Morality

Mencken, H.L. wrote:

Once the threshold is crossed emotion comes to the aid of perception. That is to say, the blind almost irresistible mating impulse, now relieved from the contrary pressures of active disgusts, fortifies itself by manufacturing illusions.
The lover sees with an eye that is both opaque and out of focus, and begins the familiar process of editing and improving his girl. Features and characteristics that, observed in cold blood, might have quickly aroused the most active disgust are now seen through the rose-tinted fog, like drabs in a musical comedy. The lover ends by being almost anaesthetic to disgust. While the spell lasts his lady could shave her head, or take to rubbing snuff, or scratch her leg in public, and yet not disgust him. Here the paralysis of the faculties is again chiefly physical – a matter of obscure secretions, of shifting pressures, of metabolism. Nature is at her tricks. The fever of love is upon its victim. His guard down, he is little more than an automaton. The shrewd observer of gaucheries, the sensitive sniffer, the erstwhile cynic, has become a mere potential papa. The spell, of course, doesn’t last forever.
Marriage cols the fever and lowers the threshold for disgust. The husband begins to observe what the lover was blind to, and often his discoveries affect him most unpleasantly. And not only is the fever cooled; the opportunities for exact observation are enormously increased. It is commonplace of juridical science that the great majority of divorces have their origin in the connubial chamber.

Disgust is often mistaken for hate, in the mind of a Modern.
Disgust for the homosexual act is called "a phobia", when shame is used to decrease resistance.

In the throws on pathos the mind can be placed in a state of intoxication, unable to perceive anything negative; unable to reason or to think of the consequences; unable to think clearly.
Nature evolves the chemical intoxication of "lust" - pathos - to overcome its already evolved fight/flight mechanisms. Lust is also mistaken for love, confusing and corrupting the bond between parent offspring, or between genetically similar organisms, seeing - sniffing - in other a version of itself.

No doubt "love" must have evolved from the more primal inebriation of "lust," enabling bonding and social cooperation, by reducing natural survival instincts of intolerance.
These would have to be more intoxicating in females so as to allow the act of copulation to proceed to its finality. The act of penetration, involved in heterosexual reproduction, necessitates a level of intrusiveness only a specialized type would evolve the traits required to endure, to the point of enjoying the process.
Consider the trickery involved in fertilization and gestation - organic autoimmune processes fooled for a sufficient time as would enable the, somewhat, alien form to grow safely; consider the insinuation of "morning sickness" as the organism attempts to rid itself of something not of itself.

Self-deceit is part of evolution.

The strategy of reducing all issues to a moral dilemma hides a subversive motive.
Morality, not as it evolved to serve a particular survival strategy, necessitating tolerance and co-operation over prolonged periods of time, but "ethics" in the Old & New Testament contexts, i.e. Judeo-Christian ethics, beginning with "logos" - word-based socio-economic rules establishing a particular relationship with world - spirituality, and with others - politics.

Here gene/meme is intentionally convoluted, so as to manufacture confusion - which modern call "chaos," as in "complexity", implying that the topic is complicated enough to only be comprehensible by a few.
Another way of fabricating mystification in the mediocre majorities.
The "Ten commandment" represents a memetic intervention upon genetically evolved altruistic strategies.

When all is reduced to a question of morality, then the criteria, it is hoped, of what is more and what is less probable are corrupted by an emotionally self-serving components.
All becomes subjectivized, exploiting the human desire to escape an indifferent and uncertain reality - the objective world.
Man replaces god - collective mankind (humanity) becomes a replacement for the idea/ideal of one-god.
Deification of the biological category homo sapient)

When you make the mistake to engage with Desperate Degenerates you can be sure the conversation will be about morality. One way or another, whether you know it or not, whether you want to or not, they will be discussing about morality while you are reasoning or presenting arguments.
Politics is the quintessential arena where moral conflicts take place.

Why?
Because for cowards and morons there is where they feel they have a chance; they have an advantage - by changing the criterion of what is more and what is less probable into a matter of what benefits the majority; because within the contexts of morality they can appeal to human vanity and to human emotions.
Outside moralistic arguments - emoting rather than reasoning - the Desperate Degenerate cannot think; does not dare.
So, like Dillihunty, the exploration of what morality is, and how and why it evolved is skirted around, so as to not risk "bursting" the proverbial bubble, and deflating the word of its mysticism and its effectiveness.
This is what they mean by "bringing it down to earth". "Earth" being code for humanity.
They desperately want to reduce all subjects into humanitarian contexts, so that they can plead, and use pity, and victimization, and vanity to circumvent their lack of rational arguments and for evidence.
Morality must be ascribed to a cosnciuos being. If not god, then humanity, is the rational agency from which morality appears.
So they first reduce every topic to a moral issue and then take it for granted that morality is the product of a consciousness.

Dillihunty fails to use Evolutionary Psychology to explain the phenomenon of morality, or moral behaviour; he also fails to distinguish evolved moral behaviour, as a survival strategy, and manmade ethics, such as those represented by the Ten Commandments - from gene to memes.
This differentiation is crucial as it exposes what moral behaviour is, and has evolved in many species, and not only humans, and at what point man intervenes to add more rules that restrict and direct behaviours, for socio-economic reasons.

My method is always bottom<>up. So I begin with the common ground in natural selection, identifying the traits common across species, and then i proceed to identify how man intervened so as to distinguish the reasons and motives.
I do so by naming the first "morality" and the second "ethics", just to produce clarity - because language is a tool for the production of clarity.
Charlatans, cowards and imbeciles, use language top obscure, to convolute, to cloud, so as to merge their irrationals elf-serving, bullshit with rational concepts.
I've named this cowardly strategy the Trojan Horse method - It's posted somewhere in one of the threads.
The synthesis of rational and irrational arguments legitimized the irrational by continently associating it with the rational - a sleight of mind, magic trick.  once the association has been ingrained in the minds of the masses, it is difficult to disassociate it.
Obscurantism is employed to cover the dissonance, the contradictions.

There's a pragmatic foundation to the evolution of what is named, by men, morality, or altruism, or behaviours that facilitate tolerance and cooperation.
A genetic foundation that is then added to by human meddling - the gene manipulated by the meme.
Gender, as another example, is a genetic specialized role that can be given a human cultural covering, imposing more specific symbols, social and economic behaviours
Genes are clothed in memes - in Nihilistic memes genes are either completely rejected (annulled) or corrupted, reversed.

Morality evolved independently from man. Evidence of it is that other species behave in what man calls moral ways.
Man then adds to this evolved behaviour his own social rules which he moralizes to produce the same effect evolved morality produces.
Morality requires no god to emerge and to develop into a social behaviour. This behaviour is then corrupted, added to, or sublimated into manmade socio-economic standards of behaviour.

Evola, Julius wrote:

The inferior never lives a fuller life than when he feels his existence is subsumed in a greater order endowed with a centre; then he feels like a man standing before leaders of men, and experiences the pride of serving as a free man in his proper station.

As such, a man who believes in absolute order, a whole, with man as the "measure of all things" - at the centre of existence - is inadvertently expressing a species inferiority complex, i.e., an existential anxiety and insecurity.
Weakness compensates through association.
It is at the basis of social behaviour, in all species. Individual weakness compensates by surrendering a portion of its will to a community, finding power in numbers - synergy.
At its core, social behaviour, or social cooperative survival strategies, are a compensation for individual insecurity.
For this reason, among many others, the left, expressing this existential insecurity, and vulnerability, will always dominate the masses of a species which has evolved social behaviour.
Tolerance of other, and altruism, and sympathy, are necessary traits.

Human ethical systems, such as Abrahamism and Marxism, or Paganism and Aryanism, are extensions of natural systems imposing behavioural rules, such as sexual control and group reciprocity.
In nature natural selection takes care of 'wrongdoers" or "breakers of natural law". Humans attempt to extend this beyond natural limits, such as racial and tribal boundaries, or beyond enforced celibacy, that is part of natural selection.
extending, or stretching Dundar's formula:

Dunbar, Robin wrote:

The central argument revolves around four key points: (1) among primates, social group size appears to be limited by the size of the species' neocortex; (2) the size of human social networks appears to be limited for similar reasons to a value of around 150; (3) the time devoted to social grooming by primates is directly related to group size because it plays a crucial role in bonding groups; and finally, (4) it is suggested that language evolved among humans to replace social grooming because the grooming time required by our large groups made impossible demands on our time. Language, I argue, evolved to fill the gap because it allows us to use the time we have available for social interaction more efficiently.

A rule necessitated by man's intervention upon natural laws, such as "survival of the fittest", and "polygamy" excluding the majority of males, and a minority of females.

Without getting into the other tangents, I'll focus on reciprocity and the use of morality and law to enforce it.

Timocracy utilizes nature to weed out those who cannot and will not abide by any manmade law, because they fail to adapt and adjust to natural laws.
it doesn't impose a moral law, but only after the individual proves to be worthy of citizen status, and all that this entails.
If a man cannot even understand or show humility before nature - the gods - then his hubris will extend to any manmade systems enforcing some manmade rule of reciprocity and sexual discipline.
A man who can show reciprocity before nature, and yield form her what he needs while giving back what she demands  will show the same capacity to do the same in regards to natural agencies, such as other organisms - in the tradition of Indo-European Paganisms, and Timocratic  
The "gods" are used to enforce a selection process that immediately and indifferently rejects anyone without the basic ability to understand and to discipline himself before nature, i.e., the gods.

The first arbiter of who even becomes eligible to apply for membership is not a man, or a group of men, but something cold and unconscious, though it is represented by anthropomorphic metaphors, such as the gods.
A man who can discipline himself before the gods - i.e., nature - and make them offer them of nature's bounty, in excess of what he needs, will be a worthy candidate to participate in a system of Homoioi - same, in that they've all proven the same before an objective judge and jury.

Should we not begin our quest for overcoming by first discovering what morality is, and way it evolves, and how it does so?
If we to stop at it being a "social construct" we've explained nothing, but only implied some divine creation, some godly wilful imposition, from nothing.
Another version of the creation myth.

Where-from comes morality, and why do other species exhibit what we humans would call moral behaviour, or altruism?
Without this analysis herd-morality will never be overcome, but only surrendered to through different semantic artifices.
Is homo sapient the only moral species because only man can think ro display thoughts, using symbols, so only man can chisel laws on tablets, or write them in books?

Are morals entirely memetic?
To clarify, we must use different words to refer to the semiology and to the genealogy of morality.
Semiology attains its peak in Judaism and its Commandments, ushering in the age of Theocracy.
This is why we speak of the Jews, as Jews.
Sloterdijk claims that the Jews took Egypt with then....ergo the exodus means the conversion of Egyptian Death worship and an obsession with mortality could from then on be transportable across space/time.    
The local becomes universal, through text.

We must understand the difference between moral behaviour, evolved to facilitate tolerance and cooperation, and man-made laws, meant to preserve group cohesion allowing for the evolution of multi-racial, multi-cultural, Globalized, Americanized, systems.
Without clear and distinct gene/meme divide all discussions will be talking at another, or over the other, shifting from one context to the next, as it suits the participants, without any conclusion being possible.
For most this is the desired outcome, i.e., confusion, to justify the idea that morality is subjective requiring the sacrifice of the one to the many, i.e., a comprise.
A market dynamic of trending fashions....one generation this is moral, and the next that is so.

Morals/Ethos words used to differentiate and clarify, representing nuances of divergence.
Moral Behaviour (actions) and ethical standards and rules/laws...commandments (words - logos).

Morality is strained when free-will increases.
If defined properly, the options available or perceptible, to a mind in the past did not exist.
Technologies offers a multiplication of awareness and of access, creating moral dilemmas that do not exist in nature.
Every increase in awareness multiplies stress and insecurity - more possibilities, multiple probabilities, more to worry about.
Freedom is measure by options, and technologies and communal support - google genius - multiplies options...and the consequences for each.  
Even increasing divorce rates can be ascribed to multiplied options, and institutionalized protection from the consequences.



The "paradox of choice" is really the "paradox of freedom".
Absolute freedom would demand absolute awareness, and power - omniscience and omnipotence.
Freedom overwhelms a mind evolved to only deal with few options.

Ironically, as freedom increases he mind imposes a form of slavery upon itself; and as un-freedom increases - decreasing options - the mind rebels demanding more.
Those who believe in free-will are the most ordered, wanting to impose rules and limitations upon themselves; those who reject free-will are the most chaotic and out-of control, expecting some external order to step-in, or secretly expecting it all to "come out for the best".
It has to do with parental control, or the lack of, and how a child rebels against it, or expects it as an entitlement. A reflection of a child with its parents, or with their absence.
The transference of parental authority goes to the institution, and then to an intangible idea; it is is accepted as a responsibility.

He being a Barry Schwartz, he could not have done anything but promote income distribution.
Enough pieces of the Messiah to spread Eucharist evenly.

Morality/Ethics = Genetics/Memetics = Nature/Culture
A proper definition of morality begins with an observable, testable, falsifiable, activity, i.e., behaviour. It does not begin with an ideology, attempting to integrate behaviour into its principles, but it builds an ideology from the ground up.
Morality is first and foremost an activity. An activity that crosses species boundaries. We can observe this behaviour, this way of inter-relating, in other species. The common traits of these species, including homo sapient, will offer an explanation of how and why morality, or moral behaviour evolved. This would be the grounding, the genetic foundation, from which we begin so as to then understand how man encoded this and added to it; how memes are built upon genes.
From the general we proceed towards specifics. We begin with a general foundation and then we proceeds towards increasingly specific manifestations of it.
So a general behaviour is established, including more than one species; then we proceed to study how this general rule is slightly modified in a specific species; then we proceed to study how memes contribute, corrupting of honing this behaviour, promoting specific cultural modification in this behaviour; then we proceed to study how individuals within these specific cultural moral modifications, founded no a general behaviour, relate to it; then we can even go further and study a specific individual within this intricate matrix of ethical codes built upon moral behaviours, which are not unique to humans.

Therefore, 'morality' is a word that can be sued to refer to observable behaviours that cross species lines and facilitate a specific function that contributes to survival propagation - we can call morality the genetic foundation; and we can use another term 'ethos' to differentiate it from the previous, representing the memetic component promoting additional limits to human behaviour, facilitating the survival of human societies, with specific ideals.
Morality/Ethics as the behavioural by-products of genes/memes.      

This Bottom<>Up reasoning is the proper method of defining words, representing concepts, when and if possible.
In cases where the concept cannot be traced back to a behaviour, an activity, we must place these in the category of theoretical concepts, or concepts, represented by words, that remain doubtful.
If we advance in this methodology we can now distinguish words, representing concepts that not only lack an empirical foundation but actually contradict or challenge observable, experienced reality, as being nihilistic, or nonsensical, and we must seek the 'foundation' in psychology, as an underlying starting motive.

>>>Nihilism: A position of negation that can go as far as use subjectivity to reject (negate) experienced reality.
My own position is that nihilism is a attitude, a way of relating to experienced reality, which has been formalized, and arises as a reaction - byproduct - of emerging self-consciousnesses exposing the individual not only to the harshness of the world, in relation to its motives, but also to a third-person perspective multiplying this by exposing the individual to how it is perceived by another, and how it compares with another. This increases the levels of anxiety - byproduct of the advantage offered by self-awareness.
Nihilism uses abstractions, represented by symbols/words (semiotics) to cope with this increase in anxiety, manufacturing a cognitive distance, between self and otherness - this 'distancing' may reach the level of a complete separation (schism); a defensive rejection of otherness allowing the self to encase itself, theoretically, in itself - radical subjectivity.
Words/Symbols become for a Nihilist expressions of his will, rejecting, pushing away, all that threatens it - essentially protecting the lucid part of consciousness, which I call 'ego' to differentiate it from the unconscious or subconscious - a larger part of the unity mostly functioning automatically, requiring little if any conscious participation. a fact which produces mind/body dissonance, or the conscious mind negating, denying, rejecting the experienced physical world, including its own physical form (body).  

>>>Morality: indicates a specific behaviour in relation to other living organisms, or life. Morality cannot be applied to anything other than the living, or any agency with an intent (will). To apply morality to anything outside living agencies is meaningless and a product of superstition.
An intent and its collateral effect is what morality judges and defines - whether the collateral effects were foreseen or not, and whether they were intended or not.
When an acting agency acts it does so in accordance with its own judgments, leading to choices. These can be conscious or not.
The individual's awareness of the consequences is not necessary. What morality refers to is to the action, the act and the actor - agency. What it consciously intends is irrelevant.
Ignorance is not innocence.
Intent only matters in that it describes the subjective motive that justifies the act.
Morality is the consequence of the act in relation to other - whether this other is a living organism or an idea, i.e. extension of a living organism. We can use 'ethics' to distinguish this from the source of morality which is nature itself.
Morality emerges in social organisms that have adopted cooperation as their survival strategy. It evolves as group rules of conduct that are judged by how they offer a group survival benefit or a group survival cost, in relation to the environment. This cost/benefit factor determines the individuals participation within the group; its status.
On this starting level morality indicates a relationship between individuals within an environment that does not require their conscious awareness - natural selection weeds out the detrimental from the beneficial promoting the genes that behave in ways that benefit both the individual and the group it belongs to.
Therefore, we can say that morality may be a subjective adaptation to objective reality - where both are fluctuating (dynamic) and the former is forever unknown, to some greater or lesser degree, to the latter.

>>>Gene/Meme: sex is genetic and gender is the integration of sexuality within group dynamics (culture), with its own particular ideals, morals, as these have evolved in relation to a particular environment and are then established even if the environment changes or the individual is taken out of it and placed in a different environment.  This may produce alienation.
Nevertheless, memes are more quick to adapt than genes are.

Notice the mind-games applied by nihilists, in this case JR, to deny objective reality.
Skepticism is now pushed to its absurd limits where nothing can be agreed on without caveats - even the most obvious is now debatable and deniable.
The nihilist feel 'superior' because he is 'open to possibilities', even to the degree of the absurd. He cannot decrease probabilities, particularly when coming close to what threatens him.

I compare this to a phenomenon which has been described by biologists to explain the state of prey when it is being eaten alive by predators. The 'victim' appears calm and indifferent, having entered a state of shock - brain detaching from the trauma of the body as it surrenders to fate.
Nihilists often surrender to their fate (fatalism) and become calm and collected - or even cynical - just as they are experiencing severe life-threatening trauma.
It's the protective benefit of the 'nil'.  


>>>If we establish life as being interested in its own survival then morality can be defined as subjective.
Morality evolves to promote the survival and propagation of genetic types, whether it is aware of it or not.
most living organisms are, in fact, not aware of why they behave in the way they do - their impulsive behaviour need not be conscious, and yet it acts with an intent.
Only the human animal can separate its conscious from its subconscious, intentions, oftentimes acting/behaving in ways contrary to its lucid intentions - self-deceit. In such a case it is rare that the mind's intent can usurp the body's impulses and the rarity of this is admired and labelled as exceptional - saintly, pious.

>>>Reality is not judged by what could exist but by what does exist.
Bottom<>Up Thinking begins with the perceived - empirical.

>>>Shapes, like squares & circles are mental abstractions.
As ideas they must be one or the other - either/or. In fact neither exists, but are ways of interpreting existence.
An example of how genetics produce memetics - evolved ways of interpreting reality become established as ideas adhering to rules that correspond to how the mind must discipline itself to the world.
Mathematics and Geometry are disciplines that represent how mind relates to world - they are themselves a form of language - semiotics.      
Squares cannot be circles because these are two different interpretations of experienced relationships of phenomena in the world. Relationships determined by focusing on a piece of reality to create a cognitive whole of space/time. Shapes are representations of these relationships formalized into concepts that represent their repetition.  
 
>>>Quantum Physics only exposes the underlying chaos participating, along with order, to produce experienced reality.
As organisms dependent and manifestations of order, life can only relate to order within which chaos is integrated as the unknown or unpredictable factor.
Subject/Object being in a determinism relationship but where object, in this case world, dominates and subject adapts or must intervene, through action, to influence/affect it.
Observing is a form of intervention.
The agent influences other not only by using light to illuminate it, but by being present and influencing it via interactivity on both a conscious and unconscious level.

>>>Something can both attract and repel - the degree of repulsion compared to attraction is called harmony or disharmony - if repulsion exceeds attraction then we have disharmony, if the opposite then we call that harmony.
Something can be both good and bad, for the organism - the degree to which the bad is greater than the good determines the absolute concept of 'good' - an idea, abstraction.    

Morality & Ethics are subjective but not in the sense of an individual basis, but on a inter-subjective level, evolving group dynamics in relation to world - nature.  
No god, or a belief in one, is necessary for a dog to behave in altruistic ways to his pack mates and to display cruelty and indifference to all else. It has evolved to submit to the dominant pair and to run to the aid of its fellow pack member through natural selection; the behaviour offering a greater advantage than a disadvantage in space/time. No law giver, no divine authority, conscious required.
Just as eating shit and drinking urine is disgusting to many - but not all - because of the toxicity of these byproducts of digestion, and not due to some cultural or divine authority.
I wont even get into the bullshit about stealing, killing and raping. It's so ethically Modern and Judeo-Christian that I might say things that will shock psychologies that need these standards - and my positions may be misconstrued as a promotion of and preference, because most mediocre minds cannot separate subjective need/desire from objective understanding.
"Murder", "rape" and "thieving" are only "immoral" within group dynamics because they create conflict within a strategy motivated by survival and propagation.
These are not universals nor do they require a god or an ideal to make them disruptive and destructive to organic will to life, and to the female's role as genetic filtering agency, resulting in a decrease of fitness that will threaten the survival of every member of the group.
This 'debate' is a product of not beginning with a foundation where words refer to shared experience.
JR, a moron, and a nihilist, displays the characteristics of post-modern word-juggling, using the absence of absolutes to evade and to reject certain possibilities as being less likely than others.
The other moron, Molly, uses absolute to refer to what is common, or shared by humans, or living organisms - projecting this as a universality - here humanity=world, and world=humanity.
So logic, as a disciplining of mind to natural order, becomes a universal absolute immutable, indivisible, singular whole.
Logic simply posits rules of thinking that reflect/mirror natural order's fluidity, because the mind is prone to contradict natural order - ideas being interpretations and abstractions of reality, can be combined in ways that do not and cannot exist within present reality, or reality made present.

Molly diagnoses JR perfectly. He is a hedonist.
We can see this when he brags about the "beautiful pussy" he has enjoyed.
Notice the change in attitude when Molly leaves. His entire demeanour becomes arrogant...when he was all quiet and humble before.
See him 'declare victory', which is typical with nihilists because...well, it's all "subjective" so if you say it you are it.
If you can convince enough others of your subjective belief then it is true, because the only objective reality is either conscious and absolute or it is non-existent and absolute - or absolutely non-existent.

UPB holds its own nihilism in the title: 'universal', not 'humanistic' or 'species'. It then projects European moral preference onto the species as a whole.

It's what happens when you begin with a concept you must then justify empirically, and you do not begin with empiricism and build the concept from there.  
What is common in morality across species?
This is what will define it objectively without having to resort to idealism - including nihilism as a negation - or god - another version of idealism - the spiritual nihilistic type that begins with an absolute, intentional, agency.

Finding moral behaviour you can then identify its core principles - both subjective and objectively determines, because the subject does not act in a vacuum but in an environment.
The first thing to notice about morality is that it only applies to life - which cares and has an intent, a motive. then we can identify particular kinds of life using specific strategies for survival and reproduction.
Morality is no longer human but indicative of specific methods and practices that cross species lines.

From there you may proceed to higher forms of moral behaviour, and distinguish those using the term 'ethics' - referring to how specific environments evolving specific species using specific strategies will produce a specific culture or common application and shared rules.
This both escapes universality and subjectivity or moral nihilism.

EITHER - Universality implies that non-living order would have to comply by moral rules, or that all is conscious and acts with intent - positive nihilism or spiritual nihilism (Abrahamism) or Panpsychism, Spinoza etc.
OR -on the other extreme that morality is a cultural social inter-subjective construct rendered meaningless by the absence of a divine intentional authority (god) - typically Marxist. Morality becomes a tool of totalitarian subjugation, enslaving the individual to its rule - it is absolutely void of substance and meaning - another word with no reference outside human brains.

EITHER/OR absolutism.    

Properly defining concepts begins by connecting them to external, experienced, behaviours and actions - independent from individual needs and desires - empiricism.
When we properly define 'morality' it no longer requires a god or a state to impose it - animals are evidence of its objectivity, in the sense that it is independent from subjective interpretations.

For example, incest or a proper definition of paedophilia, is not a social rule created arbitrarily. It is based no genetic factors, such as inbreeding and sexual maturity.
Incest is not disgusting and immoral because god or someone says so, but because of the genetic defects it produces - and this develops into a social moral rule.
Abortion is not immoral because god or someone says so, but because abortion is, itself, a human construct with collateral effects some consider detrimental to group cohesion and to group well-being - in the same way fornicating with animals is immoral, or undesirable.
That it is possible does not make ti desirable. It emerges as a byproduct of human meddling in natural processes.

The rape example was more indicative of how both are imprisoned within modern ethical standards which are based on Judeo-Christian nihilistic ethics.
Without advocating for rape, as I consider it an expression of weakness, that rape emerges and is practised by many species, including man, means that it is restricted by human ethical standards which sees it as a disruption of its international stability.
It emerges as a response to female sexual power, and is neither moral nor immoral; given my definitions it is unethical.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Life is a rejection of other - self-preservation - and the rejection of rejecting, accepting, attracting, what is most like itself, or what it needs and is being lost to attrition.
A simple strategy.
A cultivated man - aristocrat - is intolerant - rejecting denying - and selectively rejecting his own rejections - accepting attracting - according to what he wants to become, without forgetting or rejecting what he is.
Mind resonating Body, adapting its order to the unforeseeable effects of chaos.

"La France est un pays terroriste, colonialiste, esclavagiste" selon la Ligue de Défense noire africaine [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Jonathan Moadab (@MoadabJ) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As if his characterizations are automatically "negative" because they are in the minds of ex-salves liberated by Abrahamism and existing within its ethical paradigm.
Might as well accuse a Muslim of being paternalistic and misogynistic.

Stunning. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Selective moral outrage.
A hierarchy of victim identity.
at the very top - divinity level, the Jews; just beneath them Negroes; next browns, mulattoes,; then....it doesn't matter.
A victim needs an aggressor, an evil force to give it meaning - good/evil...no, not Beyond Good and Evil.
We are still within the nihilistic paradigm of Abrahamic ethical codes, so we simple rename 'good' and 'evil' and self-deceive ourselves that we've transcended or transvaluted our way upward.

See, Nietzsche was only useful if you wanted to rid yourself of Christian limitations, standing in the way towards a progress towards Marxism, for example - herd psychology for the secular modern.
.

Malcolm X wrote:

The only permanent solution is complete separation or some land of our own in a country of our own. All other courses will lead to violence and bloodshed. It will lead to the destruction of America.

An above average Negro.
He knew diversity was no strength...but the media pushes it as a way of diluting European blood - the true enemy.
Multiculturalism is only good for Europeans....not for Jews, or Africans; open borders are only moral when applied to 'improve the moral acumen' of Europeans, and antisemitic if applied to Jews, or racist if applied to Africans...let's ignore the Asians....none of this even applies there.
Well, not yet; not until they sufficiency get rid of the European spirit resisting this bullshyte.

Hollywood has decided "to develop new inclusion standards for Oscar eligibility" of non-whites so whites make it a permanent habit to eulogize blacks so they never think that blacks are members of the race with the least achievements. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Dr. Ricardo Duchesne (@DuchesneRicardo) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In nature when hers run to escape predators it is the one member that can't keep-up which is eaten - survival; of the fittest, even with herds, is brutal - the median speed and agility of the whole determines which herd member is weakest.
Not so for human nihilistic collectives....here, to put it in perspective, if one of the herd members falls behind then the entire herd slows down to accommodate its ability to keep-up.
Lowest-Common-Denominator, means the slowest, the stupidest, the most degenerate member of the collective establishes the standard all others - i.e., the collective whole - must abide by.
Even among herds man has an artificial version, based no nihilism and its victim morality.

This is why it eventually destroys itself and must make excuses and lie and always blame others for its continuous and inevitable failures.

There is no more degenerate herd than a human herd.

Blacks will become the American version of an entertainment cast - within a de facto moral cast system.
Entertainers and muscle....for the other castes.
They will take over policing, because black on black or white violence is acceptable...and will remains what they are.....systemic performers performing in coliseums for the masses the most primal forms of f-artistry....from sporting events to movies to cRap jungle beating.

Art always reveals a civilization's essence, and this one is being exposed as a dying civilization, reverting to an ever declining median.

What is man's most basic existential essence?
His human condition....is that he emerges and gradually becomes aware of his vulnerability within the vast space/time dimensions of the cosmos.
This is the unifying principle of the human collective...and the fear of being excluded from the collective that acts as a buffer between individuals and the uncertain, threatening world.
"No child left behind" means the herd slows down to accommodate its slowest member so as to not make it a victim....a collective identification with victims ensues.
A moral shift that gradually reduces the median until the herd is exterminated.
All or nothing.
If not all, then nobody survives.

Beyond redemption this mob... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Renegade Inc. (@Renegade_Inc) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In accordance with the official moral hierarchy standards this form of police brutality is at the end of the scale.
If it were a member of the upper echelons of moral virtue there would be protesting and the ritualized burning of buildings.

The problem with a broken system, A self-contradictory system, is that there is truth in every facet of its flaws. Not totally mind you, but parts of it which feed into the crazed self-hatred and vengeance of the degenerate underbelly. "Police brutality" actually does happen to be a real phenomenon, not to the extremity that these retards fantasize it to be, but real nonetheless. A system of artificial institutionalized corrupted elements, all conflicting with each other, playing into certain parts of 'justified outrage' while maintaining its versimilitude of "nobility"; creating chaos and creating the environments which nurture the chaos into the social breakdown we see.

The 'elites' of the victim (really 'herd') class are those that find the avenue of being 'intellectual shepherds' as 'less selfish' - an excuse for 'less criticized'. That class ends up falling prey to emotional manipulation, or more precisely, manipulation of emotional associations with concepts/ideas. They are entirely focused on power within that herd, with only obtuse aims if they'd ever achieve such success.

Every cultural era, every age, shapes the psychology of the individual to perceive reality in referential ways to current customs and mores. They still think Nietzsche’s “overman” was about ‘Godhood” and superhuman abilities; the literal infantile mindset exposing itself again, unable to comprehend something philosophically, while they attempt to explore its philosophical nature, or name drop philosophical thinkers, for no other reason than that they are enticed by its spirit of wisdom, like children are by whimsical charms.

For the 21st century modern mind they only understand “heroism” in the context of Judeo-Christian moral qualms and the guiding principles of shame and guilt. Being strapped down by precisely the moral ‘nausea’ which Nietzsche spoke about. But they have never read Nietzsche, they only know that somehow his concept of the “overman” and their vague recollections of how it was associated with Nazism, triggers in them an obtuse referential understanding of what it means in terms of “ultimate power” and any other of its simplistic variant underpinnings.

The “hero” must be the one who sacrifices themselves for the herd, for the sheeple. Bringing their unlimited powers and abilities down to the level of average morons so to prevent themselves from being too mean or evil. Nobody wants to be “evil”, just like nobody wants to be “racist”. These are bad things. Therefore, the hero must abide by standards of inferiority, abide by the customs of the Victim Empire, and never strive to self-mastery.

Abrahamic, a.k.a., nihilistic, herd morality must convert the superior into a caricature it can then ridicule - define it out of existence is exactly this...to detach the meaning of words form their reality references to make them impossible to attain and to slander them....
Like Superman was....Who wrote superman?
An attempt to vilify and then to ridicule....Notice that the overman always submits to the collective good - ti saves the weakling....because that's what a superman would do with his powers.

The superpowers of the ideal is collectively enslaved to its moral codes.
a literal alien, representing how the superior appears to the inferior, will surrender to the good of the many weak.....the wolf will submit to the welfare of the herd.
This is the brainwashing message....repeated in all Hollywood movies.

When moralizing replaces reasoning emotion becomes the guiding criterion to judge, determining and validating what is more probably true from what is more probably false.
Feminization of thinking ensues when this mode of judging dominates.

Morality is not believed to be universal - even by most desperate degenerates - nevertheless, they continue to hold all accountable to Abrahamic ethical codes, as if they were actually universal - because in the delusional alternate reality where humanity = world, and world is a subjective, social construct, the prevailing ethical codes of the dominating ideology/dogma, is indubitably all-encompassing.

Despite this, desperate degenerates - nihilists of every ilk - continuously fail to abide by their own stated ethical standards, then accusing others of also failing to do so, implying amorality as the only alternate universal standard.
Binary - if not one, then nil; if not all, then none; if not whole, then void.
As if all ought to adhere to their adopted ethical standards, which they cannot abide by themselves, because they are so exo-pragmatic and entirely unattainable, that they can only have been meant for an ideal species, existing in an ideal world, in ideal circumstances.

This is another example of either/or duplicity, in the context of Abrahamic morality - currently having evolved into secular forms, e.g., liberalism, Marxism, Humanism, etc.

"Restless striving" is the organic manifestation of endless interactivity - flux.

The absent absolute is the negation of a human, all too human, conception absoluteness - other life forms, or non-living matter, suffers from no such mental delusions.
It is man that mistakes his own mental abstractions as absolute states that must, ought, to exist beyond his mind - in the world.
Nihilism is a negation of what man constructs in his mind, and becomes disillusioned with, over time.
He creates the idea of an absolute which he must then absolutely negate, to remain true to his experience of reality. An additional source of insecurity, compounded by his growing self-awarness, juxtaposing himself with others.

His own mental constructs - idea, ideals - projected as real phenomena, as things, he can never experience, or find, declaring their absence a nil, a flaw - requiring correction, fulfillment, creation.

Morality expands to become more than a method of self-cotnrol, to facilitate cooperative reproductive and survival strategies; it becomes an existential demand, a cry, a command, via semiotics.
Semiotics have the ability to externalize mental abstractions, making tangible - in the form of vocalizations, symbols upon an alternate medium, such as a stone tablet - realizing what is lacking in reality.

Schopenhauer was seeped in Abrahamic - Buddhist, spiritual nihilism - his conception of asceticism as an end in itself.
Once more the Greeks had a better definition of asceticism, not as an end, but as a means.
Disillusionment with the world is a consequence of unrealistic expectations - such as absolute states.
Gratification, satisfaction, can never be finalized, because these are negative sensation - the mind ephemerally - and partially - liberated from the constant experience of existing.
Again, moderns make pleasure an end in itself, and refuse to accept it as what it is, a means.

When the objective is a hedonistic ideal, men attempt to attain pleasure parity through the control and manipulation of resources, via their supply/demand distribution; when the objective is a moralistic ideal, men attempt to attain judgment parity through the control and manipulation of consequences, via their positive/negative distributions.

Abortion isn't wrong because it's immoral, no more than murder is.
It is immoral - using the proper definition of the concept - because it is pragmatically costly, socially disruptive and dangerous to the collective.

The individual doesn't have to learn from her mistakes so she repeats the same actions, makes the same choices, that lead to the same consequences requiring abortion - or some other technological intervention - knowing that she doesn't have to change herself because the collective will step in - or so she expects and demands - to protect her from the negative repercussions of her wrong judgment calls, and wrong life choices.
Her wrong choices, wrong judgments, never have to face the negative consequences so she doesn't have to correct them, so they perpetuate and increase in aggregating negative effects affecting all segments of her life, not only her sexual reproductive conduct.
This same bad judgment is then applied across all fields of human interest.
She never has to question the quality of her convictions because she is protected by the collective that offers her this "right" - this service - for its own motives, viz., bad judgments made by inferior minds are easily exploited and manipulated.

There is no act - no choice expressed in action - which is intrinsically good/bad, or morally good/evil.
There are only actions causing consequences which either offer a benefit or a detriment in regards to a specific outcome.
This positive/negative consequence is only in relation to the desired outcome, i.e., goal, objective, ideal, and have no universal meaning beyond this triangulation.
For example, certain sexual choices either reduce or increase the probability of an offspring - this is then established as a moral code limiting behaviours - programmed into genetics, e.g., incest increases the probability of undesirable mutations and so it is gradually programmed out of sexual options in the form of repulsion.
Other ethical codes are manmade - memetically programmed into a group to facilitate particular outcomes or to inhibit particular consequences detrimental to group cohesion and cooperation, e.g., murder, stealing, adultery, etc.
These are perfectly displayed in the Abrahamic codes of ethics, i.e., the famous ten commandments, all of which are perfect examples of manmade - memetic - interventions upon genetic impulses.
Confusing what is genetically programmed and what is memetically imposed - trained - into an individual is what nihilists take advantage of to announce their negating amoral codes or arbitrariness.

Nevertheless, what is common to both naturally selected behavioural codes - moral instincts - of conduct and what are socially selected behavioural codes of conduct - ethical codes - both attempt to negate particular disruptive and self-destructive consequences.

Consequences are also what nihilists want to distance themselves from - particularly negative, to them, outcomes.
They vehemently demand that the collective - social group - share not so much in the positive consequences of individual choices - although this is also part of the demand - but more importantly that all negative consequences of individual choices be distributed equally within the group - preferably as big a group as possible to reduce the negative distribution to as small a share as possible.
This is why all-inclusivity, i.e., globalism, universalism, humanism etc. is so essential to their psychosis, viz., it attempts to pre-empt increasing idiocy - manifesting in increasingly poor judgment calls and choices with increasingly negative consequences - by increasing the population within which these consequences are to be equally absorbed.
In their mind - product of poor choices - universality is the infinite distribution of negative consequence, rendering the impact negligible on an individual level. Their ideal is to make superior/inferior judgments a non-factor since the individual with good judgment, making good choices, will also have to share in the negative consequences of an individual's poor judgments - parity through the collective = nullification of distinctiveness, or self/other.
This anti natural selection method inevitably leads, with mathematical progression, to systemic collapse when individuals need not change nor cultivate good judgment; negative consequences eventually increase to the point where they can no longer be rendered insignificant on an individual level.