If you care about passing on your genes, then you should encourage your family to procreate with as wide as swath of humanity as possible. Pasty people are sickly and not well-suited for survival in places that are suitable for human habitation.

Unless you are obsessed with some specific gene, of course, because you are a weirdo. I like the one that allows people to wiggle their ears.

whether race mixing makes physically stronger babies or not, is irrelevant. this is not the goal of procreation. the goal is to pass as many of your genes as possible. race mixing waters down and limits your own genes, and makes them compete with others (i guess where the potential fitness aspect comes from).

No reason to worry about it if that is the sort of thing that floats your boat. Either your family will follow the rules of evolution and procreate or they are, by definition, unfit.

There is no object to the laws of nature.

400 years* of race supremacy ideology and we ended up with nuclear missiles aimed all over. Why naturally select keep doing anything even like that?

you're both missing what i'm saying. my argument isn't what genes should be selected for or what genes are dominant.
i'm just saying, as a living organism, i care about the survival and replication of the greatest possble number of my genes. where these genes are in highest concentration is in humans most closely related to me.

I understand what you are saying. I'm telling you that (if you are correct*) you don't need to worry about it because the laws of nature will take care of your genes. I think I will worry about lying down because of gravity now, because I want to be just as ridiculous.

*You aren't, but that isn't relevant

I prefer not to have nuclear weapons aimed around on earth for the sake of a whole variety of relative genes.

at least something like suicide can have some semblance of understandability. like a knee-jerk reaction to emotion or w/e.
but when you're indifferent or even welcome the decline/extinction of your genes, this points to something far worse. you have to sincerely loathe your own genes to the point you don't want them replicated. this seems to only exist in white humans. whether they should pass these genes or not, isn't the issue. whatever these genes or mutations are that cause this, WILL most def, be bread out.

no, you're still missing it. whether or not, my genes are providing a net benefit to the human race or not, isn't relevant. they are MY genes. if i didn't care, this would signify that something is wrong with me.
i care about the white race, because i care about my genes. if my genes were bad, and i could stop their replication for the strengthening of the white race, i would not do it. my genes are what is important, not an arbitrary human division.

You wouldn't even know you have genes if someone hadn't told you.

How many kids do you have?

your ad hominem rabbit hole can seen from a mile away.
stay on the subject.
my argument is: tribalism is a human trait that serves the same purpose as procreation. to maximize the existence of one's own genes. family>race>humanity>all life. the more concentrated our genes are in a given pool, the more important that pool is.

You said:

How is my question off the subject? You are not making an abstract argument about what is right or wrong, but one specifically about how you care a great deal about your own genes. Fine whatever, I don't care about your genes, but you can care about whatever you want. However, if you do, your priorities don't really make sense. I am one of eight children. I have 14 nieces and nephews so far. My genes are well represented in future generations because there are so many copies of them. Shouldn't you be more focused on having lots of kids yourself if you are so concerned with passing on your genes? Shouldn't you rather become a Mormon or join another religion that promotes having lots of children rather than promoting a white people first ideology?

You need to figure out if you want to make a descriptive or prescriptive claim.

these two sentences get to the heart of what i'm saying.
when i say, I care about MY genes, i'm speaking from a first first person view of all living organisms, not from my personal view or what i think ought to be, but what is.
you're first sentence implies we ought to view all races as equally important, but we shouldn't view all families as equally important.
both of these are driven by the exact same biological mechanisms and with the same purpose, only to differing degrees. why should we reject one and not the other?

This is a misunderstanding of behavioral psychology. Natural selection doesn't imply that we desire to pass on our genes to future generations, but that our desires are those likely to help us pass on our genes to future generations.

No it doesn't. I said that given your expressed goal your priorities seems misplaced. You should be having lots of children and trying to make lots of money.

ok. three honest questions:
1) should we view all families as equally important to our own family?
2) should we view all races as equally important to our own race?
3) why, or why not, should these two questions have consistent answers?

i agree. i highly doubt most organisms know why they mate. i think it's easy to decipher my poor wording tho and this doesn't disprove anything i've said, but rather, clarifies. whether replicating genes is subconscious or conscious, who cares? it's innate, just the same as tribalism pertaining to family, that diminishes the more you move out.

How many kids do you have?

Also, what particular genes do you incorrectly believe are only in your race?

To the extent that I agree with you, I am convinced that you cannot be more closely related to me than my friends' dogs. You definitely must not be in my race since I don't feel any of this innate thingamajig towards you.

Who is the "we" here? I care about my family more than your family. But this is because it is my family, not because it is more important than your family. I talk to and interact with my family frequently, my actions impact their lives and vice versa, while your family has almost nothing to do with my life (and vice versa). I don't think any of this implies that you should view my family as more important than your family.

As for race, I care little about being white as it is too diffuse to function as an identity. My identity as an American is much more salient to me, but this is only partially related to race. The saliency of my cultural identity as an American to me doesn't however doesn't imply that Americans are any more important than other cultures or ethnicities, just that they are more important in my life and as part of my own sense of self. If you care about your race, fine, whatever, I don't really care, but I don't see how that means I should care about it any more than I do now.

These two questions have consistent answers, so your third question is irrelevant.

Nope. This is the same misunderstanding I just identified. You are confusing a functional effect of desire with the desire itself. I'm not saying that natural selection implies that we subconsciously desire to replicate our genes.

i spend much more time with friends and acquaintances as i do my brothers. but this doesn't make them as important as my brothers. i still go to funerals for distant family that i've met only once in my life. i don't think the 'day to day interaction' reason for importance really jives with most people.
don't know how you take my question as an objective measurement. why would i expect you to care more about my genes over your own? what the hell have we been talking about this whole time?

What genes in particular do you care about?

We understand you care about you and your family first. You've been clear about that.

I'm interested in the nitty gritty; what genes specifically do you care about?

And please....before you dismiss my question under the arbitrary umbrella of "who cares", let me answer that for you now: I do.

i've tried to word my arguments in a way that would be easy to understand, and it seems like everybody's taking it too literally.
we have natural human preferences. these preferences are pressured by our own genetic makeup to replicate preserve these same genes.
people itt are asking me why i care that my race is going extinct. they are telling me i shouldn't care and that it's probably for the best.
i'm simply trying to explain why it is natural for me to care, and it is not wrong for me to care.
to answer your question in a literal sense:
what are the genes that my genes are driving me to "care about"? my genes.

What's natural for you to care about isn't sufficient for everyone, including me, to justify caring about that thing.

It's natural for some to care about killing people in a serial manner. It's natural for others to care about abusing children. It's natural, yet again, for some to care about stealing from people.

What's natural isn't sufficient to justify any one particular belief or inclination. There needs to be more.

This is why people are asking you for specifics; to find that something more, if its even there to begin with.