Equality and the death of human civilization. This is gonna be a long one

For people who so wholeheartedly espouse natural selection as the keystone process for their understanding of the natural world, modern day progressives are incredibly reluctant to apply the same concept to their own social and moral philosophies. As with all moral philosophies, progressivism (or postmodern secular humanism, there is quite a bit of overlap between the two.) starts with an assumption; something which is taken for granted. A matter of faith, so to speak. For progressives, the Logos is called Equality, which is certainly a very charismatic word. “We believe that all men are created equal.” Naturally, given the nature of the movement, the words “men”, and “created” have been hastily scribbled out.

The problem that quickly arises from this starting point is how reality fails to reflect noble ideals. Surely if all men (atonal howling of the estrogen addled can be heard in the distance) are inherently equal, then society ought to exist at relative parity? Obviously, this blissful state does not exist. Within the formalized savanna melee which we call an economy, there are very definite winners and losers and many are left out in the cold. At the game of acquiring resources, some are objectively superior. Moreover, there are objective physical differences. One could find oneself very hard pressed to stand between an overweight retiree and a gold medal Olympiad and not find one of them, at least subconsciously, preferable. Even if the brain has been conditioned to dishonesty in these matters, one can always expect the reproductive system to tell the truth. When the question shifts from “Which one is superior?” to “Which would you sleep with?”, the results are a lot less enlightened; though, perhaps, more enlightening.

Other urls found in this thread:

hitlerorchurchill.info
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

When faced with these facts, a progressive will turn back to their essential articles of faith and throw an error code. If all men (feminist shrieking) are created (materialist shrieking) equal, but equality does not exist, then something must have gone WRONG. This is as close as a progressive can ever come to espousing an objective moral statement without being hypocritical. Note that this does not stop them from doing so in a plethora of other cases. Here, also, is found the original sin of progressive dogma. If someone is more successful than the mean, he (pronouns multiply silently in the distance) must be guilty of snatching that success from those for whom it was somehow destined. If someone is unsuccessful, then they are being oppressed by whomever managed to siphon off the karma that should have guaranteed their victorious destiny.

This is the point where classical Marxism arose. Since equality was the only objective fundamental good that a materialist could conceive of, then the reapportionment of resources from the more successful to the less successful was the only moral course of action. However, it is with the failure of every Marxist state to ever exist that the Progressive cult hit its first real doctrinal snag. Each Marxist state failed when it tried to compete with their less enlightened economic counterparts. Or, in most cases, when they came into contact with basic human biology, namely the requirement of all living things to consume food. Moreover, they had discovered that some forms of success were too immaterial to be apportioned. Some people were inherently more attractive, some lifestyle choices were inherently healthier, some sexes are inherently better adapted to specific roles. Since it impossible to collectivize gender (they’ve certainly tried), the reformed church of progressivism came up with the idea of reapportioning the concept of success.

Now, as a biosphere is capable of producing only a finite amount of resources, a society is capable of producing a finite amount of success. People inherently find themselves unwilling to recognize everyone as a winner. However, while there is only a finite amount of success in the world, society is capable of producing an infinite (or at least arbitrarily large) amount of failure. If that industriously produced failure can be “fairly” apportioned, the shining concept of equality can finally be reached. Namely at the level of the lowest common denominator. Everyone can be a success only once nobody is. The rich can’t take bread from the mouth of the poor once there is no bread. Thus, was born the “white liberal guilt” meme. The moral thing to do, for a conscientious member of the privileged class (read that as white, straight and male.) is to cast off the scarlet S of success as quickly as possible by adopting the habits and behaviors of those less successful. The wealthy must vote for the government which promises to strip them of their money; the free for the one which will strip them of their rights. Citizens of successful countries are expected to import as many of the poor and unemployable as possible to even out the global poverty levels. Even sexually, Men are encouraged to adopt sexual behaviors and identities which ensure they’ll never breed. Cultural Marxism is not about the redistribution of wealth, it is the redistribution of poverty.

The rotten heart of progressivism, the root which nurtures this religion of cultural suicide is the very first assumption “we are all equal.” If there is any doubt that the faith in this statement is religious fanaticism, simply ask someone why they believe it. The innocent question “Why do you believe that?” is met either with shock that you would dare question something so fundamental, or anger as if you had personally attacked their own moral value. It’s much the same reaction you would get if you asked a catholic why they bothered listening to the pope.

When viewed from a materialistic vantage (From which progressivism claims its origin), there is clearly no reason to believe that humans should all be considered equally valuable and valid any more than you would consider the same things of individual sea turtles. An organism is successful if its expressed genetic traits are better adapted to its environment than its competitors. These adaptations are considered better adapted if the creature succeeds at the essential functions of the organism, namely acquiring resources and passing on its genes by breeding. From this point of view, it’s quite clear that humanity consists of multiple distinct populations, each containing genes that have been subject to generations of pruning by the selection pressures of the environments from which these populations spring. If straight white males are more successful in society, then the adaptations of being straight white and male (and the numerous behaviors associated with these demographics) must be better adapted to performing their essential biological functions within the environment of your society. Natural selection does not produce or favor “diversity”, rather it gradually progresses a population towards homogeneity by eliminating the less efficient adaptations. This holds true for as long as the environment remains the same.

The universal conceit of the progressive is almost always a misunderstanding of their own creation myth. Somehow, these very intelligent and well-educated people have gotten the idea that evolution is a very neat progression from objectively worse to better. Again and again you’ll hear them claim to be “on the right side of history” as if humanity is evolving towards some unstoppable destiny which definitely matches their own preferences. The truly ironic fact, however, is that progressives are themselves working to thwart any kind of progress. By removing the natural methods of selection from the population (and by importing populations that were not exposed to the same selection process) they are allowing more and more “diverse” (read maladapted) expressions to build up within the population. What they have forgotten is that society, even civilization itself is an adaptation. A set of shared traits created by a selection for cooperation and a certain degree of conformity. Once a significant amount of the population no longer possesses the traits which made cooperation possible, civilization itself will cease to exist.

I'd apologize for subjecting you cunts to this three AM autistic rant, but it'll probably archive before anyone can reply anyway. People have cuck threads to bump.

Saving all this. Very good read.

good thread, op. have a you and a bump.

I agree w.r.t equality being a lie sold by Marxists to get the successful people to turn over their wealth to the Communist leaders.

Cooperation came about due to selective pressures on tribes and communities.

Is it OK to ruthlessly pursue my own success?

Have a bump user

bump

Quality bread. Bump.

Natural selection does favor diversity in that prior to Eurasian civilization, no animal has been able to effectively bend environments to their will without diverging away from their ancestors in order to live in new environments.

sav'd, best summarization of jewish tricks since peterson

Have a bump my man, quality thread

Too long
Didn't read

Natural selection inherently cannot favor diversity. The only mechanism of natural selection is extinction. Natural selection can fail to kill things, but it cannot create differentiation. The accepted mechanism of differentiation is mutation, although it's never been observed, and is frankly so mathematically unlikely as to be unrealistic. Natural selection itself is just the name for the tendency of poorly adapted creatures to die. Since there are an infinite number of ways to fail, and a finite number of ways to succeed, survival will tend to produce a group of similar strategies. Breathing oxygen, for instance.

To be honest, I'm a Christian and an ID'er, so I'm speaking the enemies language in an attempt to force them into consistency. That said, I'm not a fucking young earther or any of that head in the sand BS. The reason I believe in the God of the bible is that when you see that as many (((coincidences))) as the existence of human life implies, there's typically a jew behind it.

>Is it OK to ruthlessly pursue my own success?

Depends on how ruthlessly, desu. Proceed with too little concern for the welfare of others, and you risk upsetting the society which allowed you to compete in the first place. Proceed with too little ambition, and you risk your society no longer being successful enough to defend itself from more aggressive communal organisms (i.e. the Chinese). Naturally, any society has a limited capability to support a finite number of either type of person, but too many noncomformists will result in dissolution.

That's why my preferred method for ensuring conformity is shame rather than legislation. The only things a law can produce are criminals (Don't take that out of context, some behaviors are worth criminalizing, though moderation is wise. "A corrupt republic has many laws" after all).

bumping because you put in the effort to write it, any any thread not started by bots or shills is worth bumping. This site is dying because of shills and having nowhere to go to vent will just bring about right wing death squads faster.

Would be better without the bracketed (x shrieking). The bracketed text makes it kind of spergy

>Damn character limits restricting my free speech.
Cont. If a degenerate (asocial) behavior is associated with shame and ostracization, it ensures that only those with strong will and the personal resources to disregard pariah status will engage in these behaviors. People who meet these requirements are typically capable of destroying themselves without causing too much collateral damage (at the very least less likely to come back demanding charity after they ruin themselves.) Not only that, but I am capable of conceiving that my vision for society may not be perfect. Those that seek to change society should face enough resistance to force them to decide if their course is really worth it. Heroes should be punished as well as thanked. Keeps the industry honest, you know.

>A fucking leaf.
I kid, but it was long enough for me to write in one sitting, as evidenced by the spelling and grammar errors. Perhaps give it a try?

That "infinite failure redistribution" thing is actually a great talking point to BTFO commies, thanks senpai

>Would be better without the bracketed (x shrieking). The bracketed text makes it kind of spergy
For what it's worth, I agree. Kinda wish I hadn't included those desu, but its on the internet now, which means it will come back to haunt me the minute I'm somehow conned into a political career.

Bump

>The only mechanism of natural selection is extinction.
Wrong. Take a look at brothers and sisters. They're not the same.

>I'm a Christian and an ID'er, so I'm speaking the enemies language in an attempt to force them into consistency.
Srsly. Coming from someone who believes that a virgin can conceive without fucking and that Noah build a wooden super-tanker, it's tasty.

I remember that thread in pic. Also, good read OP.

>a virgin can conceive without fucking and that Noah build a wooden super-tanker

Firstly, once you believe in an omnipotent being who can create and direct the course of a universe, an immaculate conception isn't that hard to swallow. Secondly, the ark was supposedly 140 meters, which is about a fourth the length of a super-tanker. Secondly, I believe the writers of the old testament and the flood legend in particular were relating the tale as they knew it. Mankind has certainly lived through at least one global catastrophe, as evidenced by the proliferation of a flood legend in every culture globally. If it was a meteor instead of a flood, well I'm willing to bet that mile high tidal wars and transcontinental super-hurricanes seem a lot like a world wide flood to bronze age goat herders.

Now, while I don't take the old testament 100% literally, I am willing to accept I might be wrong about that. I'm merely operating at the limit of my human understanding, and I serve a God who is willing to forgive me for it. I believe the important parts, namely the deity of Christ, his death and resurrection and the exclusivity of salvation the faith in Him.

I'd also like to thank you for doing me the courtesy of asking about my beliefs, sharing is a joy, even to a cynic. Would you mind telling me about yours?

Oh, and differentiation in family members is not produced by natural selection, but by randomized gene distribution in the zygote. Natural selection is only tendency of maladapted organisms to die without breeding, it doesn't introduce diversity.

>OP pic
I hate common core as much as anyone else, but the purpose of it is not to dumb shit down in some conspiracy or anything. What it was supposed to do was to teach kids from the start to think analytically instead of holistically, and to be portable to any state in the union. The second part's problem is obvious to any Federalist. But the first is a bit different.

Analytic thinking is ultimately how upper-education and skilled workers create and understand shit. Thinking about all variables as a composite of a whole instead of the holistic way where you only understand the whole and not its parts, or worse rote memorization. The thought was that kids would learn to be analytic from the start instead of having to "relearn" how to think analytically in college. Unfortunately, teaching analytic thinking from the get go just confuses students more, and gives no actual advantage to their learning then and there because thinking analytically has no actual advantage to such simple topics, and actually can make them needlessly complex. That's why you see all these dumb methods for solving CC problems. For example, instead of just doing 22+35 like any normal kid would before CC, they're taught to break down 22 into 20+2 and 30+5, then add 20+30 and add 2+5 and then 5+7, since our math is base 10. And like I said, there's no fucking point to being that analytic for a simple problem.

Please post this on 8/pol/, OP

Man, I ain't in that deep, I'd rather not post anywhere I haven't at least gotten a feel for yet. If you want to bandy it about, you're more than welcome too. I produce almost as much autistic ranting as society produces failure (read: an arbitrarily large but finite number).

You should tho, its the autist-preferred version of here

What part of
>I aint in that deep
was unclear. I'm still in denial about the autism.

There were thousands of years of floods and earthquakes as the Pleistocene ice sheets melted. Most cultures have a flood myth as a fragmented cultural memory of it.

hitlerorchurchill.info
Have at it.

To be honest, I'm a little ashamed I only got an 81% On this, still, I will have to research some of the claims made, I'm not one to make a habit of believing every unsourced claim I read on the internet, and certain things are too socially damning to easily believe. The point I made here about social shaming stands. Some beliefs will bring such ostracization that I'd better be damn sure it's worth it before I espouse them.

You accidentally left a name on.

Pic there helps to also promote an important thing we need to stress more to defend ourselves as a civilisation - unity among betas. If all betas unite they're harder to corrupt or divide and conquer. I think there's something to the idea of dropping out, turning their backs on women and becoming NEETs but then working together to defend their interests against further erosion and attack. IT almost sounds Marxist in nature but make some sense, if all betas unite then alphas don't have the numbers to suppress them and women can't divide and conquer them for their own ends.

I think more in general needs to be done to push in that direction and ensure betas are united more rather than playing their game and scrapping with each other over the last scrap of anything offered their way.

Bumpety

Haha, that's well-made, man.

Thank you for posting this very coherent set of thoughts. Egalitarianism is a mistake.

>green
good riddance

Someone should cap these.
I'm on my phone taking a dump so I can't.

Lost my sides at my result. Anyone else get the same?

RIP my sides at the result I got.

I'm not trying to combat you, but to entertain your writing. The fall of communist countries came because of a planned economy, the attempt to use communism to establish a scientific dictatorship. The idea of "communists don't plan for food" argument actually stems from the scientific dictatorship becoming so bogged down with information that eventually the system (society) breaks and something else has more elementary has to be put in place. Marxism was never seen originally as a progressive ideology, it was rather a response to capitalism and its corrupting power to not only subjugate the masses through social darwinism, explicit or implicit, but to also have as its ultimate expression the human product. The great expression of capitalism was forewarned by writers such as Erich Fromm (Escape from Freedom) and Guy DeBord (The Society of the Spectacle).

(cont.)

What you are actually seeing right now, which you think is marxism or some flavor of marxism, is the fruit of capitalism. It is the end result whereby one can "purchase" an identity, an ethnicity, a culture. The finality of the capitalist system sees everyone and everything imaginable as a product to be either sold or consumed. Marxism was originally intended to be a revolt against this ideology, but as you know its implementation through the planned economy is history. Progressivism by its very nature is ambiguous and can be used by any group to justify its means and goals. I could be a progressive marxist, a progressive capitalist, a progressive positivist, a progressive idealist and so on. Please keep in mind I am not advocating for any particular ideology, I'm only attempting to clarify the problem. The one thing the rulers do not want the population to know is what is actually happening. The rulers have always occupied the government and more importantly the banking system. These people will always prefer you to argue over capitalism and communism, as long as you don't argue about the banking system. The top priority is to have the masses fighting each other instead of the root problem: the bank.

"But certainly for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, the appearance to the essence... illusion only is sacred, truth profane. Nay, sacredness is held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness." - Feuerbach

>defending common core
It's like you don't even know that the Jews hate you enough to do something like this on purpose.

>The moral thing to do, for a conscientious member of the privileged class (read that as white, straight and male.) is to cast off the scarlet S of success as quickly as possible by (((adopting the habits and behaviours of those less successful.)))
Goddamn you just articulated exactly my poisonous mindset that blighted my youth.

So simple. If all people should be equal then success is immoral.
The only way to be moral is to reduce yourself to the habits of the least successful.