/polpol/ - Politically Incorrect Discussion

>>12636

I forgot to mention, religious freedom.

Basically besides adhering to the eugenics program and obeying basic laws, a very large degree of freedumbs.

You have no structural or economical underpinnings to your philosophy. These ideals just somehow come into being. In fact, it is pure idealism and no practicality, and as such, is a useless thing, a utopia.

>>12639

That's why I said ideal society.

Ideally, this is how I would like things to work out to be.

Given this, where do I fall?

Sorry :(

>>12636
I fall in the section of 'seeking the truth' and wanting my country to be my peoples and no outsiders here.

>>12642

I fall in the "human advancement and racial loyalty without compromise" section.

More edges than bismuth, but I think that I have good reasons to think thusly.

>>12644
Thats not 'edgy' anon, you are simply being truthful to nature. No need to undermine your position!

>>12648
>>12648

Thanks Herr Anon

> ~7-10 million people per continent
Completely arbitrary number, not taking into account any sort of ecological information.
>no non-whites at all
Or you could just keep them out of your society. No need to default to genocide.
>positive eugenics program worldwide where the desirable genes are rewarded and the mediocre ignored but not punished
Who decides?
>no more non-vital cities, no more polluting factories
So much for any sort of industry.
>replanted forests and restored natural world
I like this.
>mandatory phd education for every person
For what? So you can have Doctors working as baristas because the de rigueur Bachelor's degrees of today weren't doing it for you? The world needs ditch-diggers too, bud.
>more or less gender equality while maintaining gender roles
lolwut
>total gun freedom
Meh, okay. No real issue here.
>emphasis on science, specifically spaceflight
Okay. Space mining would be nice, if you could figure out a way to make it cost-effective.
>children raised in a very competitive environment with competitions in athletics, armed and unarmed martial arts, outdoorsmanship and survival skills.
This is good.
>internet is a human right
This is retarded.

Your views would be what I call "Arbitrary".

>>12651

Hm, I was hoping that with such a sustainable society there would be far less need for mindless, inhuman menial labor.

Any of that labor that still had to be rendered would be done by the youth as part of discipline building programs. With an emphasis on bridging between social castes, with everyone spending some time in the fields when they are younger, whether they're destined to be an engineer or a writer.

Of course some cities would remain, but we certainly would not need these polluting asphalt and steel monstrosities which dominate the human landscape today. Remember that everything is on a smaller scale.

I don't understand why giving everyone access to the internet is retarded. I guess you could explain that.

As far as the specific number, it's not specific, any very very low (compared to nowadays) population would be good. I think we need small amount of much, much BETTER people, not a lot of SHITTY people.

When it comes to the elimination of the non-whites, I argue that they are keeping humanity behind and taking up valuable land and space which more productive white people could use.

I guess that's my response.

>>12651

Obviously this is some sort of Utopia on my part, something that would require a huge triumph of the will to achieve. I was letting my imagination run wild.

>>12653
>Hm, I was hoping that with such a sustainable society there would be far less need for mindless, inhuman menial labor.

This will never happen. Robots and automations may know when something truly is wrong, but they also have no gut instinct of how something is working. It'd be like making a totally automated shrimp boat. The HUMAN crew is what makes and vessel stay afloat and working well.

>>12657
Younger men won't be able to do it all the time. Tell me how a young, 18 year old man could hold up against a man who has been captaining ships, plumbing toilets, and coal mining for twenty years. Some places manual labor is still very much needed and never will be fully automated

>>12636
>mandatory phd education for every person

In the "never fucking happening" department

>>12660

Since life spans would assuredly be longer, I think that working from age 14-21 (while going to school) would be good. It's really difficult to make any concrete predictions when the details aren't real yet. The process would be streamlined as much as we could, but the youth would pick the fields and chop the trees for a period starting as a young teenager.

>>12661

Well, longer lifespans + free college + (eventually) smarter people, it seems almost effortless.

>>12653
>Hm, I was hoping that with such a sustainable society there would be far less need for mindless, inhuman menial labor.

>mindless, inhuman menial labor.

Do you realize that the people who do this "mindless, inhuman menial labor", farmers, construction workers, miners are often far more in touch with Nature and their own bodies?
Throwing that away is throwing away a valuable part of the human experience.
The only proper thing to do is making sure they don't do this labor for mere scraps and in unhealthy conditions

>>12665

I mean I hope that they won't need to do that labor for their entire lives. I totally agree with you. It's just that the species needs to have as many brains as it can working together to advance, so a dual experience is good.

>>12664
Here's where you're messing up.

As people get "smarter" on average, there will still be very smart people, and dumb people compared to that average.

So it stands to reason that to keep education viable, education will become harder and better. Thus those future "dumb" people who could do a nowadays phd education with ease wouldn't be able to do the future phd education. Thus it won't ever be possible to do such a thing unless you implement a "No one left behind" kind of thing.

>>12666
>I mean I hope that they won't need to do that labor for their entire lives.
If you put it like that, I agree with you.
I think everyone in their puberty should spend a month on a farm, with some of their peers of course

>>12667

Ah, I meant a PHD equivalent for nowadays. The implication and the hope being that a new group of eugenicized intellectuals with the best traits have education advanced even for the future. By "everyone has a PHD" I mean that everyone has a "field" that they must make a contribution to, even if they aren't amongst the MOST exceptional.

>>12668
I suppose with the proper eugenics that will eventually become possible.

But as for your question, you can't be put in a left or a right corner if you're not showing how you're planning to accomplish this (e.g an authoritarian government, socialist revolution,…)

>>12669

I think that a worldwide white revolution which is lead by the smartest and most determined people will do this. The revolution lends itself to the formation of the system because only the people who are serious about solving our problems and are willing to get their hands very dirty will prevail. They will not make the mistake of womanly hand ringing, or cowtowing to niggers, they will ruthlessly secure white domination over this world. They will not bat an eye at the tremendous effort of creativity and strength that it will take to take what should be ours.

Basically it will come around by extreme social Darwinism, and a shift of morals of white people.

>>12670
Eeeeeehhhhh, I guess you're more on the left then.
According to the traditional left-right definition.

>>12664
>>12670
>They will not make the mistake of womanly hand ringing, or cowtowing to niggers, they will ruthlessly secure white domination over this world. They will not bat an eye at the tremendous effort of creativity and strength that it will take to take what should be ours.
Jesus christ I'm dying ahaha

Anon, stop, please. You're embarrassing us all.

>>12670

Also, they will accept that in order to advance, life will not be all about comfort and feeling good. It will no longer be about "bread and circuses". Over the generations and radical reeducation, this weakness and misconception will disappear.

>>12671

Thanks anon.

>>12673

I say this because a lot of people today think that being free and feeling comfortable are one and the same.

>>12636
> ~7-10 million people per continent
Why this number? For reference, this is about the population of Sweden (9.8 mil).

Currently there are roughly 1 billion people per continent (of course not equally distributed), to get to your number you would reduce 100-fold. That means say, NYC becomes a city of 87k, about its 1805 level. If you redistributed people so that North America had the same number of people as other continents (currently it has about a third as much as others). Many American communities in Midwest disappear outright. Oceania would be barely affected (already only 30 mil).

What happens to fugitives who go innawoods and breed unchecked? Will you employ a huge army of manhunters (it will be even easier to hide now that there's so much uninhabited wilderness)?

What happens to a rogue continent that decides to remove the restriction and outbreed everyone else?

>positive eugenics program worldwide where the desirable genes are rewarded and the mediocre ignored but not punished
If your concern is genes, and since you have such a restricted population, I think it should be society's duty to support everyone regardless of their defect. If society screens out unacceptable babies, this implies that everyone who was allowed to be born is desired. Therefore they have responsibility to care for them.

>positive eugenics program worldwide where the desirable genes are rewarded and the mediocre ignored but not punished
How are genes scored as desirable or not?

>no more non-vital cities, no more polluting factories
I don't think pollution matters at this point. You're slashing world pop 100-fold: Even if you switch to 10x more polluting factories than today's average (which is dragged down by shitty Chinese, Indian and African factories) you still pollute 10x less. You'll need strong a strong industry to support the automation anyway.

>mandatory phd education for every person
I recommend you get a PhD yourself before you talk about making it mandatory. A PhD is a research degree. If everyone's job is to publish papers, who will run the factories and enforce the population program?

>more or less gender equality while maintaining gender roles
These are mutually exclusive..

>spaceflight
With 10 mil per continent, 70 mil in the world? Recall that during the space race (1950-1970), the US had 150-200 mil, and USSR had 180-240 mil. How will 10 mil be enough? You don't even have any career engineers, everyone's a PhD.

>internet is a human right
Why is this necessary? Why is the concept of human rights necessary at all? In you ideal society, sounds like everyone would be well to do, affluent, own the land they live on, have the means to defend it by force. There shouldn't be any bums in the streets who can't afford internet and must have it given to them by the state. Everyone is engaged in intense training, research or other technical occupation because the space program needs every last man and woman working day and night.

The concept of human rights exists as a hard limit on how much a society can oppress its underclass. In your world, there should be no underclass. The "rights" that you would need to guarantee would be things like political power, legacy, title, high office - things which some people would actually not have. "Right to internet" in such a society sounds as useless as "right to learn how to walk" in our world.

>>12657
Very bad idea, giving two divergent aims to one program. It will fail both.

>>12667
>Thus those future "dumb" people who could do a nowadays phd education with ease wouldn't be able to do the future phd education.
PhD is a research degree. The criterion for successfully completing a PhD is to make an original scientific contribution, and describe it in your thesis.

With so few people in the world to compete with, I'm sure it will be very easy to find areas of science no one is working on, and easily publish in them with no fear of getting scooped. Competition would be lower because there's fewer scientists in the world, which means both fewer top scientists and fewer people who are actually familiar with your own research. So I would imagine getting a PhD would be easier. Getting a postdoc after the PhD probably would be easier as well, given OPs focus on science, space, automation (implied), population planning and ecology.

I really have to bring this up again: Why do people without PhDs think everyone should get a PhD? What is it that you imagine a PhD to be, that you think it will do everyone so much good?

>>12669
It isn't too hard. There are about 11 mil graduate students in the world right now. There are about 50 mil PhD holders, 7 mil of them faculty members. If you got rid of everyone who doesn't have a PhD or is in the process of getting one right now, you'd basically be in OPs world.

To be fair Im also quite divided in some stuff.
At certain issues I appear far-right, on others far-left.
The best way is to think which issue is the biggest for you, and call yourself depending on what your standing in that issue is.

Example - for me the biggest issue is that my country and Europe is flooded by non-whites, and this is unacceptable. Over here Im far-right, so I just call myself that.

>>12734

Thanks.

>>12721

There is no automation, I never mentioned that. There are no more useless people. Only the strongest of the willed have survived, and working together as a tribe will make them unified.

The existing weaknesses will be bred out over many, many generations. This is an ideal for far into the future.

>>12721

Also, there is no way to predict exactly how everything will work.

This is a utopia, and I didn't really want to debate it but to get what my political views where.

>>12636
You dolt, politics is the study of power. You've given no structure of rule; you've just rattled off a list of unrelated feel good ideas that seem good by the metrics spoonfed to you by your handlers. Who is in charge? Why? For what purpose?

There is no philosophical or rational underpinning to your ideas, no logical progression of your ideology, and no rhythm nor rhyme to what you suggest. Your post reeks of pop-politics, issues which in and of themselves are solved by developing a philosophy of life. If you're wondering, you're left-wing in the original sense that left-wing meant egalitarian (human rights, equal rights, racism, sexism, class revolt! feminism, democracy, et cetera), as opposed to support of a hierarchy (fascism, monarchy, aristocracy, et cetera). Lurk more.

>>12896

It is a utopia.

>>12962

Thanks, anon.

>>12785
>There is no automation
full retard.jpg

>>12952
So?

> ~7-10 million people per continent
Very arbitrary, why?

>no non-whites at all
Pragmatically speaking, there is no morally exeptable way of achieving, so it is out of the question

>positive eugenics program worldwide where the desirable genes are rewarded and the mediocre ignored but not punished
Who exactly decides what are "desirable genes"?
A rich person can bribe the guy who decides what genes are preserved, we can't have that, so what mechanism will make sure that doesn't happen? Simply relying on the goodwill of the government is naive.

That's why it's best to let mother nature do her thing. If people want to do it voluntarily, all power to them. Important things like genes shouldn't be handled by the arbitrary will of the government.

>no more non-vital cities, no more polluting factories
What is non-vital exactly? who defines it?

>replanted forests and restored natural world
Agree

>mandatory phd education for every person
Pretty wasteful considering most jobs don't require a PhD

I think it will be far more efficient to set the system in a way where that a talented person can get a PhD regardless of his background.

>more or less gender equality while maintaining gender roles
Agree

>total gun freedom
Well, except for convicted criminals and shit

>emphasis on science, specifically spaceflight
Agree, we should be trying to colonize the Universe if we want the human species to live on indefinitely
.
>children raised in a very competitive environment with competitions in athletics, armed and unarmed martial arts, outdoorsmanship and survival skills.
Agreed

>internet is a human right
Emphatically agree

>PhDs for your fast food and retail workers
This will go well.

>>12636
> ~7-10 million people per continent

Society would stagnate seeing as how those are less than even pre-industrial populations. We may be overpopulated, but technological advancement happened and sped up as our population grew. Even if the global population had the same technology we do, there would just be so much fewer engineers, scientists etc. that society won't advance as fast.

>no non-whites at all

Why have no non-whites on Earth at all? It's only an issue that they're flooding our countries.

>replanted forests and restored natural world

So the dozens million humans left on Earth will get to gear their entire societies toward that goal, since there's so little manpower.

>>no more non-vital cities, no more polluting factories
>mandatory phd education for every person

Just retarded.

>more or less gender equality while maintaining gender roles

hurr