If "survival of the fittest" theory is true. What does that say about europeans who are dying out the fastest

Question

I was under the assumption that whites are the master race

Answer 1

Quit making this a ethnic-bash thing.

Survival of the Fittest = Anarchy.

Let's get that clear right now.
Laws are to protect the few.

That can mean the few in number (which are the rich) or the few in power (which are the weak). It goes DIRECTLY against Survival of the Fittest because it protects those who cannot protect themselves.

Rich people from time immemorial shared wealth with a certain set of people in order to protect their wealth. This is where the military and the police came from. The guard. The enforcer class. Which is why a weak singular person can exert power over many. Because he has protection with the deal he made with his protectors. Humans are greedy and if possible will hoard all goods to themselves alone. When they find that they can't do this because most people are HAVE-NOTS then they concede a little of the goods in order to protect the rest of the bounty. And because most are have-nots when they become a HAVE on some small level they tend to be satisfied so they won't usually overturn the Master Have.

Directly linking to the wills of the wealthy Haves is maintaining a populous that won't easily become chaotic to destroy the wealth that the Have contains. So this is why moral rules are enacted also enforced by the enforcer classes. It's all a big suspension of disbelief mind game put in place to keep the Have-Nots working to build the Haves' wealth more. Because Haves don't like to get dirty. The Haves don't want certain behaviors becoming desirable so they outlaw them. A person who steals may eventually steal the big pie. From there other rules were enacted that better facilitated wealth-building work endeavors and society. And they looked into all facets of human life and applied rules accordingly. Discouraging a true survival of the fittest mindset they then put SOME rules out to protect the physically/mentally weak.

These rules have benefit for humanity as a whole because who likes pain? Who likes betrayal? And it allows more humanity to build in number. But the motivation for its enactment is not as noble as it may seem. The law really doesn't care for the poor as much as it does for the rich and you often see poorer individuals controlled by the enforcer class for whatever means. By half-protecting/half-controlling the Have-Nots the wealthy Have has divided and conquered its natural opposition. The poor will subscribe to the set forth ideals of the rich and work against other poors making sure they never go for the great wealth held in the hands of few.

Numbers make the world go round. In a contest of mass the bigger number wins. 10 people cannot defeat 10,000,000 people no matter how good they are if of equal collective quality. If each of those 10 in power equalled 1,000,000 each of the ten million then it would be a wash. But in human vs. human 10 never beats 10,000,000.
The greed inherent in humanity seeks to hoard all goods towards one individual. However the reality of numbers dictates that the rich must concede some power and wealth to maintain the greater portion of that wealth.

Because of the concession the wealthy runs a chance of being defeated and taken from. So a complex stage of society laws and rules are put forth to discourage the natural conclusion. It doesn't always work and this is why enforcer classes overran ancient kings because they had the physical/technological/numbers advantage. Military dictators and such. This is how some poor can become rich by craftily working the set web of rules to their advantage and rise above the rankings.

Survival of the fittest does not really exist in any society because it would be its end. Unless one person is able to manage and control his/her fate all alone without challenge you will never see TRUE survival of the fittest.

To encourage a larger set of humanity or any species, survival of the fittest must be paired off with protection of the weak. Remember always power is singular. Power is isolating. Power is solitary. And if one has all power, if one is fittest, then that one doesn't need the rest.

Humans are weak in many ways and survival of the fittest in its true form will never happen with this species.
John Lucas

Answer 2

In case anyone takes this question with less than a carload of salt (see below):
Darwin had nothing to do with so-called Social Darwinism.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Lessee. An apparently Afro-American avatar. A name combining "Sambo," long associated w/ pro-white racism, and "Prince," suggesting actual or ironic delusions of grandeur. Writes correctly spelled and almost educated English (it's "under the impression," not "under the assumption," and the boldface part needs a comma, not a period). Q&As set to private so one can't get a read on "him." . . . . . . . . . Gee, an agent provocateur! (Look THAT up in your Web search or your Funk & Wagnall's.)

Answer 3

Hi there,
"Survival of the fittest "have nothing to do with ethnicity or race or place. All it says is that to survive in this tough world, you have to be strong, able to be flexible, and able to survive, to cope and to learn from any challenges the world and people throwing at you. The weak will give up and die, and the mentally strong will always survive.

Answer 4

We Americans are not very fit, we like McDonald's and Taco Bell. But seriously that "Survival of the Fittest" stuff is outdated, Euros ain't breeding as fast because they are more educated, more educated means less children. Plus your rational is ridiculous, anybody can make a baby.

Answer 5

It means that technology and so called civilization is an evolutionary handicap.

Answer 6

Actually they are better.

Having less babies so food goes around better and better houseing...

its the other people who are pests who multiply too fast causing starvation and fighting over land and jobs

Answer 7

douche'.

Answer 8

dumb sambo