Sign into an existing account

Throw the science in their faces, that darwinian-mendelian theories, and the subsequent work built upon the shoulders of these giants (such as by Hamilton and the authors of the papers being covered in the linked video) have long-since revealed that there is an answer which nature itself provides to philosophical questions of morality and politics, and describes in detail what that answer is.

Given that the evolutionary process is the origin of morality, it only makes sense that our moral ideology is consistent with what it is that evolution itself reccomends in the realm of morals, having provided its reccomendation via natural selection, the patterns of the distribution of genetically derived psychological traits showing nature as being in favor of one moral strategy, and opposed to the others.

Where it comes to the evolution of morality within a population, it's game theory where the game is being played between the genes of individuals, but the addition of other groups turns it into a game with an additional tier to it, where where gane is played between the different distinctive genes of the group members, promoting im-group cooperation and out-group competition.

On this second tier, genocentrism wins out, be it tribalism in the form of familial, ethnic, racial, national, species, etc. Depending upon the scale of existential threat to the continuation of one's distinctive genes.

Note that not all of your genes are equally valuable, those which are dominant are of the least importance, as they are least under threat from the genes of invasive out-group members, they can and should be ignored, especially when someone attempts to argue dishonestly by falsely blending these genes in with those genes which are more definitive of you as a distinct individual organism, or as a member of a distinct category of organisms.

The genes which are recessive and expressed as observable traits are of the highest importance as they are the most vulnerable, the love of violet, blue, or green eyes, or red, orange, or yellow hair, is not just a matter of aesthetic preferences, nor of demonstrating racial purity for the sake of impressing others.

The likelihood of the posterity of traits like these is a matter of great importance, these are easily observable indicators of how much damage has been done to your population's genetic health, they are like a canary in a coal mine.
These specific kinds of traits, being both recessive and expressed, are like a warning system that tells you how close your people are to their extinction, be it by way of dieoffs or by being outbred through getting genetically swamped by out-group invaders, with the few who aren't being reduced to such a small number that they would be left too susceptible to dying out or being killed off in some other way.

The genes in the mid level of importance are those recessive genes that are only carried without being expressed as traits, these are important as well, as these could be used to revive their expressed forms, but they should not be treated as if they were of the same value as their outwardly expressed counterparts.

The fact is, that we need to get heavy into the topics of evolutionary biology, we need to immerse ourselves in the subject matter, how it applies to us and our situations in the world, and we must become fluent in the language of the science, which we would use to describe these concepts to normies, before translating the bits they fail to understand into something they could receive through the use of common parlance to explain these ideas to them.

We must become the communicators and popularizers of scientific concepts that the establishment doesn't support making the widespread public familiar with.

We start from their world, the middle world of their everyday experiences, lead them through the simpler scientific concepts that they could more intuitively comprehend, and into the more complex concepts that are derived from them, making sure to use the asking of questions and their answering with empirical observations as the milestones along this journey.

Be thoughtful about this step, showing them the formulation of the kind of experiments that could lead to a question being answered, especially given that the experiment's outcome would be informed by the findings of previous experiments on other matters.

The audience will begin in perfect agreement with you, and as you lead them down the hole, they will be forced to agree with the next things you say as they just follow either from the things they has previously agreed upon, or from the observations and experiment results that answer the questions which come up from this point.

The most important momment in the saga of the then emergent "alt right" was when the skeptics started to interact with them, and they lost unexpectedly as soon as they entered the battlefield of racial science, it was them losing, and conceding, then losing on the next point of contention, and conceding, until all they were left with was moral arguments, and as I've said here, the fact that the science itself makes a strong recommendation regarding what one's moral beleifs should be means that we could win there as well.

A lot of us in this community are heavily influenced in thought by the remnants of the religious right that dominated the political landscape until the end of the Bush years, this influence could be harmful if it takes the form that deprives us of the ultimate weapon we have in winning the cultural conflict.

I'm not judging them, nor questioning their loyalty here, we all walk to this destination through different paths, and those paths shape us, many have found their way into beleif that God and the Bible have always been in support of this cause, i have no interest in rejecting this claim, nor do I think it is even possible to conclusively do so, I think that these guys are great, and that it would be amazing if their form of Christianity would supplant the dominant variety we see now, these types can argue the Bible in ways that I never could, and for that I respect them greatly. I do not think it would be good for me to step on their toes anymore than it would be for them to step on mine.

Shills will try to distrust you with arguments thst have nothing to do with battle effectiveness, try to get them to focus on practicality, what works best and what doesn't, ignore anything that isn't relevant to a strictly strategic overview of this fight for survival and freedom.

If that fails, do not lwt them tell anyone that one kind of strategic line pf attack should be abandoned in favor of another, forget that splitting up into teams that pursue the goal from different angles is not only a good solution to infighting, but a good way to overwhelm the enemy's battle to maintain control, one army with one set of expected tactics is replaced with more than one, and their difference forces the enemy to be adaptable enough enough fight of assaults on multiple fronts at once, where each front requires a different counter-approach.

Ultimately, they will either refocus on the fight against the enemy, or confirm their shill status by attacking others that fight the same enemy for the same cause, in which case you call them out and remove them, or keep them on and use the fact thst you know they are shills as a means of collecting useful information on what a verified shill is doing. Infighting is never good, unless it could somehow be shown to be to our strategic advantage.