Hear me out before you freak out. It's frustrating yet understandable that this topic is so sensitive...

Hear me out before you freak out. It's frustrating yet understandable that this topic is so sensitive, which is understandable, the bourgs would naturally exploit such a divisive issue.

Despite this fact, we all very well that biology is a science, and like physics, it's demonstrable truth transcends emotions.

Let me begin.

All species of dogs are capable of interbreeding. That they are of the same species is not debatable. Genetic compatibility however, does not change the fact that, with only centuries, and in some cases decades, they have been driven into seperate breeds, which besides physical differences, have been selected by natural forces that best improve their chances of reproduction.

Yes, humans are a natural force, obviously.

Humans are separated by vast distances of geography and the different pressures they impose on methods of survival.

That said, should not the strongest breed of human be the natural choice for creating socialism? Even if coexistence is forsaken, what point do others serve? Their distinct breeds are irrelevant, their humanity and species, however, will continue to be perpetuated by the superior breed.

What say you?


"Pure breed" dogs are full of potential health problems and are actually the outcome of incest (essentially).

I say you are a faggot and the gene code only gets better by mixing races.


You realize you've given an argument supporting racemi xing instead of condemning it here, right?

You missed my point. You're responding from the meme that race is a species. It is not.

at least it's not another "what does Holla Forums think of x?" thread

A species is a species.
A race is a race.

Dog is a species.
Bloodhound is a race.

Not entirely. Not if you acknowledge the reality of modern semantics, which is a fact of life we all must deal with. Black race. White race. Human race.

Sure. If you look at things with ideological lenses…

Now, go back to pol or tumblr.

I don't even know how to respond, except, Goodluck with your rigid orthodoxy, it's worked so well with everything else.

No, because the point of communism isn't to build a society in which we are economized like this. If you adopt this mindset, you have lost before you even began.

Yes, did you know we actually have principles and other silly shit like that? God forbid!

Ad hominem aside, did you think I presumed a superior breed to be heterogeneous? Or are you merely supporting me, in an unironically worded way, that the superior breed should be the creators and perpetuators of socialism?

What does that even mean?

Why? What problems would arise if other humans implement socialism?

mixed race children tend to be more genetically healthy (elliot rodgers aside) and if his parents speak different languages, can be more intellectually developed from learning 2 languages at the same time.

There is only one kind of people who defends the supremacy of a "strongest breed" of any sort; individuals who, rightly or wrongly, are dead certain they are a part of such a breed.

Humans are an indivisible product of natural forces and matter, sentience is as distinguishable as a planet forming from the particles of a dead star as a grain of sand is from a beach.

The same problems that a team of chihuahuas might face to pull a sled as compared to a team of huskies?

So are you talking about physical abilities? If yes I don't see why, you need the same abilities for socialism and for capitalism. In fact maybe less because it's probable than a socialist society will reduce the working hours.

meant for


Not really.
They are more prone to depression and feelings of alienation as it can't identify with either parent, and will have a real shitty time finding organs that won't be rejected if ever needed.

I'm nor sure if you're serious. First of all, black and white (just an example) people in the US only speak English and therefore the mixed race child will speak English only. Two white people from Belgium will speak Dutch and French, so the 'pure bred' child will learn two. See what I'm getting at? Mixing races has nothing to do with bilingualism. Not saying that it isn't true that a bilingual upbringing isn't good, but to say it is exclusive and indeed a virtue of 'mixed race' breeding is a stretch.

Just playing devils advocate here, by the way. I don't believe that it should matter who produces offspring with who as a principle but you're being stupid.


Does not compute, OP.

What is the "strongest breed of human"? What constitutes "strength" is dependent on the situation, on the tasks at hand. To survive in its own environment, a monkey must have different strengths than a fish needs to survive in its own. For humans, what any one of us decides counts as strength, or is "strong enough" on this scale of "strength in this respect or the other", is arbitrary. I mean even within a "strongest breed" there will be "THE strongest". Should only he survive? No, others less strong can still be useful. So is the "strength limit" the point at which they cannot survive? Well then, anyone who does survive, should survive, because they have manged to. My point is this: what the strongest breed of human will be the natural choice for creating socialism. See pic related.

If that's the stupid definition you use, then everything is natural and nothing can be defined as artificial. You make both words useless.


Also. To take issue with your post again, this argument doesn't even make sense. If pulling a sled is the metaphor for existence then toy dogs will obviously not be able to haul as big a one, but the organisation and tack setup should be pretty much the same as it is with huskies. Even if toy dogs are not as capable, they should still try to use the most effective system.

That's why I don't see why it even matters one way or another whether different races are 'superior' or whatever.

I think you skipped a step there bucko

Female choice is not natural selection. Stop acting like it is.

Don't forget your fedora after you've done tipping it.


You ignore the fact that there is correlation between economic materialism and ethnic disadvantage. For example, Africa got the worst of imperialism during formal imperialism, and today it is exploited for resources. As a result, African people lack the same opportunities as westerners.
In the U.S, hispanics and blacks have similar disadvantages.
As someone (not an American by the way) who knows people from Latin America and Africa, who are able to travel thanks to financial circumstances that allow them to travel, I can say first hand that your assumptions that ethnicity correlates with some kind of "strongest breed" that is a "natural choice" for socialism is fucking idiotic.