Post reply

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: October 29, 2025, 06:22:07 pm »

My reasoning was that females are born with all the eggs they will ever have and run out of them by middle age, whereas males continuously produce new sperm for as long as they are alive, therefore females can eventually go to 5) without surgery anyway whereas males cannot, therefore the currently proposed arrangement should minimize the total number of surgeries.

If as you propose we were to let all females go to 5) without surgery while males can only go to 5) after surgery, every male wishing to go to 5) will require surgery first. Whereas if as I propose we let all males go to 5) without surgery while females can go to 5) either after surgery or after menopause, only a fraction of females wishing to go to 5) will choose the surgery route. It is even possible that zero surgeries are required, provided all females choose to wait until menopause before going to 5). This would not be possible under your proposed alternative arrangement.
Posted by: antizion
« on: October 29, 2025, 11:57:40 am »

Quote from: 90sRetroFan on September 24, 2025, 09:36:39 pm
With no eggs, sperm will not lead to reproduction.

If your complaint is that the policy is unfair to females wanting to leave 3) early as compared to males wanting to leave 2) early, I am open to a tax cut to compensate those affected.

Given that sterilizing males is a less involved process than sterilizing females, wouldn't it make more sense for it to be the other way around.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: September 24, 2025, 09:36:39 pm »

With no eggs, sperm will not lead to reproduction.

If your complaint is that the policy is unfair to females wanting to leave 3) early as compared to males wanting to leave 2) early, I am open to a tax cut to compensate those affected.
Posted by: rp
« on: September 24, 2025, 09:28:56 pm »

" Anyone in 2) can go ahead to 5) at any time of their choosing. Anyone in 3) can go ahead to 5) at any time of their choosing provided they first undergo surgery to remove reproductive organs"
Why only the requirement to reproductive organs for females and not males?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: September 24, 2025, 09:03:35 pm »

If I were designing it, the entire population would be divided among the following non-intersecting living regions:

1) Children's society
2) Pre-reproduction male society
3) Pre-reproduction female society
4) Reproducing pairs
5) Post-reproduction society

So everyone would start in 1) where they can stay at the latest until puberty, or choose to leave at any earlier time. Upon leaving 1), they are triaged by the state to either 2) or 3). Anyone in 2) can go ahead to 5) at any time of their choosing. Anyone in 3) can go ahead to 5) at any time of their choosing provided they first undergo surgery to remove reproductive organs, or can go ahead to 5) without surgery when they reach menopause. 4), where every pair will additionally be isolated from every other pair, will only be for those selected* by the state for reproduction and who agree to volunteer, and only for as long as it takes to reproduce, following which they go back to 2) or 3) while their offspring go to 1).

The above applies to everyone. Therefore the child in your example will not be treated differently than anyone else.

(* Positive selection will be based on information collected in 1) only, where inhabitants will have no knowledge of selection occurring. However, information collected in 2) and 3) can still be used to disqualify those previously positively selected.)

Please feel welcome to point out potential weaknesses in my design, suggest improvements to it, or ask questions about it.
Posted by: rp
« on: September 24, 2025, 08:08:14 pm »

"No. It is not the child's fault for being born. If parents prohibited from reproducing reproduce, they should be executed, not their offspring. The offspring should be prohibited from reproducing."
I assume we would still have to place the child under state care and have it quarantined in a concentration camp?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: September 24, 2025, 07:40:46 pm »

As previously explained, there exist False Leftists who self-identify as "'white" to "acknowledge privilege" which they (erroneously) think is the way to oppose "white" supremacy. This is why we do not rely on self-identification. The key is whether or not an indiividual with "white" parents reproduces. An individual with "white" parents who self-identifies as "white" but who voluntarily refrains from reproducing is not "white". An individual with "white" parents who does not self-identify as "white" but who intends to reproduce or who has already reproduced is "white".

In the context of The Turner Diaries, an individual with "white" parents who reproduces is supplying Pierce's future army with personnel. Whether or not you self-identify as "white" now does not control what your descendants could be doing in the future. The only sincere rejection of The Turner Diaries is to ensure you are not supplying Pierce's future army with personnel.
Posted by: rp
« on: September 24, 2025, 06:50:27 pm »

A person whom we can confirm is "White" by virtue of they themselves identifying as "White"
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: September 24, 2025, 06:11:21 pm »

What do you mean by "self identifying"?
Posted by: rp
« on: September 24, 2025, 12:44:33 pm »

That being said, every self identifying "White," person alive today implicitly supports the agenda of the Turner diaries. There is no two ways about it IMO. Would you disagree?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: September 23, 2025, 09:00:01 pm »

"In a scenario where we had state control over reproduction, and such a child was still born, would you support killing the child?"

No. It is not the child's fault for being born. If parents prohibited from reproducing reproduce, they should be executed, not their offspring. The offspring should be prohibited from reproducing.

"And suppose in the case that it was a civilian doing the killing and not state sanctioned authorities, would you support a similar punishment for the killer (death penalty("

Yes.
Posted by: rp
« on: September 23, 2025, 08:34:15 pm »

"If the killer feels that her own death penalty in exchange for eliminating even a potential "white" bloodline is worth it, that is her call to make"
In a scenario where we had state control over reproduction, and such a child was still born, would you support killing the child? I recall you made a similar point about illegal conceptions earlier. And suppose in the case that it was a civilian doing the killing and not state sanctioned authorities, would you support a similar punishment for the killer (death penalty(, or whatever the punishment for murdering a child is under the laws of the state you have in place at the time (assuming such a punishment would be different)?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: September 23, 2025, 07:04:25 pm »

To be precise, the victim should be considered an individual with "white" parents, or in other words a carrier of "white" blood but who may or may not transmit it. The killer could not possibly have known for sure that the victim intended to reproduce. The killer should definitely be charged with murder.

If the killer feels that her own death penalty in exchange for eliminating even a potential "white" bloodline is worth it, that is her call to make, but why not achieve the same effect infinitely more ethically by targeting a confirmed "white", either one who has not yet reproduced but intends to, or one who has already reproduced and intends to continue reproducing?

Posted by: antizion
« on: September 23, 2025, 08:42:40 am »

Quote from: rp on September 23, 2025, 07:30:52 am
Is this too extreme?


Obviously it's too extreme. And flat out unjustified.

Original nobility is a part of aryanism:
https://aryanism.net/philosophy/what-is-nobility/original-nobility/
So attacking any baby, even a Jewish baby is repugnant, since they did nothing wrong.

Also this is gross misunderstanding on what anti-"White" even is.
Aryanism is anti-"White" because it's anti-tribalism and "White" is a Gentile tribe.
We're against "White"-identified people because they pledge allegiance to a parasitic tribe, similar to how Jews do.

We're not against anyone who merely has lighter skin, and to do so is ignoble.
We don't even know if the baby could turn out to be a "White"-identified Gentile or a an Aryan because we don't know his heritage.
Posted by: rp
« on: September 23, 2025, 07:30:52 am »

Is this too extreme?