"Altruism" is Base Newspeak

[Speaker to Animals]

Liberalism is a political consequence of losing your genetic group selection bias. It is one of the reasons libertarianism is little different from Marxism at the instinctual level. They are both fundamentally cheaters. Libertarians feel confident they can use strength or cunning to get away with it whereas Marxists lack confidence so they choose to use collective force to achieve the same end.

Both reject kin bonds. Both are quite selfish. I bet if you took a thousand libertarians and totally disabled them, more than half would eventually become Marxists of some kind.

They are also the two groups who at their core really have no altruism. They lost the instinct. Marxists pretend to have it as a strategy for self-gain. Libertarians pretend as though nobody has the instinct in order to rationalize their degenerate nature.

[GloryofGreece]

Liberalism is a political consequence of losing your genetic group selection bias. It is one of the reasons libertarianism is little different from Marxism at the instinctual level. They are both fundamentally cheaters. Libertarians feel confident they can use strength or cunning to get away with it whereas Marxists lack confidence so they choose to use collective force to achieve the same end.

Both reject kin bonds. Both are quite selfish. I bet if you took a thousand libertarians and totally disabled them, more than half would eventually become Marxists of some kind.

They are also the two groups who at their core really have no altruism. They lost the instinct. Marxists pretend to have it as a strategy for self-gain. Libertarians pretend as though nobody has the instinct in order to rationalize their degenerate nature.

That might be true but its true for a lot folks that get sick or hurt and can't afford care, no?

Check this article out and tell me what you think about where the author is going with Haidt's research.
https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/0 ... more-90581

[Speaker to Animals]

Liberalism is a political consequence of losing your genetic group selection bias. It is one of the reasons libertarianism is little different from Marxism at the instinctual level. They are both fundamentally cheaters. Libertarians feel confident they can use strength or cunning to get away with it whereas Marxists lack confidence so they choose to use collective force to achieve the same end.

Both reject kin bonds. Both are quite selfish. I bet if you took a thousand libertarians and totally disabled them, more than half would eventually become Marxists of some kind.

They are also the two groups who at their core really have no altruism. They lost the instinct. Marxists pretend to have it as a strategy for self-gain. Libertarians pretend as though nobody has the instinct in order to rationalize their degenerate nature.

That might be true but its true for a lot folks that get sick or hurt and can't afford care, no?

Check this article out and tell me what you think about where the author is going with Haidt's research.
https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/0 ... more-90581

Half way through the essay part one.. first thought: there is nothing good about liberalism/libertarianism/etc. Any good you can point to is nothing more than an act which is part of a strategy of cheating the rest of us who do possess altruistic instincts.

[GloryofGreece]

Liberalism is a political consequence of losing your genetic group selection bias. It is one of the reasons libertarianism is little different from Marxism at the instinctual level. They are both fundamentally cheaters. Libertarians feel confident they can use strength or cunning to get away with it whereas Marxists lack confidence so they choose to use collective force to achieve the same end.

Both reject kin bonds. Both are quite selfish. I bet if you took a thousand libertarians and totally disabled them, more than half would eventually become Marxists of some kind.

They are also the two groups who at their core really have no altruism. They lost the instinct. Marxists pretend to have it as a strategy for self-gain. Libertarians pretend as though nobody has the instinct in order to rationalize their degenerate nature.

That might be true but its true for a lot folks that get sick or hurt and can't afford care, no?

Check this article out and tell me what you think about where the author is going with Haidt's research.
https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/0 ... more-90581

Half way through the essay part one.. first thought: there is nothing good about liberalism/libertarianism/etc. Any good you can point to is nothing more than an act which is part of a strategy of cheating the rest of us who do possess altruistic instincts.

Dude, I basically agree , but I think Haidt (is a genuine researcher) and wants to find out what sets us apart morally. I think the liberals are care/fairness fanatics with no other values. Where at more conservative minded folks have the others as well. Loyalty, Authority, Piety etc. I think that this more than any other worldview differential explains the divide politically and socially here in America. If your a liberal you want to be "free" to be an individual and buy what you want.

"Amusingly, Haidt refers to modern, Western morality as WEIRD: an acronym standing for Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic. Haidt notes that WEIRD people are statistical outliers on many psychological measures, including measures of moral psychology. For example, the WEIRDer you are, the more likely you are to think of the world in terms of separate (and separable) objects, rather than in terms of relationships. When Westerners are asked to describe themselves by completing the sentence “I am . . .”, they usually list personal, psychological characteristics (“I am happy,” “I am a loner,” “I am extraverted,” etc.). By contrast, non-Westerners tend to describe themselves in terms of social roles (“I am a husband,” “I am a father,” “I am a salesman,” etc.). Needless to say, such a description emphasizes their relationships to others. The majority of the world’s population, in fact, tends to think “holistically,” while Westerners tend to detach objects from networks of relationships (mentally or otherwise).

As a consequence of this, non-Western moralities tend to be group-centered or sociocentric. By contrast, WEIRD philosophers like Kant and Mill have put forward moralities that are individualistic: they emphasize personal autonomy, and see moral action as a matter of individuals applying universal rules to particular situations. (The clearest case is that of Kant, who argued that human individuals must “legislate” the moral law for themselves, and that an action is moral only if it flows from an individual’s affirmation of moral truth.) Thus, Western ethics is primarily limited to an ethics of autonomy; to concerns about individuals hurting, cheating, or oppressing other individuals. Haidt writes that “f you grow up in a WEIRD society, you become so well educated in the ethic of autonomy that you can detect oppression and inequality even where the apparent victims see nothing wrong” (109).

Non-Western moralities are not entirely devoid of some concern for the autonomy of individuals, but they emphasize the group or community as primary. Whereas WEIRD ethics tends to understand our relations to others in the negative – don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t rape – non-WEIRD ethics places more emphasis on our positive obligations to others, and to the role we play in the community. And it encompasses many matters that are downright puzzling to WEIRD people: such as the idea that certain objects, days, and activities may be “sacred,” and others “profane”; that we may have obligations to divinity, and so on. As already noted, we find something very much like this non-WEIRD morality among religious and conservative subcultures within the West."

... That excerpt is illustrative of most of what is instructive about his work. Im interested where this article's author will go with his further conclusion on Haidt's moral foundations. You can kind of glean where it will go.

[Speaker to Animals]

That might be true but its true for a lot folks that get sick or hurt and can't afford care, no?

Check this article out and tell me what you think about where the author is going with Haidt's research.
https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/0 ... more-90581

Half way through the essay part one.. first thought: there is nothing good about liberalism/libertarianism/etc. Any good you can point to is nothing more than an act which is part of a strategy of cheating the rest of us who do possess altruistic instincts.

Dude, I basically agree , but I think Haidt (is a genuine researcher) and wants to find out what sets us apart morally. I think the liberals are care/fairness fanatics with no other values. Where at more conservative minded folks have the others as well. Loyalty, Authority, Piety etc. I think that this more than any other worldview differential explains the divide politically and socially here in America. If your a liberal you want to be "free" to be an individual and buy what you want.

"Amusingly, Haidt refers to modern, Western morality as WEIRD: an acronym standing for Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic. Haidt notes that WEIRD people are statistical outliers on many psychological measures, including measures of moral psychology. For example, the WEIRDer you are, the more likely you are to think of the world in terms of separate (and separable) objects, rather than in terms of relationships. When Westerners are asked to describe themselves by completing the sentence “I am . . .”, they usually list personal, psychological characteristics (“I am happy,” “I am a loner,” “I am extraverted,” etc.). By contrast, non-Westerners tend to describe themselves in terms of social roles (“I am a husband,” “I am a father,” “I am a salesman,” etc.). Needless to say, such a description emphasizes their relationships to others. The majority of the world’s population, in fact, tends to think “holistically,” while Westerners tend to detach objects from networks of relationships (mentally or otherwise).

As a consequence of this, non-Western moralities tend to be group-centered or sociocentric. By contrast, WEIRD philosophers like Kant and Mill have put forward moralities that are individualistic: they emphasize personal autonomy, and see moral action as a matter of individuals applying universal rules to particular situations. (The clearest case is that of Kant, who argued that human individuals must “legislate” the moral law for themselves, and that an action is moral only if it flows from an individual’s affirmation of moral truth.) Thus, Western ethics is primarily limited to an ethics of autonomy; to concerns about individuals hurting, cheating, or oppressing other individuals. Haidt writes that “f you grow up in a WEIRD society, you become so well educated in the ethic of autonomy that you can detect oppression and inequality even where the apparent victims see nothing wrong” (109).

Non-Western moralities are not entirely devoid of some concern for the autonomy of individuals, but they emphasize the group or community as primary. Whereas WEIRD ethics tends to understand our relations to others in the negative – don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t rape – non-WEIRD ethics places more emphasis on our positive obligations to others, and to the role we play in the community. And it encompasses many matters that are downright puzzling to WEIRD people: such as the idea that certain objects, days, and activities may be “sacred,” and others “profane”; that we may have obligations to divinity, and so on. As already noted, we find something very much like this non-WEIRD morality among religious and conservative subcultures within the West."

... That excerpt is illustrative of most of what is instructive about his work. Im interested where this article's author will go with his further conclusion on Haidt's moral foundations. You can kind of glean where it will go.

I think focusing on secondary effects of genetic behavior does not actually describe what is going on.

These people do not have an altruistic instinct at all. I think the only factor that keeps urbanization running is the grace of God at this point, infusing people with charity who otherwise would have nothing.

The liberals do not have a high affinity towards fairness. Not at all. They use language of fairness to exploit your genetic instincts. It's a strategy to manipulate those of us who are not maladapted like the average urbanite.

If you are dealing with an urbanite who has several generations of urban ancestors on both sides, you very likely are dealing with the kind of person who has no altruistic instinct at all.

Put it this way, the Marxist and the libertarian are both members of the kind of people who, when walking their dogs, will leave dog shit on your lawn if they think nobody is watching them. They have no sense of duty, moral obligation, and especially no sense of altruism (group selection). They do what they do as strategies to gather resources and influence. That's it. If the punishment is very high for leaving dog shit on another man's lawn, then less of them will do it because it's not worth the potential fine. This is why every urban environment is choked to death with fines and municipal codes to keep people from fucking it up.

The lefties who may still have an altruistic tendency are the traditional liberals (what remains of them). Those are the people the Marxists are primarily targeting with the fairness language and the guilting. The Marxists know they don't convince the rest of us any longer with those lies. Libertarians are at least honest about their maladaptation, but only because they do not realize that's exactly what is wrong with them.

[GloryofGreece]

Don't you think lots of people simply don't see a sacred and profane and that is a huge cause of our misunderstanding and ungovernable society ?

[Speaker to Animals]

Don't you think lots of people simply don't see a sacred and profane and that is a huge cause of our misunderstanding and ungovernable society ?

No.

I think a lot of our problems are genetic.

The kind of person who leaves a pile of dog shit on your lawn in the middle of the night because he knows nobody is watching is the kind of person that burns down civilization. It sounds funny, but if you really think about it, you can see why.

People like this literally cannot believe altruism actually exists. Altruism is a actually a genetic trait. It comes from eusociality and kin selection. This is a genetic trait that is largely responsible for the rise of our species to sapience.

A cheater can save himself from sacrifice for the group and gain resources over the others. This is a personal advantage to him. At the individual selection level, this would seem to be a genetic advantage. But human groups where cheaters predominate are not going to be as successful as human groups with less or no cheaters. Thus altruistic genes naturally will tend to dominate. However...

The urban environment creates sexual selection biases in favor of cheaters. It always has. By cheater, I do not mean necessarily somebody who cheats the rules, but that this person seeks to exploit altruisim and group selection in others for personal gain. Indeed, they tend to gain power in cities and make exploitation like that legal. Wall Street literally has made an industry out of fleecing innocent people, and it's all totally legal. All those credit swap contracts sold in the 1990s and early 2000s were made completely legal and a few got very wealthy at the expense of our entire nation.

When I call this degeneracy I am speaking quite literally. I believe a large part of this is literally a genetic mutation that somehow mutes or switches off group selection.

All forms of liberalism have this in common. Have you not noticed how amazed some of these people are that altruism exists? I remember in a thread a while back Martin tried to explain to a few of them that altruism is a genetic trait. It's not an opinion. This is scientifically shown in many different species, including our own. But they don't believe it. They think everybody acts selfishly and that people only pretend to have altruism in order to gain something. It's alien to them. You should listen to what they are saying because it tells you a great deal about our current situation.

There is a reason why every time God chastises humanity it involves destroying a city.

[GloryofGreece]

Why the hell do we keep building cities then...Fuck man.
Sparta's Unknown War - by VertigoPolitix

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olLBx45opCo

Had a lot right but they didn't worship mammon but definitely had a moloch problem if you will.

[Speaker to Animals]

This difference is also why urban and non-urban Americans have trouble living under the same legal framework. Urban liberals want what we think of as excessive rules and regulation of public behavior because they need those things in order to keep their urban society functional. They want excessive gun control, for example, because their kind are much more likely to commit acts of violence.

But it is always always always self-serving. Most white urban liberals want gun control because they are the overwhelming victims of interracial crime in the cities. Successful urbanites want to liberalize economic regulations because they know they can profit by it. The urbanites who get exploited in that way are the kinds of people who vote for AOC and Bernie. Both camps use moral language to rationalize their behavior, but neither actually give a shit about right and wrong.

This does not mean every person who subscribes to these ideologies lacks altruism either. Humans are perfectly capable of mind-fucking themselves with ideology, and there is something about the religiosity of Yankee culture that converts even Southern cities to that culture, which is how you end up with Southern "libertarians".

Also, you will still occassionally come across people like Martin who call themselves liberal but then consciously try to push policies that would go against their self-interest out a sense of right and wrong. He talks about ubermensch but his politics are more about his sense of justice.

So it is a mixed bag. I think, however, that ideologies such as Marxism and libertarianism would not exist as memetic structures that can propagate across societies without a significant number of people who actually lack the altruistic instinct or, at the very least, have that instinct muted to some degree.