Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[BjornP]

What is more irrational, sympathy or fear?

From a survival perspective sympathy is more irrational.

Being capable of understanding fellow human beings state of mind is anything but irrational from a survival perspective. It is key to our succes in group bonding, and given how everything from our success in organizing hunting parties, to organizing city states and building space rockets depends on our abilities to properly ascertain the moods of our fellow tribal members/hunting fellows, depends on our effectiveness in how well we can bond within our groups, sympathy is indeed rational.

In a survival circumstance though, it is more likely that being sympathetic will result in death than being fearful. In all circumstances being calm and level headed is the recommended state of being.

Being able to put oneself into the mindset of ones hunting prey or dangerous predators (wether they be animals or fellow humans) is not a rational ability to cultivate, you reckon? Having a basic knowledge of the behavior, or expected behavior, of your prey is irrational?

[Speaker to Animals]

That's not sympathy.

Sympathy evolved from the earlier reciprocal altruism adaptation. The earlier adaptation has good genetic reasons for its selection. What we have now is a bit more difficult to explain (not sure I have ever read a good argument for why it came about).

[BjornP]

That's not sympathy.

Sympathy evolved from the earlier reciprocal altruism adaptation. The earlier adaptation has good genetic reasons for its selection. What we have now is a bit more difficult to explain (not sure I have ever read a good argument for why it came about).

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sympathy

Three definitions related to feelings:

1
a : an affinity, association, or relationship between persons or things wherein whatever affects one similarly affects the other
b : mutual or parallel susceptibility or a condition brought about by it
c : unity or harmony in action or effect
every part is in complete sympathy with the scheme as a whole — Edwin Benson
2
a : inclination to think or feel alike : emotional or intellectual accord in sympathy with their goals
b : feeling of loyalty : tendency to favor or support republican sympathies
3
a : the act or capacity of entering into or sharing the feelings or interests of another
b : the feeling or mental state brought about by such sensitivity have sympathy for the poor

All of them describe perfectly rational behavior.

Definition one: Armies, ideological movements, religions all cultivate a feeling of shared, seemingly irrational bond not bound by blood or personal desire of survival. But it is rational in the simplest sense of greater numbers = greater odds of security.

Definition two and three, well I already covered those.

[Speaker to Animals]

In evolutionary psychology, this stuff is a bit more nuanced than a dictionary. It starts with kin altruism. Reciprocal altruism is next. Beyond that, it's assumed there must be a form of altruism in which we sacrifice for individuals who could potentially pay us back in the future when we are in need. There needs to be some form of test that the person is trustworthy. Some guys like Nicholas Wade seem to argue this is how religion began and why it functions the way it does.

Beyond that.. ???

It's kind of a mystery. I sort of suspect that Christianity might have created some form of sexual selection in Europe that predisposed whites to this kind of pathological altruism. Maybe it's another example of sexual selection gone wrong? Hard to say.

But, personally, I don't think this refugee bullshit is altruistic or sympathetic at all. It's the result of women making up the majority of an electorate and being given a vote in the destiny of nations. The vast majority of those refugees flowing into your nations are young men. Your women don't seem to be getting upset about the young women being left behind to be raped, enslaved, and murdered, along with their children. Women are voting to increase their sexual selection options. They and their beta male sycophants use words like sympathy to rationalize it only. It really has nothing to do with sympathy.

Big corporations use the same tactics to rationalize mass migration from Latin America in the United States. Their real goal is to decimate wages in America. The goal of the democratic party is to gain enough nonwhite votes to make this a one-party state. They all rationalize it as the humane thing to do when nothing can be further from the truth.

[BjornP]

In evolutionary psychology, this stuff is a bit more nuanced than a dictionary. It starts with kin altruism. Reciprocal altruism is next. Beyond that, it's assumed there must be a form of altruism in which we sacrifice for individuals who could potentially pay us back in the future when we are in need. There needs to be some form of test that the person is trustworthy. Some guys like Nicholas Wade seem to argue this is how religion began and why it functions the way it does.

Beyond that.. ???

It's kind of a mystery.

I don't know that author. I read Matt Ridley's "Origins of Virtue" several years back... I can only remember some loose bullet points here and there. Christianity can't have made any difference in that regard though since it, from a evolutionary perspective is nothing more than a blip on our evolutionary timeline. It's only existed for a little less than 2000 years and even then, it too changed quite significantly in its 2000 year old history - as all major and minor religions have. Neither religion, ideology, philosophy or culture can change our biology. All it can do is find different ways to deal with it, master it, explain, control and direct it.

That it is irrational to import a huge number of immigrants that are uneducated and difficult to integrate into society, is absolutely true. I'm not a supporter of increased immigration, even for refugees (unless we have guarentees they will return home), but that doesn't mean I don't have sympathy with their problems.

Feeling some degree of sympathy for the plight of strangers is something I've done from to time on the DCF/MHF, too. There have been people with problems, with loss and pain that on occasion bleed out in a drunk/angry post. And I've noticed that I was usually even the last to offer understanding and counsel.I'm sure you, and others, did not feel like a woman, or feminized, or otherwise somehow socially pressured into offering a little kind word, advice or understanding to some of the people who - over these last couple of years asked for help or simply looked like they needed it.

Is that ir-rational? Depends on what you got in return, socially, by those people you advised or offered encouragement to, doesn't it? Being known as someone you can rely on: I'd say cultivating a quality like that is very rational for anyone who wants to be put in charge of others or someone who wants allies, for example.

Also, from a purely economic perspective, and if you're a European businessman who couldn't care less about anything other than the size of their bank account, importing loads of foreign labor capable and willing to push local and regional prices down, is extremely rational. For them. Alone.

[Speaker to Animals]

In evolutionary psychology, this stuff is a bit more nuanced than a dictionary. It starts with kin altruism. Reciprocal altruism is next. Beyond that, it's assumed there must be a form of altruism in which we sacrifice for individuals who could potentially pay us back in the future when we are in need. There needs to be some form of test that the person is trustworthy. Some guys like Nicholas Wade seem to argue this is how religion began and why it functions the way it does.

Beyond that.. ???

It's kind of a mystery.

I don't know that author. I read Matt Ridley's "Origins of Virtue" several years back... I can only remember some loose bullet points here and there. Christianity can't have made any difference in that regard though since it, from a evolutionary perspective is nothing more than a blip on our evolutionary timeline. It's only existed for a little less than 2000 years and even then, it too changed quite significantly in its 2000 year old history - as all major and minor religions have. Neither religion, ideology, philosophy or culture can change our biology. All it can do is find different ways to deal with it, master it, explain, control and direct it.

That it is irrational to import a huge number of immigrants that are uneducated and difficult to integrate into society, is absolutely true. I'm not a supporter of increased immigration, even for refugees (unless we have guarentees they will return home), but that doesn't mean I don't have sympathy with their problems.

Feeling some degree of sympathy for the plight of strangers is something I've done from to time on the DCF/MHF, too. There have been people with problems, with loss and pain that on occasion bleed out in a drunk/angry post. And I've noticed that I was usually even the last to offer understanding and counsel.I'm sure you, and others, did not feel like a woman, or feminized, or otherwise somehow socially pressured into offering a little kind word, advice or understanding to some of the people who - over these last couple of years asked for help or simply looked like they needed it.

Is that ir-rational? Depends on what you got in return, socially, by those people you advised or offered encouragement to, doesn't it? Being known as someone you can rely on: I'd say cultivating a quality like that is very rational for anyone who wants to be put in charge of others or someone who wants allies, for example.

Well, I only speculated that Christianity may be the underlying cause of white pathological altruism. I really don't know if it's true. But I do know that two thousand years is more than enough time for Christianity to have imposed some drastic evolutionary changes upon our race. The most recent research has shown that evolution happens really fast and that the nature of a society and civilization has evolutionary impacts (and vice versa). The adaptations that gave rise to the middle class and this northern European civilization only emerged in the high middle ages. As far as civilized people go, we are pretty fresh on the scene.

I don't think sympathizing with people is pathological. That's not what is meant by pathological altruism. Pathological altruism is when you are willing to sacrifice your own well-being (and that of your own people) for the sake of some other group of people.

Simply sympathizing with people is a good thing. You can sympathize with people on the internet without giving your home to them while you move into a cardboard box in an alley somewhere.

[BjornP]

Well, I only speculated that Christianity may be the underlying cause of white pathological altruism. I really don't know if it's true. But I do know that two thousand years is more than enough time for Christianity to have imposed some drastic evolutionary changes upon our race. The most recent research has shown that evolution happens really fast and that the nature of a society and civilization has evolutionary impacts (and vice versa). The adaptations that gave rise to the middle class and this northern European civilization only emerged in the high middle ages. As far as civilized people go, we are pretty fresh on the scene.

I don't think sympathizing with people is pathological. That's not what is meant by pathological altruism. Pathological altruism is when you are willing to sacrifice your own well-being (and that of your own people) for the sake of some other group of people.

Simply sympathizing with people is a good thing. You can sympathize with people on the internet without giving your home to them while you move into a cardboard box in an alley somewhere.

I think you underestimate the power and impact of culture and confuse it with biology. Europe in the High Middle Ages was a tapestry of hundreds of small, major and greater powers constantly warring, constantly competing and therefore constantly needing to gain an advantage over their neighbours. That, rather than anything biological, accounts for the success of European - and post-Reformation - North European civilization.

Willingness to sacrifice for the sake of some out-group, well... the armies of the great empires fought to defend the peoples within their empires, be they of the same tribe or not. But aside from that, I'd agree that the emergence of the first truly universal religions, like Zoroastrinaism, Christianity and Islam, and universal ideologies like Communism were the first examples of religions/ideologies where you sacrificed for someone not of your own blood or tribe, but who only shared some greater "idea" with you. But while that was qualify as the great changes to human history, I would sort that under the most important cultural/religious/"idea" changes to human history. I don't find any reason to believe that there is something uniquely Northern European in that ability.

But other than, we agree about what I think is your main point: "It is not rational, and not a case of good sympathy, to destroy your own culture with immigration".

We just disagree on that whole race issue, on women, and on which one of us better at determining the facts of when our cultures are, or will be, threatened with cultural destruction by Muslim immigrants. Let me state, for the record, that that is me.

[TheOneX]

What is more irrational, sympathy or fear?

From a survival perspective sympathy is more irrational.

Being capable of understanding fellow human beings state of mind is anything but irrational from a survival perspective. It is key to our succes in group bonding, and given how everything from our success in organizing hunting parties, to organizing city states and building space rockets depends on our abilities to properly ascertain the moods of our fellow tribal members/hunting fellows, depends on our effectiveness in how well we can bond within our groups, sympathy is indeed rational.

In a survival circumstance though, it is more likely that being sympathetic will result in death than being fearful. In all circumstances being calm and level headed is the recommended state of being.

Being able to put oneself into the mindset of ones hunting prey or dangerous predators (wether they be animals or fellow humans) is not a rational ability to cultivate, you reckon? Having a basic knowledge of the behavior, or expected behavior, of your prey is irrational?

You are using the word sympathy wrong. You are thinking of empathy. They are very similar, but there is an important distinction. Empathy is very rational in a a survival situation. It gives you insight into what others are thinking which can be used to your advantage to survive. Sympathy is less about understanding, and more about acknowledgement. If you take the time during a survival situation to acknowledge another person's plight you are likely to end up a victim as well because you are no longer focused on survival. You are focused on the sadness of the plight of the other person.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Sympathy is at least as useful for collaboration as empathy. Humans collaborate to over come threats to survival all the time.

I know it isn't the king-bad-ass view of a human overcoming nature red in tooth in claw... but I'm gonna be honest here, I think that is mostly a fantasy.

[ssu]

Sweden starting conscription again in January 1st 2018.

The security environment in Europe and in Sweden’s vicinity has deteriorated and the all-volunteer recruitment hasn’t provided the Armed Forces with enough trained personnel. The re-activating of the conscription is needed for military readiness.

In 2016 the Armed Forces lacked 1 000 active squad leaders, soldiers and sailors as well as 7 000 reservists. Recruitment to the Armed Forces will be both voluntary and conscription. Individual motivation, interest and will be considered as much as possible.

(Conscription is back in town. Selectively.)


Notable is where Sweden is puttin now more money:

In the spring amending budget, the Government has proposed additional funding of SEK 405 million to the Swedish Armed Forces.

This additional funding will be used to:
•Increase the preparedness and availability of military units;
•Strengthen the Battlegroup of Gotland with anti-aircraft capability;
•Carry out exercises and increase the numbers involved in exercises that are already planned;
•Improve cyber security; and
•Purchase spare parts and vehicles for units.

First official Polish Territorial Defence Force units established:

“The Territorial Defence Force is as of today a foundation of the Polish army,” Polish Defence Minister Antoni Macierewicz said in Rzeszów, southeastern Poland, on Sunday, as 159 part-time volunteers completing a 16-day basic training and were sworn in to one of three newly-formed brigades. “With you, the Polish army will be unbeatable,” Macierewicz said.

He added that the force’s main role was to serve the local community and shape it so that “no enemy will ever threaten it”. The 400 volunteers do not have any previous military experience. They will be joined by ex-military WOT-reservists to together form light-infantry companies which are expected to be operations-ready in three years.Three more brigades are currently being formed, seven new ones are expected to be created next year, and a further four in 2019.

See Polish Territorial Defence Force gains first 400 soldiers

I think the objective of the strength of the force is somewhere around 46 000 soldiers in all.



What Russia won't like at all is if the US deploys Patriots to the Baltics. Which may happen btw.

(May 10th, 2017) U.S. defense officials said a long-range Patriot missile battery may be deployed to the Baltic region later this year as part of a military exercise. The move, if finalized, would be temporary but signal staunch U.S. backing for Baltic nations concerned about the threat from Russia.

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Wednesday declined to confirm the specific deployment, but said, "We are here in a purely defensive stance. Everyone knows this is not an offensive capability. For anyone who says otherwise, I would just say I have too much respect for the Russian army to think that they actually believe there's any offensive capability."

See US May Send Patriot Missile to Lithuania Amid Moscow Threat

Defence secretary Mattis in Latvia alongside his Latvian and Lithuanian counterparts.