Desperate Degenerates

Quote :

The moral/ethical formula, simplified for simpletons:

1- An individual's actions, behaviours, choices, based on his/her judgements, evaluations, relative to his objectives, values.

2- A group's values and objectives.

3- #1 relative to #2 is morality (evolved over time) and ethics (amendments of morality).
A group's primary objective - as well as an individual's primary, primal objective - is its own survival, propagation, dependent on its cohesion and performance relative to other groups.

4- #3 relative to environment - where this performance and competition takes place - manifest positive/negative consequences.

5- Consequences determine the success of a group's primary objective - #3's success/failure.

Place any individual action, behaviour choice in #1
Place any group values, objectives in #2
_______________________________________________
To the imbeciles:
Place any individual act, behaviours, choice in #1, then evaluate it relative to #2, and then, if you cannot observe it in practice, evaluate #2 in relation to #3.
Preferably, all this can be put into practice so that we are not dealing with theory but with actions with observable consequences.

Example:
Mary Land is either a slut - likes to party and have sex with random guys - or a moron, is too stupid, or naive to judge males, or too impulsive to control herself.
She, predictably, becomes pregnant due to her poor judgements, expressed through poor choices.

Is the group she belongs to willing to offer her a quick and easy correction for her idiocy or her whoring ways?
If so then she has no reason to change, or grow, or adapt, and she will continue being a slut or a moron; she has no reason to control her impulses.
Group values do not punish her because they place individual objectives above group objectives. They actually absorb the negative consequences of her poor judgments and choices.
Consequence?
If Mary Land does it, then Susy Que sees it and does it as well...and then Cum Lately wants to do it as well. It's an easy fix. It becomes the norm in this group, because the group protect all tis members form their own idiocy or impulsiveness.

What does this mean for the group, relative to the environment?
The group does not replace those that die, and so over time it begins to weaken and can no longer compete with other groups, nor can it retain its cohesion as the number of young decline and the number of elderly increase.
The group also suffers a decline in good judgments producing good choices - the group average IQ drops because there is no reason for any thinking, and no reason to control oneself.
The group degenerates.
In time the group is absorbed or destroyed by another group - one in which Mary Land, her lifestyle preferences, and her idiocy suffered the full severity of the consequences because the group refused to fund her and shelter her, forcing her to adapt or die.
Here the individual perishes or adapts, and not the group.

This is the basic function of morality.
Replace 'abortion' with any individual act, choice...like paedophilia, incest, murder, homosexuality, transsexuality, bestiality, etc.
Any human act, behaviour....any and every choice.
This is the basis of why morality evolves only among social species or species that adopt a cooperative survival and reproductive strategy - evolving self-control and tolerance relative to other of their own kind so as to increase their survival and reproductive potentials.

No god required.
God is necessary only as a method of enforcing ethical amendments that are not naturally ingrained, such as:
Rules against adultery, thieving, etc.
God is necessary to offer rewards/threats to midwits and dimwits or those that cannot be rationally swayed to put in the effort and supress their impulses. It's an added level of group control - along with shaming and law & order imposing group punishments on those that contradict group values, threatening group survival.
______________________________________________
From genes to memes - from morals to ethics.
The Jews were the first to invent these ethical codes we call 'Commandments.'
The first theocracy founded on amendments to evolved moral actions/behaviours - behaviours we witness among many species, not only humans.
Ethics, on the other hand, is entirely human since it necessitates language and abstract thinking, as well as self-awareness and the ability to project thinking across space/time.
Marriage, for instance - and according to Socrates - is a technology....
Without its invention sophisticated human systems would be impossible.
Marriage is a development from monogamy, evolved among Aryan peoples to integrate as many males into a cohesive group, increasing the participating individual's survival potentials, and their reproductive potentials, which are extensions of survival, since reproduction is a naturally evolved method of overcoming individual mortality.
Mariage is the institutionalization and codification of monogamy, imposing sexual limits on all individuals so as to make as many of them investors in the welfare of their own group.
A very important Paternalistic advancement that increased survival and reproductive potentials. Its negation - as in Americanism - means group collapse is imminent.
____________________________________________________
Morality and its varied moral/ethical cultural, social, restrictions are evaluated relative to their success/failure - consequences - and the kind of individual they promote and evolve - compared to other cultural values and moral/ethical codes.
Evaluated relative to the environment - not the social environment of their own making, but the natural environment.
Would these cultural ideal citizens be able to survive outside the protective womb of the socioeconomic environment that produced them?
How can they compete, and how do they objectively compare with other cultural ideal citizens?

Satyr wrote:

If only I could have been a fly on the wall in their room when they first read him....and experienced an epiphany - did they sleep that night....or that week?
The fact that after years - 20?....30? - they cannot get him out of their mind can only indicate to us how this man impacted them when they first came in contact with him and his ideas....more his ideas, because the man may not have been as impressive.

Nietzsche wrote:

547. The "rich in spirit"
He has no spirit who seeks spirit.

Schopenhauer wrote:

In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods.

Schopenhauer wrote:

Women might be talented but cannot be genius as they are always subjective.

ihaveshitforbrains wrote:

I figure your reaction to him is more or less along the lines of MagsJ. You may not share his Nazi perspective on race and gender and sex and Jews -- or do you? -- but in other respects your right-wing political agenda seems more in sync with his than mine.

I just root all that existentially in dasein, you in the "biological imperatives" that [to me] seem more conducive to acquiring an "emotional Self".

New experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge might one day bring you over to the liberal political prejudices...but you'll always "feel" what you do about him.

Giblet wrote:

Yes, Lorikeet (or Satyr if that is indeed who he really is) does come off as more right-wing than left-wing, but even in that camp he's not an easy fit. He doesn't strike me as particularly religious, for example, and is not much of a traditionalist (unless you count archaic traditions as traditionalist). He doesn't speak too highly of America either, once describing it as (I believe) a sickness.

But at any rate, I don't find him nearly as interesting or challenging as you. He's just a doubled down version of your typical pinhead to me. You however are a riddle in a mystery inside an enigma, a fascinating specimen if I do say so.

The drag queen who Joe Biden invited to the White House for the “Respect for Marriage Act” signing this week previously tweeted, “kids are out to sing and suck D!”[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.]

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines, With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said today. --'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.'--Is it so bad then to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, Jesus, Luther, and Copernicus, Galileo and Newton and every other pure and wise spirit that took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

It is easy enough for a firm man who knows the world to brook the rage of the cultivated classes. Their rage is decorous and prudent, for they are timid, as being very vulnerable themselves. But when to their feminine rage the indignation of the people is added, when the ignorant and the poor are aroused, when the unintelligent brute force that lies at the bottom of society is made to growl and mow, it needs the habit of magnanimity and religion to treat it godlike as a trifle of no concernment.

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

— Clown World (@ClownWorld_) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

— Clown World (@ClownWorld_) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

— Clown World (@ClownWorld_) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thomas Sewell: "My long term goal is to buy a farm and live away from you people and let you enjoy your multiculturalism, diversity and sodomy." [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Amongst The Ruins (@untoAugustus) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]