Darwinism is the ultimate redpill:

Darwinism is the ultimate redpill:

>survival of the fittest
>nature is amoral, this universe is indifferent
>all species are in a continuous battle for survival and reproduction
>resources are scarce, and need to be fought for
>women are by nature promiscuous and must be restrained for civilization to exist
>Monogamous patriarchal families are a necessity for social order and progress, because sexual competition is reduced, allowing men tob e productive for a common good
>people act on hardwired tribal, racial instincts, and this is to be cherished if one wishes to survive
>biologically, survival and offspring are the only things that matter
>tribalism is hard wired in humans, and it is futile to deny it
>our modern society has created a dysgenic environment where the lowest elements are the fittest, at the cost of the better
>welfare, immigration, pacifism, sexual promiscuity are dangerous to the continuation of the better genes and the overall tribe.
> tribes serve a evolutionary purpose as protectors of genes, maintaining a violent, protective code of enmity towards outsiders, and an ethical, cooperative code of amity towards tribal members.

Embrace the biological worldview Sup Forums. look at everything with darwinian spectacles.

recommended authors; Robert Ardrey, Lothrop Stoddard, Sir Arthur Keith, Robin Baker, Konrad Lorenz, Carleton Coon, Robert Murray, Garrett Hardin

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/05/red-grey-squirrels-cornwall
dailystormer.com/red-squirrels-grey-squirrels/
google.be/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0ahUKEwjljcS2oLjTAhWNUlAKHfD3A_8QFgg9MAY&url=http://focusingonwildlife.com/news/gray-squirrels-versus-red-squirrels-the-facts/&usg=AFQjCNHNagkgDlik0AgVC5CyXOophzgvIA
humanbiologicaldiversity.com/
nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/an-introduction-to-sir-arthur-keith/
hbdchick.wordpress.com/
edge.org/response-detail/23838
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_squirrel
cam.ac.uk/research/news/young-male-chimpanzees-play-more-than-females-with-objects-but-do-not-become-better-tool-users
freenortherner.com/2012/05/29/patriarchy-restraining-males/
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer
harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Natural selection isn't positive or negative. It is completely amoral, without regard for human notions of desirability.

The only thing that is regarded as desirable in the process of natural selection is the transmission of genes. nothing else.
In this view, a drug addicted negro on welfare with 8 kids with three different mothers is doing better than a rich, stable white couple who live the "childfree" life..

Seen in this light, social engineering, artificial society and over-intellectualism are dulling out our instincts, our desire for progeny.

a good example of this is the sterotypical cat lady. She fucks around, does not couple with a man, her uterus shrivels, and she artificially relieves her mother instinct by stimulating/abusing her instinct and hormones by taking care of pets, instead of children, as originally "designed" through natural selection, her biological urge to give birth is put to sleep by social conventions (overpopulation meme, feminism,...) and she becomes barren, she does not reproduce and as such her life is worthless from a natural point of view.
This is obviously not good for modern society, where prole negroes and islamic polygamists will outnumber decent, smart people, but the law of nature does not care for society. In the end, production of offspring is the only thing that matters.

So this is important for society as well; demographics is destiny

In the 1920’s this problem was recognized already, with notable names Lothrop Stoddard ( a true prophet, worth reading), Madison Grant, Paul Popenoe, O. W. Holmes,.... but after ww2 this was considered too evil to even think about. Now that we are confronted with mass immigration, feminism, dopamine-destroying pornography, the welfare state,... a solution tot this problem is very urgent.

we live in a society that has completely rebelled against the laws of nature, at her own peril. we do not protect our territory, our gene pool, nor do we cherish our strength, our survival instincts, we do not enforce stable patriarchal, monogamous families where sexual and power-based competition can be redirected into productive achievements for the benefit of society, we outright deny "racist" tribal instincts , and we are paying the price for it.
We have made it effectively so that in our artificial ecosystem an illiterate inbred paki immigrant with an iq of 80 has a legitimate chance of continuing his genes and his cultural memes.

We allow a massive female deficit, which means natives must compete with numerous carriers of foreign genetics, which reduces the chance of keeping the ethnic genepool clean.

We desperately try to suppress the ingroup-outgroup duality that exists everywhere, which results in us being hopelessly tolerant and naive, in a pathological way, completely blurring the distinction between us and them, while every other ethnicity, tribe, culture fully takes advantage of our self-handicapping.
Through the welfare state, the open borders, the permissiveness, fear of critiquing foreign elements, lax criminal laws, forced multiculturalism, all sorts of special gibs, affirmative action, toxic individualism,... we create a system where the fittest are the most degenerate, the most weak and the most foreign elements. The ones who can leech the most of the system, who contribute the least and take the most, are in this society the winners in the struggle for survival. That is the absolute disgrace of our modern world..

true morality is derived from biological will to survive and reproduce.

artificial morality proclaims fiction and unnatural ideals, which sometimes may support true morality without realizing it, but mostly goes against it.

prime example is third world aid. you effectively make it harder to survive, prosper and raise children by depriving resources and allocating them to others without getting anything in return. This is madness and a crime against the moral instincts. But this altruism is seen as the pinnacle of morality and humanity through the spectacles of religion, empathy, ideology, law,... whatever someone subscribes to.

the same goes for pacifism, raising someone else's child, opening the borders of your territory to outsiders, not making a distinction between your own in-group and the out-group,...

the Jewish religious law of prohibiting racemixing is an example of artificial morality that supports the natural morality, though it explains this with religious nonsense.

I wanted to hear more about the squirrels.

Like chimpansees or wolves, humans are not solitary animals. we have a family, a tribe, consisting of people who share enough of the same genes.
Within this in-group it is not good to kill, steal, or sow discord, because we have grown through natural selection to live in groups where we rely on each other for survival. In this group solidarity, common defense and peaceful mating are good things. In other words, we have a tribe, an “in-group”

toward the outgroup however, all things go. There is no such thing as compassion or altruism in nature. Even within the in-group these are seen as a mutual benefit, not as an ethical ideal

Religion is in my eyes not enough to establish an in-group, because not grounded in genetic reality. They may even be highly succesful, but they have no ground in genetics, and as such are susceptible to damaging the common gene pool of the in-group, effectively failing the original purpose of a tribe).
an example would be seeing negro christians and white christians as belonging tot he same ingroup. Artificially, through human eyes it may be seen as such, but nature doesn’t care about religion or ideology. It only cares about genes.
Another example of what I mean with an unnatural value-based, and fake in-group, would be modern europe.
they promote third world aid (allocate resources without getting anything in return), open the borders (abandon their territorial claim), are positive towards racemixing (genetic dilution),...
so a false in group is created, by blurring the distinction between native genetic europeans and negroes, arabs,... and this biological failure is masked with artificial ideas of civil nationalism, humanism, diversity,.....

You need to shoot, trap, poison, and incinerate those invasive foreign squirrel niggers and also the ones that aren't squirrels

This is like saying the sky is blue, no shit. Darwinism is required for a red pill, as it is the mother of scientific sexism and racism

>not Transhumanism
>not ascending beyond the primitive existence lesser beings are bound to
Biocuck pls

theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/05/red-grey-squirrels-cornwall

dailystormer.com/red-squirrels-grey-squirrels/

google.be/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0ahUKEwjljcS2oLjTAhWNUlAKHfD3A_8QFgg9MAY&url=http://focusingonwildlife.com/news/gray-squirrels-versus-red-squirrels-the-facts/&usg=AFQjCNHNagkgDlik0AgVC5CyXOophzgvIA

Your shit nigger squirrels are displacing the cute English red squirrels because they, like you, are a bunch of big gluttonous aggressive niggers with excessively high fecundity

exactly. funny how people can openly discuss exterminating, forcefully sterilizing invasive squirrels, but bow in superstitious awe for "mankind" and parrot slogans "no human is illegal" "we are all one race",....

the artificial, unnatural cult of idolatry for mankind is seen clearly. all forms of socialism and liberalism, no matter how antireligious, still adhere to a human view that is at odds with scientific truth.

humanbiologicaldiversity.com/

not trying to be edgy, but this is the harsh truth. humans have deluded themselves that they are above the laws of nature, but just as we cannot break the laws of gravity, so we cannot break the laws of natural selection, genetic struggle, survival of the fittest, entropy, without being punished for it.

just as a person falling of a building dies by committing a “crime” against gravity, so will a cuckold's genes perish in the war for procreation, because his fetish interferes with biological standards. In both cases, death is the price.

a difference is however that these biological laws are not universal as are physical laws. gravity counts as much for humans as for rabbits, but each species has different survival techniques, requirements, tactics, social structures, skills, sexual strategies,... depending on where the path of natural selection and evolution has taken them

Can confirm. Live near DC. bigass grey squirrels the size of cats will fight with wild rabbits here frequently.

They're missing out on our greatest cuck surprise: the black squirrel.

They're growing rapidly, and they're even more niggardly than the greys.

Plus he's a black squirrel with a big black squirrel cock. How can others even compete.

nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/an-introduction-to-sir-arthur-keith/

this is a very good, though lengthy article about noted biologist and anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith concerning the role of groups, communities, tribes, and how they formed throughout history, what their evolutionary purpose is, and how they still are at work today.

recommended reading

hbdchick.wordpress.com/

another recommended site, concerning outbreeding and inbreeding, sociobiological violence, intelligence, immigration, genetic warfare, and how sociology and biology are strongly connected.

> sexual promiscuity are dangerous to the continuation of the better genes and the overall tribe.
sexual promiscuity is eugenic actually

>survival of the fittest
>nature is amoral, this universe is indifferent
>all species are in a continuous battle for survival and reproduction
>resources are scarce, and need to be fought for
Agreed. The rest is bullshit though.

it depends. if you allow too much polygamy, you will create an underclass of bèta's, who will be violent and contraproductive.

you will inbreed, and create a clannish system, which destroys national cohesion.

imagine the following example

1 alpha with 5 wives, and 4 betas without a wife.

this alpha now has to defend himself and his family on his own, the beats will not help him because they have no interests in the fight. they may even join up against him

next example: alpha has the best wife, the 4 betas all have a wife.

they will now cooperate, there will be no more sexual tension, and they can work together for their common interests and blood ties. together they can repell invaders.

there is a reason all succesful societies have instituted a base line of monogamy. polygamy was allowed then only as reward for proven leaders, for captured women,....

if you allow polygamy without any restraint, you end up with yemen. a clannish, inbred tribal territory without loyalty or cooperation.

moderate eugenics are a very suitable means to purge the gene pool. even now, 90% of down syndromes are aborted. this is good and should be encouraged.

read the rest of the thread. and you are right, the rest of OP post is more sociological than biological.

>thinks retarded politicians means shitbrown people with thin arms that attack like apes in swarms
>literally illiterate retards that cannot even speak their own language right.
Fuck off with your disgusting cuckold fetish you freak and hide in your basement with your cum stained fedora and kill yourself.

abhorrent post.

i didnt mention stability
having alphas fuck many women is eugenics since best genes are spread and betas dont reproduce
its less stable but its more eugenic "survival of the fitest type situation"

even if it leads to betas fighting the alpha someone will survive

i am in no way advocating anything

Pine Martins kill Greys but are too large to get to the end of the branches to kill Reds

The government should breed them and give every school child one to release

This is very true. You can see it in the mentality of elites.

edge.org/response-detail/23838

chinese eugenics, interesting article.

>having alphas fuck many women is eugenics since best genes are spread

not necessarily. alpha genes =/= best genes

>someone will survive

and that someone is not necessarily the best person. the fittest, sure, but fittest does not correlate with the most desirable.

see

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_squirrel

Red pride world wide.
Bye grey subsquirrel.

shieeeet

nice

bump

>survival of the fittest

Why have all the sheep not been eaten then? Do you seriously think these retards could last tens to hundreds of thousands of years without getting wiped out? Do you know what they do when they are attacked? They lie down! Darwinism is Freemason lies.

Very enlightening. Appreciate the post.

...

...

>survival of the fittest

The religious are more fit than atheists, as they have more children.

>all species are in a continuous battle for survival and reproduction

Humans are scavengers who eat animals killed by other people, and most predators always go after carrion before a living being.

The battle is low-intensity, and it's hard to even recognize that you're in it.

>resources are scarce, and need to be fought for

No, generally in nature there isn't enough for anyone and we all die, or there's more then enough and everything gets fat.

>women are by nature promiscuous and must be restrained for civilization to exist

Women understand that they can eat roadkill for their entire lifes, and refuse to contibute to a state that genocides them. Female chimps use more tools than males;

>cam.ac.uk/research/news/young-male-chimpanzees-play-more-than-females-with-objects-but-do-not-become-better-tool-users
>While in adult wild chimpanzees it is females that are more avid and competent tool users
>Immature females, on the other hand, showed lower rates of object manipulation, especially in play, but displayed a much greater diversity of manipulation types than males
>This seems to prepare the females better for future tool use. In an earlier study at Gombe (Tanzania), immature female chimpanzees were also observed to pay closer attention to their mothers using tools and became proficient tool users at an earlier age than males

Women don't need you.

>Monogamous patriarchal families are a necessity for social order and progress, because sexual competition is reduced, allowing men tob e productive for a common good

So female apes can produce tools for a purpose, but male humans need the law to give them women as slaves or else they're useless?

No, you just like patriarchy. You want to optimize society for yourself - nothing wrong with that.

>Everything else you said

More complex tools produce a more complex environment = Higher IQ.

Wasn't his original theories flawed?
Didn't he inbred his children thinking they where gonna be great?
They all came out fucked up kek

Poot lad was smart,and stupid

>just be like le animals
>t. human being with internet connection who'd be dead without modern technology

>Didn't he inbred his children thinking they where gonna be great?

Perhaps he was just a pervert, who knows.

...

Aren't we all?

You must me 13 years old or something.

Eugenics is the civilized solution to the inhumane suffering that is darwinism.

If we don't talk about it, darwinism is what naturally happens - and it way worse then eugenics.

bump

thank you. I find it weird Sup Forums never discusses it.

stop shitposting

>The religious are more fit than atheists, as they have more children.

very true. religion also tied a tribe together, making it a stronger cohesive group compared to individualistic tribes, and made strong binding laws possible

>No, generally in nature there isn't enough for anyone and we all die

so scarce resources?

>or there's more then enough and everything gets fat

look no further than todays obesity and diabetes epidemic. though one should note the genes that determine wether you get fat fast (inb4 muh genetics) are good, and in times of scarcity a slow metabolism is helpful.

>Women don't need you.

maybe in our civilized society not anymore no. but you are a retard if you think ancient women or chimpansees could survive on their own. female chimps are abused and raped by chimps, and if you study history you can see how terrible life was for stronk womyn through the ages.
not to mention reproduction. pretty sure you need males for that.

>More complex tools produce a more complex environment = Higher IQ.

outbreeding= higher iq

harsh climate with need to plan food supply= higher iq

etc.

freenortherner.com/2012/05/29/patriarchy-restraining-males/

read this, and you will more clearly understand the need for a patriarchal order.

Virgins: the thread

not an argument

not an argument jan-klaas

he made a lot of mistakes yes. but following scientists have corrected those, and evolution is today only denied by evangelical retards.

I encourage you to read up on it. very fascinating, a completely different perspective.

Do you believe all life came from rain and rocks?

all squirrels are rats with fluffy tails

yes, Sup Forums BTFO, what do, le trump general are so much better. thank you for your contribution with an ad hominem not based in truth.

Dont have anything to add just wanted to say 10/10 thread op

m8 just read up on evolution. it really isn't that hard.

>all life came from rain and rocks

that isn't at all what evolution entails.

smash your own face off you faggot

>there is a reason all succesful societies have instituted a base line of monogamy

It goes a bit deeper than that.
Monogomy encourages beta males to channel their inner sex drive to being productive for a common cause. It takes great amount of motivation to become a scientist, engineer, etc. and these fields are populated by beta males who couldn't get laid in high school. Being frustrated virgins during high school, they channel their inner horny monkey into research and study and higher learning, which leads to inventions and society advancing. This is because without becoming a successful engineer or scientist, they would be doomed to a life of virginity, which they must
instinctually avoid. It's not just about getting laid, it's about finding a good spouse to produce children for you, so beta males who cannot find a spouse without making 6 digit salaries are forced to become excessively productive.

I know,
Evolution is a constant thing,happens to us all the time,a natural force of biological change


But to be honest I don't believe life originated from soups long ago to from cells

I'd rather believed in magic space daddy,not like it matters anyways

Squirrel Master Race

>10 to the hundredth power AD
>universe is in heat death
>all life went extinct billions of years ago therefore terminating all genetic lines
>"man, I sure wish I had children 10 to the hundredth power years ago. Look at how much they helped me when I was dead.

well yea, concerning the big bang and the very first origin of life, I am agnostic. it is very well possible that an external force of nature "god" triggered it.

but that that force of nature is the same god of the bible, or the quran or the norse mythology, seems ridiculous to me.

and we know a lot of molluscs and bacteria that have formed out of "dead" material, so it is possible that the chain of evolution started that way.

indeed. a fine mix between alphas and betas is needed.

thanks sven

We have nigger squirrels here in Mexico. They look just like rats

not sure what your point is.

There's only one real way to find out

What if there existed a naturally occurring, non-toxic substance that inoculated us against 'tribal instincts' and prevented the mental materialization of ego?

see you on the other side argiebro ( or perhaps not)

how poetic. We all evolved from squirrels.

come again?

>so scarce resources?

None at all. No amount of fighting will earn you dinner. Carrion becomes the only food.

>maybe in our civilized society not anymore no. but you are a retard if you think ancient women or chimpansees could survive on their own

So, tons of other species survive without help from their males, female chimps could tear your face off, and human women can use fire and spears to kill any other animal on the planet - but they need you?

>female chimps are abused and raped by chimps

Even more reason for women to stay away from you.

>and if you study history you can see how terrible life was for stronk womyn through the ages

In Greece, women were honored because childbirth was so deadly, every woman put her life on the line for the future of Greece.

It was terrible - but not for any of the reasons you named. You want to rape women? Fine - their concern is the fact that the rape might kill them.

>not to mention reproduction. pretty sure you need males for that

Let's stay on subject;

>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer
>About 85% of Philippine Aeta women hunt, and they hunt the same quarry as men. Aeta women hunt in groups and with dogs, and have a 31% success rate as opposed to 17% for men

Women don't need you. I'm sorry.

>outbreeding= higher iq

Look up outbreeding depression - heterozygotes (Mixed race people) are less fit, not more.

>read this, and you will more clearly understand the need for a patriarchal order

My own penis? I'm all for patriarchy, but at least I admit it's my fetish. These women don't need me. The only thing I want from them is sex. As long as they give me that, I don't care what they do.

Outstanding thread.

Kevin MacDonald plug necessary.

The reason most Whites don't know all these things is because the Jews have been saying the opposite as part of their own evolutionary strategy.

Always have your Darwinian glasses on. The struggle extends up to the most rarefied heights of culture.

Literally everything is racial propaganda of one kind or another. How could it not be? We are in our deepest nature competing sets of genes.

>In Greece, women were honored because childbirth was so deadly

sparta=/= Greece. in Athens women were veiled and not allowed to leave the house without permission of their husband.

>Philippine Aeta women hunt

that's all well and fine, but why do you conclude from one ecosystem that women in general can do without men?

show me a matriarchy before the Industrial revolution that was succesful.

>I'm all for patriarchy, but at least I admit it's my fetish.

did you read it? I gives a compelling case that patriarchy in the first place restrains men, and only secondly women, in a way that is necessary to avoid extreme competition for women, allows for a safe upbringing of offspring, makes common civic loyalty possible, prevents clannish polygamy,...

>So, tons of other species survive without help from their males, female chimps could tear your face off, and human women can use fire and spears to kill any other animal on the planet - but they need you?

yes. for mutual benefit.

>No amount of fighting will earn you dinner

are you denying ancient humans and humanoids fought for food and hunted?

Kevin Macdonald is eye-opening.

jews are perfect specimens of evolution, and have found a perfect ecological niche for survival.

the truest redpill is reading the old testament through a darwinian lens. the ingroup amity, outgroup enmity, the ethnic distinction, the separation from others, the nepotism, the extreme tribalistic love for the homeland and the holy soil, the ruthless genocide against foreigners in the struggle for survival,....

an evolutionary perfection of the tribal unit

I don't doubt that Zionist Jews hold a dual honor code that they use as a basis to cheat non-jews but I don't see that as an argument against pharmacological suppression of tribalistic instincts.

Empathy, sociability and care for the weekest are traits which survived the evolutionnary struggle and helped put humans at the top of the world

Checkmate fag

Checkmate

in other words tl;dr.

read Sir Arthur Keith and the ethical code of ingroup amity (empathy, cooperation, care, love) and the cosmical code of outgroup enmity (defence, hatred, aggression, competition, struggle,)


lazy frenchie.

Honestly? I give thought to this. Here is my take, Sup Forums-social views aside.

We are vastly over populating. Not the meme-overpopulation but over populating in the sense that we as humans are having a negative growth impact on ourselves. Fewer humans necessitates a need for smarter humans. You can't just throw population away so the tribalism takes over to protect it.

Unfortunately, smarter humans make life easier so population blooms until society can't control it anymore and there is a die off.

I look at it like algal blooms, you know what I mean?

Now... let's look at this from a "space civilization" point of view.

What if, for a species to thrive, it has to go through several growth-die-off stages? Look at Dinosaurs for example. In order to get birds, which are very effective at life, we had to go through a global population of their predecessors.

So what if, in order to get to a successful, stellar species, we have to go through stages of tribalism-civilization. Niggerism, jews, what-ever we all hate right now, is just a part of that stage. Cat women are a natural function of biological-society to cause a steady die out.

In 1,000-10,000 years - even if Islam or Niggers win, eventually something will change. They will become secular society of intelligent individuals through need and selection. Then their die off begins.

It keeps going and going until someone gets the cycle right. Re: Birds.

Eventually the same goal is met... it just wasn't our time.

Exactly. And it's SO OBVIOUS.

But now Jews are posing as the inventors of moral universalism! There's a howler of a Walter Kaufmann essay where he argues that the unique moral achievement of Judaism was treating insiders and outsiders the same. Literally the lyingest lie possible. God read that and now needs new sides.

It's hard to keep my admiration for KMac in check. He worked all this stuff out while a professor at an American university in the 1990s. Imagine how he was hated. Far more than any mere conservative. Guy gives zero fucks.

And now everyone who wants to know can know and a Ph.D-level Alt-right library on the Jews is growing at a rapid clip. He's training Andrew Joyce into a helluva protege and edits a badass scholarly journal, The Occidental Quarterly, and the webzine The Occidental Observer for topical stuff. They often throw scholarly bones to the nonpaying TOO audience though.

I gotta go give them some shekels, wtf am I doing leeching off these confirmed bros

activates my almonds. appreciate your comment.

> it just wasn't our time.

a bit of a blackpill though. determinism

you should read Oswald Spengler. looks like he would fit you.

and I would say that humans have already found the cycle/niche/ecological environment. there is a reason there are 7 billion of us who can survive anywhere on the planet in great luxury.

but otherwise, very interesting comment

>sparta=/= Greece. in Athens women were veiled and not allowed to leave the house without permission of their husband

Many deities exist to protect women during birth, and in India mothers are worshipped as manifestations of Shakti.

And to be honest, I don't think men veiled women. Among the ancient races with flowing hair, men and women both had long hair that they wore up in buns. In the wind, your hair blows around, and you wear the veil to prevent that.

>that's all well and fine, but why do you conclude from one ecosystem that women in general can do without men?

Because hunting and gathering is the native state of humanity. If women can survive in this state, it means that they don't need men natively.

>show me a matriarchy before the Industrial revolution that was succesful

God made men and women, but Colt made they equal. The smallest woman can shoot the largest man.

>did you read it?

You're preaching to the choir.

>are you denying ancient humans and humanoids fought for food and hunted?

No, I'm saying that we only hunt when we have no other choice. We pick the low-hanging fruit. Ranching is like planting a Pig-Tree and trimming it so all the fruit is low-hanging.

And even a woman can kill a cow. Just tie it to a tree, and stab it in the neck until it dies.

I love the Bible.

Well look at it this way? The numbers game isn't so much of an indicator.

Society is like a gametophyte. We grow as one large mass of single ploidy organisms which spawned from a spore of the previous civilization.

The sporophytes, haploid, grow out of our society. Eventually a new spore is formed and that goes on to make a new gametophyte.

TLDR: Due to technology, our 'old dead body' is surviving longer while the 'new body' is growing inside it. Eventually the new body will burst out of the old one. Then it too will grow old and a new one comes out of it.

This function has been going on for as long as we have had collective governments. It is organic in nature so scale only speeds things up and makes the die-back more dramatic.

So yes technology is sustaining numbers, but we don't know if those numbers simply mean we have several more die-offs of increasing intensity ahead of us... or does it mean we are 'winning the game of life' and just have to 'fight off the lesser society that wants to take us back down.'

So it might be a good thing that the west is having a die off, or it might be the end of our species.

(((kaufmann)))


man one has to admire how perfectly tuned jews are for survival. be they neocon, orthodox religious, reformed liberal, capitalistic globalist, socialistic, from whatever angle they work to ensure their survival to the detriment of others.

even unconsciously they use everything at their disposal.

the culture of critique series is arguably the best book written on jewry.

in a better world he would be given the medal of freedom for warning america on the parasitic tribe living in their midst.

The bird comparison may have been apt when we were essentially just upright chimps.
But after our adoption of language, I argue that we transcended any earthly analogue.
Humans are qualitatively different from any species that we know to exist.

fug, gametophyte is haploid. sporophyte is diploid, but you get the idea,

not the kind we have right now
it also selects for low investment parents, which is not a good trait

The fact you think I give a flying fuck about western europe's demise is even more remarkable!

Yeah it's hilarious that the Great Evil, Fascism, that all goyim must be on the lookout for, is just Gentiles Jew-ing.

Jews are natural 3rd-estaters, mere businessmen. The printing press made the businessman the purveyor of information, supplanting the priest. Ergo modernity in all its nastiness. The internet ends that same era b/c it decommodifies information.

On the one hand, World Star. There is going to be a lot of pleb information.

OTOH real intellectuals indifferent to money (first-estaters, priest-type) will have a much easier time getting and disseminating information now.

We are recovering what our ancestors lost.

I've said it before: this is a damn good timeline.

>medal of freedom
And Rushton would have the Nobel, to quote Lynn

Nah, KMac's even better, give 'em both Nobels

>We are in our deepest nature competing sets of genes.
So true.
And it truly is the genes, not species, that compete.
A gene that lets you metabolize iron may exist in the same exact form inside a pineapple or an extinct shellfish.
However, I can not ignore that humans poses a quality beyond our genes (beyond an emergent property of a set of genes even) that allows us to do the things we do.
Language has potentiated our minds in a way that has allowed us to do things in decades that natural selection of genes alone would not allow for anything less than millions of years of competition.

>following the ques of biology is imperative to living well
>monogamy must be a thing

choose one

in a way, the rise of nazism in europe and 'the holocaust lol' were a kind of eugenics program forcefully placed upon them. The ones who were smart, adapted, got out, made arrangements, survived, etc. The stupider, more naive jews, got rounded up.

You can argue whether or not they deserve their famous history of "jewish persecution" or not, it does not really matter. Even just the 'story' of it brainwashes a lot of their own into a hyper-sensitive, survival oriented mindset.

it is interesting.

>hurr im evil
>society doesnt exist
>its anarchy now plz let it be anarchy
*tips fedora*

sorry buddy this shit aint going away and now your sinful, evil worldview is plastered across the internet for everyone to see

Agreed.
Our ability to trace male lineage through monogamy was our downfall.
Men transitioned from brotherly, un-jealous, protectors of the species (when we were orgiastic) to jealous protectors of one female and a few, specific, children.

>Language has potentiated our minds in a way that has allowed us to do things in decades that natural selection of genes alone would not allow for anything less than millions of years of competition.

This is the first truth you have to understand before you can understand the futility of darwinism.

Darwinists are fighting the battles in a war that our species won thousands of years.

We are the masters of the Baldwin Effect.

Evolution is obsolete.

Not buying monogamy-is-unnatural. It's unnatural for niggers, yes.

Many kinds of social structures evolved for different species. Some species evolve to be monogamous and some species evolve to be polygamous. Some species have queens, ffs. And some reproduce asexually.

Are you using any evidence, besides your visceral jealousy that you feel when you imagine another pleasing your 'mate', to suggest that human beings are ill adapted for orgiastic behavior?
What if I told you there was a naturally occurring substance that demonstrably promotes such behavior and the dissolution of ego and it was likely consumed frequently by our ancestors?

When you say Darwinists, are you including proponents of (marginal at absolute best) racial superiority?
If so, I agree.

Evolution does not follow a certain path or has a goal. We can only hope that at some point something will emerge that is responsible enoguh to take life to the stars in a good way.
That's also why I always say to everyone who does not want to ahve children because overpopulation that these should get the most. The selflessness and farshight of those individuals are traits that are needed once shtf.
That or oblivion

Not buying this either. It seems to me that you're conflating Darwinism with liberalism's fictitious State of Nature.

Evolution can't stop, no matter how much we learn. If anything the information boom accelerates it. E.g. if we go to artificial wombs, we'll just select for people who can get the cash to have a lot of artificial womb babies. Even when we change our environment and make a gene-environment feedback loop, the process of replicating and culling genes remains totally Darwinian.

I mean, picking a mate was already eugenics, doing it a little more consciously changes nothing essential.

Evolution and life are simply the same thing.

>teleology is wrong

>teleology is right

Language is the forerunner of human innovation. We invent the thing AFTER we invent the concept/word.
We hit the potential for singularity when we invented language.
Now all we do is fight over the words we will and won't use because those in power know that we will invent the world we allow ourselves to talk about.
The potential for utopia exists. No more genetic modification is needed.
All that is needed is the ability to openly discuss it.

>survival of the fittest

this doesn't mean the strong survive, if this were true we would have been wiped out by the neanderthals.

Those who adapt quickest survive

genetic 'fitness' has nothing at all to do with physical fitness/strength.
They teach you this in 6th grade.
The adults are talking.

no no you miunderstand. evolution in se is not teleological, but humans, because of our intellect can effectively create an environment where we can guide natural selection.

today we have a very dysgenic environmentso we must reverse it that we may create an eugenic environment.

what I meant was that evolution of itself is not teleological. there is no goal behind it. but it's effects on humans are very real.

>it is interesting.

it is indeed

I do not think in any way you give a fuck.

damn. pretty good.

I don't know where you want to carry this conversation.

yes, maybe read my follow up posts, you would see I have included that. nevertheless thanks for your contribution.

In fact I am! Specifically r-K theory based on a shitload of evidence measuring ~70 different variables. Rushton changes lives:

harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm

Also
>visceral jealousy
Where might a thing like that come from, evolutionarily speaking? Just spitballin here.

Ain't no "human beings," btw, many types, many psychological profiles, many behaviors.

That said I think there is something uniquely rational about one man + one woman and that polygamous peoples are in that sense irrational peoples. Cuz 1M+1F=1baby. And it gives the betas a reason to work so monogamous peoples BTFO the Other.