Sign into an existing account

Whatever the case for the other side, the conflict ends in victory for the side that only shoots at the opposing side, intending to harm their enemy while benefitting their allies.

The side which shoots their enemy but not their ally encourages their opposition to take the ridiculous stances they have, to take pride in holding to them, even where there is no benefit in doing so beyond mental masturbation of empty headed moral self righteousness.

The jewish questioning important because jews have used the media, especially children's media, to promote the ideas of rejecting ones own shadow archetype.

Hate, anger, fear, etc. These emotions that allowed our ancestors to survive and propagate their genes while others without these aspects to their psyches had died childless because of the disadvantage that comes from being "shadowless".

Both Neitzsche and Jung had warned us of the dangers that come with rejecting the "negative" aspects of our natures, these self preservational components of our psychology are vital for resisting the influence of those who would do us harm.

Neitzsche made the most salient point that Christianity and marxism are equivalent in that, despite the obvious differences, they are both systems of normative morality, which he had referred to as being the morality of slaves.

Christianity is deontological, marxism is consequentialist, but both are systems that ignore the identities of people and their relationships to one another. They both reject partiality, the act of putting the good of one over that of another, because the one has more value to you than the other.

Under Christianity and marxism both, your own child is just as morally valuable to you as any other child, humans humans reduced to interchangeable parts, or to their numbers, indistinguishable, expendable, anonymous, replaceable.

Relativistic morality is subjective, it assumes that personal preferences matter, that who people are in relation to yourself is vitally important in your decision making if it affects them, that because you are yourself, and not someone else, that you and they could be made to do opposing things by following the commandments of the same moral system.

It embraces conflict, it embraces tribalism, it meshes well with what we know of the science both of evolution, and of human psychology.

I've covered the evolutionary version if game theory, where the game is played not by organisms, but by the genes that make them.

The organisms are like teams of genes working together so that they could increase the number of teams with duplicate of themselves among their rosters, genes working to maximize the number of organisms that have copies of the genes.

Not all genes are equal, recessive genes are more important than dominant ones, and recessive genes that are expressed as phenotypes are more important than those which are merely carried as genotypes.

From this kind of genocentric game theory you get Hamilton's laws of kinship selection, where others are selected for or against based on a multi teired hierarchy of genetic similarity (why you prefer those who have more genes that are identical to your own over those with less, or why we prefer close family members over those futher outside the family), reproductive potential (the probability that they could pass the genes they possesson to their offspring, or why we prefer children to adults, and adults to the elderly), and the similarity in the possession of observable recessive traits (if you've got an expressed recessive trait, then you prefer others who also possess that same trait, over, say, someone who shares a dominant trait with you).

It's all in the selfish gene, and the origin not just of group preference (including the preference for members of one's own race), but also of morality in general, which I reccomend.

Maltheus determined that even under ideal conditions and maximum cooperation, that there is a limit to the population, and that as this limit is approached, the standards of living go down exponentially to the barest one needs to survive.

Meaning to live, but only in the strictest biological sense of the word, theres no room for anything save the bare minimum of the things at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, at this point, humans are starting and their main source of food is liable to be eating their own dead.

When the limit is reached. Once the inevitable dieoffs begin, it's never just enough to bring it back to the limit, but it sets off a chain reaction of deaths until its enough to reduce the number at least to the level where the whole pyramid of Maslow's hierarchy could be met for each individual in the population, that is, within the new, devastated environment.

However, Maltheus was wrong when he said that the limiting factor was the availability of vital resources (not just food, but also stuff like availability of reproductive mates, or breathable oxygen supply), or lack of predation (not just by other lifeforms, but also diseases and anything that could prematurely end the life of the population's members, so he also counted stuff like natural disasters in this calculation), his numbers and calculations were shown to hold true even where the environment was endlessly capable of sustaining their population, the "mouse utopia" experiment was able to show that the different predictions made by Maltheus would occur once the population reached a certain amount, even under ideal conditions, all the patterns still played out according to the calculations of Maltheus.

Dunbar's number played a significant role in this result, it sets am even stricter limit on human interactions and their capacity for peace among themselves, Dunbar found that the human brain had limited space for relationships with other humans, this space limitation meant that there was a limit to how many people one could process as being extant individuals, it's calculation took into account the cognitive power of a given human brain, the strength of the relationships one has with other humans, the amount of exposure one has to others, etc.

The maximum amount of people that the average human could have any sort of relationship with (including parasocial ones, such as with celebrities who don't know you exist) is around 200, the lower limit is around 100, the average being about 150.

Once the numbers of Dunbar are exceeded, relationships become shallower, people more indifferent to one another, social cohesion breaks down, social capital falls in all areas.

Blacks and Whites are different in many ways, the more differences you have from someone else, even superficially, the harder it is to form a meaningful relationship with them, because it becomes harder to empathize with them as another member of your species.
Thus indifference is easier to achieve, social capital falls far more quickly the more dissimilar individuals exist within the same society.

Furthermore, the strain taken in relating to someone so different means there's less cognitive power to assign to those who are like you, you end up becoming more indifferent to your own kind, in addition to feeling as though you are straining to recognize something that pretends to be like you, but isn't, as of it were what it was pretending to be.

That uncomfortable feeling you get around other races? That's your brain naturally producing a variant of uncanny valley that tells you that you may be in danger, it does this in everyone and all on its own.

Liberals are mentally unwell, they have difficulty functioning socially in monoracial society, and they are always in an uneasy state of mind, this they are more like to make others associate with other races, due to wanting to bring the more functional members of their race to their level.

BTW, This is an unexplored but vital reason why even "model minorities" are a risk factor to a functional white society, BTW, looking at a White guy kissing an Asian chick is disgusting, not as disgusting as seeing two men making out, but still far more disgusting than seeing a White man kissing a woman of his own race. The brain is uncomfortable with that, as well.

Neitzsche, Jung, Maslow, Maltheus, mouse utopia, Dunbar, and bowling alone. Good names to know, great arguments against a lot of the conditioning we've been given, they form a comprehensive network of philosophy and science to describe much of the difficulties in the way we've been raised in see the world.