color is worthless then.
Well, you use white to describe race so it gets mixed in the message. Perhaps you could start using Aryan? You likely don't because you probably aren't Aryan but you are white. Truthfully, white people should start using the proper race in discussions. Since race and color are so intermixed, I butcher it all the time. I understand the differences between races better than most.
Believe it or not, in a society without growth, you run into a problem where people truly do have no value. Growth is actually what has been hiding this problem. As growth has been shrinking, we've seen a contraction on resource distribution and this is impacting people's quality of life. The "conspiracy theorists" discuss how the richest in society want to kill billions off because they don't see the value in these people and that could very well be true.
If you are in a community of 20 people where only 10 people own 20% each of the resources and 10 people work for the 10 other people, then you develop technologies to require only 5 people to work. Why employ the other 5? Worse yet, imagine those 5 people have 20 kids between them and now you have 25 people that you don't need in your society. Why should anyone have to support them? Your system forces land-owners to have to give up resources to others on no basis other than quantity of people. You say people have value for their mere existence but this is simply not true and it's unjust to force the existing owners to have to share what they own with others simply because those others exist. The proper thing to do is create incentives in society that stop those 5 people who have no reason to exist from procreating. I of course would rather the land-owners be white people rather than Jews but the Jews are currently working a system where they are the owners. Still, if we had full control over our societies that would still be the ideal. More people for the sake of more people isn't necessarily better. Why share resources with people who do not do anything to earn those resources? It's entirely unjust.
Capitalism doesn't have to necessitate growth if you control the system. Our current capitalist system does indeed promote growth because most people are nothing more than slave labor for the capital owners and given the resources on our planet, more people was in fact better and may in fact still be better to promote the growth of resources but the growth of resources does not have to be the rules of the game. There's nothing to stop socialism from promoting growth of resources either. If those who ran the socialist system wanted to put resource maximization at the forefront they would do so and many socialist countries do in fact do this, at least resource maximization for the people in charge while the rest of society suffers worse than capitalism.
It is very simple to implement a capitalist system and literally ban immigration. There done.
Why is a McDonald's employee "low value" while Mark Zuckerberg, Yoel Roth and the chief of diversity at some corporation 'high value'?
Explain how the chief of diversity is 'earning his way' while a coal miner who is unemployed due to draconian environmental legislation is not.
That chief of diversity does have value to the current system in place. Our moral values are setup wrong. The fact we promote diversity is a problem. We're living in a theocracy where the religious dogma is diversity and inclusion, so yes from the perspective of this moral value system, they do have immense value. The problem is the moral value system which needs to change. Once you change such a system to actually be holy and not degenerate then chief of diversity won't exist because non-whites will be deported and immigration will be banned. Under such a system he will no longer have value of though I suspect if he submited to such a system he would have value in promoting the dogma of the new moral value system.
And yet you think that those who add "value" to the current system deserve to live and those who do not deserve to die. Pretty disgraceful.
The world needs to change, and you need to get a pony.
You're arguing we need socialism because society is immoral. I am arguing we need to make society moral. You seem like the one who is coping and doesn't actually want to improve society.