Social movements as part of the Superstructure

Blaming the jews is just right wing identity politics, quite similar to how certain parts of the left like to blame white men. You are not thinking it through, that's the problem.

Identity politics always follows the same pattern when blaming a group for their problems. The pattern is "We have problem X because of the actions of group Y". When the person engaging in idpol tries to find out the motivations of group Y, which is already rare enough, they tend to assign them some trait that is equivalent to "evil". Blacks are lazy, Jews are greedy etc.
There is a grain of truth in this thought process, albeit tiny. Random accidents happen, normal people might suddenly flip out and stab everyone around them, but that's rare. If mass stabbings constantly occur, there has to be some reason, something that is driving people to it again and again.
The mistake idpol practitioners commit is the fundamental attribution error. Instead of seeing a certain behaviour as being caused by some previous event, it's interpreted as a fundamental property of the person. For example, if a person gets angry with you for no good reason, you are more likely to think that being angry and unfriendly is just an inherent property of them, you don't try to think of what might have happened to them before meeting you that made them this way.

This error can apply to groups as well. Let's take the common American belief that Asians are smarter than average. They see Asians excel in academia and think that it's an inherent property, something genetic or whatever. They don't think about the chinese upper class, which likes to send their well educated kids to America to gain prestigious degrees. Chinas talented people are sent to America, resulting in a larger number of Asians that are good in school. But finding that out would require research and effort, so people instead think they are just born better.
If you were to base a policy on this wrong knowledge, you might make immigration for Asians really easy, thinking it would make your Pisa score shoot through the roof. We know that the result would be anything but that.

Similarly, there is a reason for jews being overrepresented in the capitalist class. They were forced into finance and trade in the middle ages since regular trades were prohibited for them. This became family tradition and is still practised by some today.
What Hitler, your "hero" did, was channel the rage against the capitalists, which could have fueled a socialist revolution, against a subset of the capitalists, the Jews, instead. He didn't create class consciousness, which would have allowed the proletarians to rise up against their oppressors, but instead false consciousness. Blaming a religion for the problems instead of the economic system, he went on a pointless war of extermination.
Even if every single Jew had died back then, the system would not have improved, because Jews are not at fault for the issues of capitalism. But while it's obvious that flooding America with Chinese migrants would not solve it's education problem, people like you honestly believe that killing Jews would solve the issues of modern society.

You ignore that Autism Level and certain behaviours are heritable. Asians have a higher average Autism Level because they are more cold-adapted. That result in more people with higher intelligence in their population. Blacks are lazy because they had only minimal selective pressure in Africa that would have resulted in lots of highly motivated people in their populations.
archive.is/Yui9v

You pinkos really ought to be exterminated.

What can't take a joke? Maybe you should go to a safe space instead.

The essence of identity politics is treating people as groups based on arbitrary characteristics rather than as individuals. There are no monolithic "asians" or "blacks". There are people, some of whom are stupid and some of whom are smart. You cannot punish the smart ones for the bad luck of being born with a similar appearance to the stupid ones.

I think the kids call it "banter" these days.

Then explain why the Soviet Union, a state where people actually went for the "real" bad guys and "won", was full of poverty, extermination and oppression?

I swear if the answer to this will be the not-real-communism-meme I'm going to freak out

You dumb fam? Activism didn't end slavery, it took a fucking civil war, they had to change the basis of the South's mode of production, and ratify an amendment.

It's not a joke if you have to enforce it via moderation. Same way it's not a good society if you have to maintain a system of work camps and send hundreds of thousands of average people there to maintain your reign of terror.

But Soviet population increased during Stalin's rule user

The population dramatically increased during the industrial revolution, even during the age of Marx. Therefore his critique of capitalism is completely wrong, and the life of the average worker was simply great in the middle of the 19th century, right?

Jesus Christ you're in a chan site. Chill the fuck out about a meme wordfilter or leave.

Because just going for the "bad guys" isn't enough. The truth is there aren't any bad guys. The system is the problem, and that is determined by the material conditions underlying society. Soviet communism reverted to authoritarian state capitalism because it did not actually change the underlying conditions.

Humans evolved in tribes, not as solitary apex predators. Therefore tribalism is in our blood. That is why even this board has flags.

That is true. I'm not saying humans aren't psychologically flawed. They are.

So following our basic instincts means that we are flawed? Where did I hear that?

...

Don't worry user. Admitting you have a problem is the first step to solving it.

There is a fourth option on the right. Technology.
Selective breeding cannot compete with the rate of change made possible through scientific research. Even the most ruthlessly optimal eugenics program would be totally obsolete within a century.

So if something doesn't result in near-instantaneous gratification, then engaging in it is futile? Yes, eugenic programs need generations to yield widespread results, but evolution is inherently slow by human standards, as only about 4-5 new generations can born during the life of one man.
How the hell would health and intelligence end up as obsolete? Intelligence is the driving force behind the progress of technology, and health is just better in general.

No, once again that's the complete opposite of what I was saying. Do you even read the posts you respond to?

Within one or two hundred years humans will not be the most advanced intelligences on Earth, and the machines which replace us will be self-improving at a rate far in excess of anything achievable by humans. At that point, if you want super-genius kids, you will just be able to ask them to do the necessary modifications.

Think of it as a race - you love talking about races after all. You have a horse drawn cart ready to set off now. The other team are still in the process of putting the wheels on their F1 car. Do you think it makes the slightest difference whether you whip your horse or not?

You should read less sci-fi and more futuristic fantasy like Dune. Even if we manage to make a functioning AI, do you honestly believe humans will be replaced by biological machines made from human DNA?

No. Your lack of reading comprehension continues to astound me.

If you make some super-child then you do it by choosing the most optimal available genes, not just from the parents but a wider set too. Then you give him (or more like it) some super-specialized upbringing, preferably handed by AI and simulations. At that point what connection does it have to its parents? How many parents would it technically have if its made from the genes of dozens of different people?

If intelligence is principally determined by genetics, then there's no reason humans couldn't be allowed to raise the child.
There's no reason their DNA couldn't be used as the base so the child shares their appearance, but with the genes which determine intelligence replaced with superior ones.

I don't understand why you would be opposed to the creation of superior humans.

I take you aren't opposed to their creation either. So, do you have any problems with eugenics, other than it being slow?
One gene can determine a string of different things, and they need to work together with other genes to work well. Simply replacing all of them related to intelligence can have unforeseen results. E.g. insomnia and short sightedness often come in package with higher intelligence, and that point you might have to make a tradeoff. And these are minor things, you could turn that child into a walking festival of cancer if you are careless. Read these chapter to see what I mean:
archive.is/zaFyz
archive.is/ekAcH
archive.is/YXlyu

Eugenics involves suffering on a monumental scale. At best you have to restrict the freedom of large numbers of people. More likely you would have to impose harmful medical procedures on them or outright kill them. If you tried to do it along racial lines war would be inevitable.
It's not just pointless - it's messy and cruel.

I know gene editing is complicated and extremely risky. That's why humans won't be the ones doing it.

It's pointless. Superior unto what? There is no endpoint beyond perpetuation of this one chosen value, this one spook.

Everyone who thinks man should aspire to godhood through gradual improvement forgets one simple thing: there never was a god. You are improving yourself into and towards a void.

I understand your nihilistic viewpoint, but honestly I simply derive pleasure from the existence of intelligent life. Everything is ultimately meaningless, so I do what makes me happy.

Nah, you just have to give people incentives to breed carefully. You can do that by completely eliminating welfare and starting programs where you give lesser people money if they let themselves sterilized. This way you'd see a gradual improvement without forcing anyone to do something they don't want to.

Ah, ancap logic. Giving people the choice between starvation and sterilization is totally a free choice without any coercion or loss of liberty.

I think this is where we're going to run into an ideological impasse. You think it's okay to starve people to death. I don't.

Even then you need experiments, so those computers would have to create at least foetuses, and even then you'd have some effects you can only observe after they are developed. So maybe you'd end up with a few combinations that cause various mental problems (e.g. schizophrenia, psychopathy, etc). So that super child could still go mad and you'd end up with a failure.

There is quite a difference between starving to death and making children even though you can't feed them. Those who make bad decisions should suffer the consequences.

Sounds a lot like the American prison system famalam

Wow, that is just maximum bait.

You guys forget that intelligence isn't even real, there is no single substance that makes someone better or worse at everything.
We need a word filter for it.

Here is a lecture discussing the subject: youtube.com/watch?v=gjR3h0RqVG0

Intelligence is mostly just pattern recognition, or at least that's the most important aspect of it. You can compare two people's capabilities when it comes to that. Maybe making it into an exact number is a bit too much, but claiming that it's not real is ridiculous.

I disagree.
Some people say it's pattern recognition, others say it's some kind of brain speed but there are so many things where these don't help you. How do you draw a picture, compose a song, build a house or solve special relativity with pattern recognition. And while I'm at it, how do you know that your skill at pattern recognition can't be trained?

Intelligence is defined as a capability you are born with that makes you better or worse at all tasks.
With all the various skills we need, there is no one skill that would be equivalent to intelligence and our skills can all be trained.

I think people are different but I think this is mostly due to different training. The only ones that are really inferior because of their genes are people with disorders, everything else can be explained with nurture.

That's not true, intelligence is still about understanding available information and making good decisions based on it. Hopefully I don't have to explain how recognizing patterns helps with making those decisions. Of course it's not the same as using your muscles efficiently, so one can be very intelligent and still be a bad singer simply because he can't control his tongue, jaw, throat, etc. But that intelligent man can still understand a book about music theory better than a less intelligent person who can sing very well.
How do you explain then the difference between Africa and East Asia? Although China is a socialist shithole the living standards there are still higher than in the average Sub-Saharan African country. And it had a very bloody history during the 20th century, yet they were able to build a functioning country. Now look at South Africa or Occupied Rhodesia and tell me that that they look like that because of a lack of training.

Yes, I believe it's about training.
Your social darwinism memes neglect that race is a discarded category in biology. There are no significant genetic differences between them so it has to be culture.
Blacks do just as well as others when not inside a continent that is constantly on fire or a ghetto in a rust belt city. You are being a
R A C I S T

You can tell races apart simply by looking at their bones. It is only discarded by braindead Cultural Marxists. archive.is/tMPFH
Again, that is completely wrong. If it was the case then we couldn't trace people's ancestry to certain populations.
Show me an example of a completely black population doing well. South Africa wasn't "on fire" yet it's now turning into a country just as bad as its neighbours now that the blacks are forced into every field of life via affirmative action. And Africa is such an unstable place full of warlords because of the locals being generally so unintelligent that they lack the foresight and clarity of mind needed to maintain a working society. Europe went through 2 world wars, lots of small conflicts and revolutions, and then a decades long cold war, yet it could still maintain functioning societies.
In that case you are either just ignorant or wilfully ignorant.