I hope their degeneracy facilitates the removal of their lineages from our genepools.

I think technology is a bit of a double edged sword for trad movements. While it is easier to get exposed to degenerate stuff I think its also easier to spread trad stuff without the need for government to do it for you. At this point I don't even think the population would go along with it if change happened only in the government. One way or another if the alt-right is going to succeed it is probably going to have to win the hearts of the people. But if alt-righters themselves don't even follow their own principles how do you expect others to follow them.

winning the hearts of the people, in an ageing society, where humans' natural tendancy is towards right wing worldviews. We only have to stop mass immigration.

Here's the thing about not wanting to marry an "ugly" woman: how are we defining ugly? Appearance can reveal much about one's genetics. Therefore, judging by appearance (considering what artificial factors a woman may employ to hide physical flaws) is not against anything one arguing for racial and genetic stands for morally or politically. To say that the "alt-right" has to support/judge mates based on beliefs first than anything more substantial is making the same flaws as Michael E Jones who says anyone who adopts Catholicism is "European"--it is the flaw of believing that beliefs is the primary concern and not the influence of genetics on behavior and what personality/character one possesses regardless of testified faith/conviction.

In other words, if a lib shit girl of majority anglo-germanic ancestry with a good genetic makeup gives birth to a child from a traditional man also of majority anglo-germanic ancestry, the child will under rearing adopt a "trad" mindset supported by their natural inclinations particular to those of majority anglo-germanic ancestry and how that genetic pool is expressed in how that child thinks and behaves as they mature. Further information can be found from Dr. Edward Dutton's works, books, and videos about judging people by their appearance.

science has ALWAYS been a double edged sword

It's really up to society to decide whether or not they're ready to handle the risk associated with each new advancement

No need for analogies; science is a tool.

Beauty and the human perspective; A-symmetry most highly correlates with statements of ugliness. If A-symmetry is a symptom of high mutational load this would make sense of the evolutionary selection for beauty.

it's just prediction/ survivability maximisation.

but the analogy works nonetheless

I refute *utilitarianism* on the basis that humans do not seek to "maximise pleasure". Endorphin release is a mechanism which facilitates optimal learning. Humans survive, and increase their survivability not by attempting to maximise pleasure, but by attempting to maximise their predictive capability... humans are, after all, expert pattern recognition systems.

@Wan6Saber yes it works. It is still superfluous, that was my actual point.

Yeah but still

anway

I think different humans use different strategies to increase survivability and its not always predictive capability

can you give an example of a non-predictive survival strategy?

only, it's possible I'm hung up on this one dimension of humans at the mo, and can't see further than my nose.

I guess its a matter of definition. I think humans strive for a balance between predictability and novelty

If you stay at home things can be very predictable, but it might not be as productive as going in the wilderness and bringing back food

lol. I don't think many humans strive for any kind of balance.

high productivity= high predictability, how is this not so?

we strive for plenty of balance. Getting enough sleep but not too much, eating enough food but not too much

because there are high rewards for exploring the unknown

have you seen *humans* lately? they look as balanced as weebles.

Weebles wobble but they won't fall down

I think most of human psychology has roots that date far before modern times.

I agree

So I don't think saying like. "dude x in modern times has a problem, therefore being like dude x is ideal"

if anything, dude x having a problem is a sign he's not living an optimal lifestyle

he's off balance

he's out of his element

his body is seeking a balance that it is not recieving

in other words, someone being out of balance and suffering for it is not proof that we don't need balance

I might suggest that *imbalance* has been increasing since the Industrial Revolution; prior to this point imbalanced individuals would likely not have succeeded in passing on their genes.

yeah, and this causes a malaise because as balance seeking animals not finding out balance is causing us problems

but we clearly aren't seeking balance.

otherwise the trend would be in the opposite direction.

Balance is not innate, all forms of life are maximisers.

our balance seeking mechanisms have likely been functioning for millions of years, its not adapted to the radical changes that have been happening in the last centuries.

life does not seek balance, it exploits every niche it can, why would humans be exceptional?

because that statement is false?