BEING AGAINST GENOCIDE IS BEING AGAINST NATURAL SELECTION

Prove me wrong.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1pgWvUZI18U
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution
twitter.com/AnonBabble

If we remove all warning labels written in Spanish from every product in America would it count as genocide?

you better believe it whyte boi. you gonna get fucked

Stop giving organs to those born without
Stop coddling those born with a deficiency
Eugenics is for the safety of humanity.
Weed out the weak, bitches.

Kek.
High IQ non-white here. I'm impervious to jewish tricks.

You dont understand natural selection neither do genocide fetishests.
If we fight it and win we dont fall to natural selection. If we dont and die we do. If we try and fail we do.
But tyring to stop it is natural and is a test of worth.
If a donkey decides dehydration is natural selection and gives up it was.
The donkey that decides fuck that and struggles to the oasis won out and its line continues

100% agreed. No need for cruel treatment, though.

So you're in favor of white genocide ? You're not against natural selectio, are you ?

youtube.com/watch?v=1pgWvUZI18U

If the jews actually manage to do it then it's well deserved. Bravo.

Humans are a product of nature. We evolved to cooperate and save even the weak. We evolved to be r selected and keep all of our shit genes alive. Only the ones who were truly unsalvageable died, the weak, the slow and the dumb remained alive. That is why there are so many of us. Thus purifying the genotype is against the way natural selection occured in our case.

Nonsense. Your entire argument ignores race realism and postulates a single human species.

All the races were r selected. Even europeans, up until the 19th century.

White people who help others to the detriment of themselves due to pathological altruism are an evolutionary dead end and will eventually be phased out of the gene pool.

Then something changed and we evolved another strategy? How does developing a reproductive strategy that was beneficial given the historical conditions imply that once said conditions change (e.g. 19th century Europe or the current globalized world) we won't evolver some other strategy?
What we're seeing with the migrant crisis is territorial competition - NOT of Muslims against Whites but of Jews expelling native middle-eastern populations to create Lebensraum.

Ignore the only real argument itt and just respond to weak critiques.
Well done

You can never freeze the gene pool because there is active competition since there is no such thing as a post-scarcity economy.
I didn't respond to your critique because it is downright retarded.
> pic related

>Believing he is smart enough to see through Jewish Tricks

You have fallen for the most simple trap of all Goyim

if you genocide a superior race it flies in the face of natural selection...
it's a case by case basis

Genocide as a conscious act is artificial selection.

I mean: works similarly, but the moral backlash might get you out of the pool as well.

There is no such thing as artificial selection as we are biological organisms, and every action we make or machine we create is a product of our naturally developed mind.

There is no such thing as a "superior race". There are races that survive and races that don't.

This.

>You cannot freeze the gene pool
Didn't say you could.

That's not the point you suggest we accept it because it naturally occurs. I dont understand how you can believe to be intellectual if your idealogy is
>it's natural
It is anti civilization. I suppose if it is occuring and we are against it and we survive and grow that would also be "natural". Resistance is natural to genocide is my point. You suggest fighting it is not natural

We adopted a new strategy, but the few offsprings kept coming as if they were r selected. But we made sure to raise anyway because they were muh kids. Modern technology did things far worse, and i'm especially reffering to medicine. A few intelligent men created it and the dumb masses profit from it. Of course, we have a way of segregating, of not mixing good genes with bad genes, that is good. There are a lot of smart people who are only attracted to other smart people, but saving all the population of a race, even those who want their genes blacked is not worth it. Our race may pass through a bit of turmoil now, but believe it or not, that is how purification is done. People with an excessive amount of empathy towards niggers and shitskins will go down the sink and only the better whites will remain as whites. You are just as much of a fool as our enemies if you think our race will die from these pathetic attempts. The pendullum of history will swing right back, this time pushed by white men who know they're fighting for the lives of their children, then no one knows what will happen. And all this crap will occur because the faggots attempted genocide on us, instead of letting the balance intact.

>I stabbed him but it was natural as my brain made me do it
>I'm killing you naturally bro dont worry
Tell me how this is not savage thinking.
>The man made plans for population replacement in the west is natural as a biological creature did it
It's just too "get out of jail free"
You dont have real arguments you just point out its natural

High IQ huwhite guy here

No, it's pretty easy.
But since most Whites think you're a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist when you try to explain the Jewish trickery to them.
They'll straight up refuse to believe the evidence. It's all just a "huge coincidence" that the Soviet Revolution was led almost exclusively by Jews.
And the reason why Jews are so overrepresented in management positions in the media (& Hollywood) is obviously "because of them having average IQ of all people"

It's almost impossible to break the conditioning

Yes there is as the motives and mechanism are completely out of whack. We're not outbreeding, outcompeting, hunting or even fighting with each others.

In every other way, yeah, works the same.

Besides, back to OP's comment, we might oppose genocide, but recognize it would work the same way as natural selection. I, for example, wouldn't want niggers, phillipinos and South Americans to be extinct as higher IQ populations might do the same to us.

On the same branch, I would gladly force any black or shitskin back to africa and middle-east to avoid being outbred out of existence. (But let's face it, Welfare is a much more dire threat to our existence. Trust me, I'm a leaf)

I guess it's white genocide time.

I have no idea why you'd oppose giving gibs to the 'needy' (= degenerates & shitskins)

Those poor traumatized refugees NEED ~7.000€/month, after all once they learn our language, they can immediately start working and as we all know, all refugees are highly skilled professionals (like nuclear physicists)
Also it'd be racist and Islamophobic to deny them the basic human right of government handouts

I'm not making a political statement or placing bets here. My only point is that people who think biological evolution has stopped, or that we will one day get to the point where genocide just doesn't happen (even if through sterilization) are fooling themselves.

There will never be a post-scarcity economy. There will never be (((World Peace))).

Even if the European stock prevails it is only the first step toward brother's wars and the evolution of an even more intelligent race that will eventually drift apart from the common populace and start the whole process again.
Today's white person is tomorrow's shitskin.

We still kill people, we just calculate their economic worth before doing so. No point in eliminating potential wage slaves or cannon fodder.
If you're standing on oil reserves it's a very different story.

Ofcourse Sup Forums knows genocides are naturally occurring but I'd argue humans are more complex than that.
It is clear you view things very bleakly and at the most basic form as if black pilled.
I imagine you over dosed on red pills and think if you examine life at its rawest most biological form you have surpassed us.
In reality that is a step in many on Sup Forums.
Theres nothing "wrong" with your ideas but they are weak. You are basically a giant pussy. Like bike cuck.
>If a Tyrone/ Chad steals my gf I'd likely lose to him in a fight and he'll breed better than me. >This was natural and thats bottom line.
You should have pride, respect and a want to survive

That's not what I'm saying at all. Of course every organism should fight for its own existence.

Yeah I see what you mean. It is hard to tell whether the actions of humans upon other humans is natural selection. It works for other species, but at the same time, isn't a selection done by humans an artificial selection? It would be vain as fuck to say we've escaped the consequences of nature, but at the same time we have enough power to wipe out entire species. Regarding to ourselves, I think we should use natural selection only when it implies causes that humans don't control, just as it works for the other animals.
Also you should consider that genocide, even the natural one can work in unpredictable ways. Take the populations of cattle farmers. Some of those without the gene producing lactose died. But, some of those who didn't have the gene, still survived by being smart enough to make cheese. That's why human genocide, of killing people with one or more forbidden genes is wrong, nature still allows a fighting chance.

1: Send all undesirable immigrants back to their countries of origin.
2: First world countries begin trading exclusively among each other.
3. Proceed with orbital bombardment of all Third world countries.

Chans glitched cant quote
What is your point?
I assumed it was a Sup Forums related thing but you are saying that simply being against genocide is against natural selection then kind off. Sup Forums is not against genocide other than it's own which is natural. Only blue pilled normies would disagree with you. I hope you can see where I was confused. Basically only norms are against genocide on grounds of morality so your argument isnt really relevant here

Sure.
Natural selection has left what we call "civilization", upon which morals are built, like not genociding people. It was evolved through natural selection.

I agree it is a complex and highly convoluted process, much more akin to a stock market than to a Formula-1 race for example. At the same time I am confident that evolution is headed in a definite direction, i.e. there is a "correct" way to exist as a biological creature.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution

War also evolved through natural selection, and the number of Civilizations that commited genocide is much larger than the number of isolationist ones.
Every behavior is evolved behavior, but not every historically beneficial behavior is presently beneficial behavior.

In the context of present-day white populations for example, one could make the case that outgroup compassion is a behavioral atavism.

Right. So if you can get genocide done, then it's part of "natural selection". If you can't because of laws, that's also "natural selection" developed. Your suggestion that preventing genocide is somehow against the laws of evolution is invalid.

How does a ‘superior’ race get killed by an ‘inferior’ race? Do you not know what ‘natural selection’ means?

I'm just saying no law will be able to prevent it. It would be smarter to legalize mass sterilization because it would avoid mass murder.

In this case the definition of 'superior' is tautological and can be done away with.

Well you can make that case but it has nothing to do with the laws of natural selection, and is simply a tangent to your own thread.

You're literally claiming sterilization has nothing to do with natural selection.

Thank you Soros.

everyone agrees here dumb cunt

If everything we do is "natural selection", then it's not possible to be against natural selection.

It is possible to hold the belief that biological evolution can be overcome. In fact, I would claim this is currently an almost axiomatic belief in the Social Sciences today and leads to a staggering number of detrimental policies.

I beg to differ. It is impossible, for example, to be both a Christian and a Darwinist.