I agree. I'm going to write the manifesto using management report format. I'll change or give non-community terminology e.g. cuck = coward
FYI. IRL, I'm very aggressive like I am here but I'm also very professional and kinda funny. I would say that I am somewhere between a Nick Fuentes in terms of temperament and a Richard Spencer in terms of theory/vision.
And yes lowering age of consent is controversial but I'm already advocating deportations and eugenics programs so w/e, might as well go balls to the wall.
Be sure to reserve a large section to properly explain your thoughts on fucking 12 year old girls.
In theory mutts could be more better
I know typos are the least of his sins, but this sounds so much like a stereotypical retard I had to chuckle.
In fact this is what happens when you race mix. You lose 50% of the pure breeds DNA. So the overall total gene pool drops when you race mix.
1 pure race = 100% pure dna
1 pure race = 100% pure dna
1 mutt = 50% + 50%
So 2 separate pure race communities = 200% diversity while mutt = 100% diversity.
Race mixing decreases genetic diversity.
No you idiot, that's not how it works. Everyone who's mixed race doesn't inherent the exact same genes from their parents' races as every other person who's of the same mixed race background. You yourself said earlier that "mutt" people are a wide variety of different percentages of genetic background.
Plus you can't pretend you care about preserving genetic diversity of "pure" races when you also said you don't care about any race except whites.
Not necessarily for the idiot, but in reply to everyone talking about it in the thread:
Regarding the purebred vs mutt argument, neither one is necessarily
better or
worse. Purebreds are more specialized, but the trade off is that they're shittier outside of their area of specialization. A great example is Dachshunds. Dachshunds were bred to hunt badgers. That's why their bodies are a weird hotdog shape. So they can wriggle into badger holes like the freakish snake-dog mutants they are and pull the badgers out. No other dog is as good at hunting badgers. In fact, most dogs aren't good at hunting badgers at all. But the trade off is that Dachshunds have tons of spinal problems as they get older and pretty much always die younger than mutts.
Are Dachshunds better or worse than other dogs? Well it depends on what you want from a dog, doesn't it? If you want to hunt badgers, gophers, or anything else that burrows underground, Dachshunds are the dog master race. If you want to herd sheep or just not spend a ton in medical bills keeping your dog alive, Dachsunds are untermenschen. There's no dog "master race" in the way the Nazis believed in the concept, that's better at everything.
A human eugenics program that was fully scientific and realistic, not wrapped in mysticism or supremacist rhetoric, wouldn't involve creating a master race that is better at literally everything. It would breed specialized sub-races of humans. You could breed people with great eyesight and hand-eye coordination to create a race that's better at shooting guns than everyone else, for instance, for your soldiers and hunters. You could also attempt to breed good artists to create an artist master race and do the same with scientists, but that's dodgier because the human brain has a lot more factors that are poorly understood and are less predictable. But theoretically over generations you would create specialized sub-races this way, as certain genetic traits get exaggerated over generations. You would also want to keep a mutt race around for genetic diversity because as other people have pointed out (and I also did with the Dachshund example), the more specialized sub-races are more prone to health problems, genetic defects, and are less adaptable due to their more limited gene pool which also gives them their exaggerated advantageous traits.
I would also like to point out that this is
not how the current racial groups were created. The genetic differences between Asians and whites were not a result of scientifically planned selective breeding to improve specific traits, they were the result of random evolutionary chance over millennia and across vast areas of land, which is why any assertions about which race is "better" at what specific thing are dodgy at best. In a selective breeding program, the traits would likely be significantly more exaggerated, as would the side effects of breeding them. There would probably be a big increase in various mental illnesses and conditions, like autism and schizophrenia, among certain groups.
If this all sounds like a sci-fi dystopia, that's because it absolutely would be.