You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

wonderfuldonut ago

fools and sjw's are incapable of understanding reasoning and logic. They are all for science when it reflects their world view however science reason and facts are swiftly ignored when it proves their ideals false.

uab ago

Exactly right. Moral relativity

Killnigs3 ago

more like amoral capraciousness

uab ago

I had to look that up, and I can't agree that it's entirely random, what these people support. They may have an instinct for 'excitement,' and so would probably often be impulsive, but they also want to gather resources, status, titles, fame, various such things that you could expect a narcissist to want.

For example, that Nancy who admonishes people to not go the the hair-dresser's, but herself goes to the hair-dresser's, has no interest in principles, only in her own interest. Apparently she owns a billion USD or something. I do not think she would ever just give that away on a 'whim,' but absolutely think she's scheming all the time to try and increase her fortune in any way she can, completely disregarding both legality and morality that she may, earlier the same day, have tried to impose on others...

Killnigs3 ago

these people argue the merits of killing babies their morals and feelings are completely all over the place random and at the beck and call of their leaders they have no true values at all but anger and rage and a sense of righteousness

uab ago

Sure, a sense of self-righteousness and right to do whatever they perceive serves them. That is what I mean by 'moral relativity.' They think it's wrong to steal, if it's you stealing from them. But they, themselves, feel absolutely entitled to steal all day long, at least so long as they can get away with it...

There is no day of the weak, is my point, when they think others stealing from them is right, and them stealing from others is wrong, so whereas they do not follow any principles, they do follow self-interest. From the book Animal Farm, you know the expression, 'some are more equal than others.' Another term that applies is, 'double standard.' If there's a 'double standard,' then there is no standard..., it's just about what at any given time seems to serve them.

Killnigs3 ago

moral relativity might be what one would attempt to ascribe some rational basis for their behavior but i assure you there is no foundational belief systems at work in any of these people. Even most average people cant explain their morals and ethics.

uab ago

By 'moral relativity' I do not refer to any actual set of values, but exactly a lack of standards, and simply them setting up 'rules' that change from moment to moment, according to what they think benefits them.

Killnigs3 ago

i think you are spending more time thinking about the theorhetical notions of whether souless npcs have a belief system i think they are essentially zombies who lack the will to their own life at all

uab ago

I am thinking of that. Our topic is quite practical, and you will find that a lot of people are talking about it, writing books about it, and doing academic research on topic that to me seem quite relevant. One aspect of this topic, is what they call psychopathy. Some academics consider that what we call psychopathy is not at disease at all, because the effects are not random as you would expect, but very uniform within the group of psychopaths. They suggest that psychopaths are not normal people behaving in strange ways, but that they are a different type of human behaving in ways that are completely normal ... for them, and that psychopaths are actually a sub-species within the human species.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14998345_Psychopathy_as_a_Taxon_Evidence_That_Psychopaths_Are_a_Discrete_Class

There is a lot of research and books and other information on psychopathy and narcissism. One thing they find, is that psychopaths have differences in the physical brain structure, compared to normal humans.

https://www.med.wisc.edu/news-and-events/2011/november/psychopaths-brains-differences-structure-function

Something similar also, according to what researchers are finding now, the case with political attitudes. There is a biological aspect to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation

https://news.virginia.edu/content/your-brain-politics-neuroscience-shapes-our-views

One attempt at explaining politics, says that conditions in a human being's surroundings, can cause their brain and body to either adapt to the strategy of what they call r-selection, or to K-selection, simply put to either have the strategy of a rabbit or of that of a wolf, prey and predator, grass-eater and meat-eater. Stefan Molyneux made a three-part series on this topic, called Gene Wars. I highly recommend it. There is also Dr. Edward Dutton, 'The Jolly Heretic,' who regularly podcasts on YouTube. I very much recommend the book Stefan Molyneux's lectures were partly based on, namely The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics, by the pen-name Anonymous Conservative.

Highly intelligent and educated people are actually looking into these sorts of topics, and I think these are very important topics because we see a planned, organized destruction of the entire fabric of Western societies happening as we speak... You could dismiss the people involved as stupid 'zombies,' but I think a much more serious look is very much warranted. I suggest that perhaps this weekend, you could get a good start by watching for example Part 3 of Gene Wars:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33XCnGIZWLc

Killnigs3 ago

I was a born psychopath known since I was less than 4 years old, it most certainly effects brain structure and neurochemistry. Drugs effect me much different cocaine does nothing at all booze doesn't make me lose much of my head ever either.

uab ago

Interesting. Then I am curious as to why you would think that political views could not similarly be affected by two distinct types of brain to do with 'life strategy' (r/K Selection Theory).

Killnigs3 ago

I 1000% believe brain structure and political views or even capacity for abstract thinking are related as are degrees of will or independent thought.

uab ago

Then it seems I mistook your meaning. My impression was you considered 'NPCs' normal people with simply less capacity. This is not impression of them. In my view, the attempt at using r/K Selection Theory to explain politics, makes sense. Then it wouldn't be simple stupidity, cowardice or insanity that would lead Politicians and others to do what they do, but very 'rational' goals of destroying the societal fabric, opening the borders, removing the pillars of society, men, and replacing them with women, and so on.

Killnigs3 ago

i subscribe to the feew great men theory 99.999% of scoiety would be all but iseless in rebuilding us to where we came from to where society is now

uab ago

Of course. People are not the same. Steve Jobs will not be replaced. The reason society works, is exactly that we know how to follow those who know better than us. Everyone listening only to themselves, would cause pretty much instant collapse, this seems obvious to me.

Killnigs3 ago

no i guess they are normal in that they outnumber the wolves probably 8 or 9 to 1 or 2

uab ago

Well, what I think is you have a sort of un-intuitive division of the human species, seemingly based on r/K Selection Theory. You have normal men and women, biologically different, with biologically different roles in life, and with mentalities that follow from their biological roles. These are K-selected humans in that they are normal, but women's views and values, again, are different from those of men. Next you have r-selected humans. These hate the natural societal structure, and want to replace it via legalism, The State, and via theater, faking cultural realities and ideals to manipulate the population to strive for ideals that fit with the replacement societal structure. Humans in general follow perceived authorities.

Among r-selected humans, you have two forms of legalism, namely feminine legalism, and masculine legalism, also called leftism and rightism. With women's Suffrage, you get leftists targeting normal women, and women enthusiastically give their support. Normal women are not striving to destroy their own people but simply adhere to authorities, that is to say would normally adhere to patriotic men. If, however, you put women in a position to influence society, themselves, they will through the best of intentions destroy it. With the majority of normal women, and some few actively traitorous men, supporting leftism, The State becomes a powerful, destructive tool. As for normal men, and some traitorous women, they will support rightism. Left and right are both legalism, and so regardless of what the people 'choose,' the outcome is legalism. It's like being stuck in 'The Matrix.'

Killnigs3 ago

basically we have to rape them into submission

uab ago

Your report o nthe psychopath perspective is interesting. This way is not acceptable, as you may already know, among normal humans (dedicated Muhammadists are not normal.) You can notice the underlying social 'mechanics' at work here. Women and men simply want to perform their natural roles, and you could say that's for the man the create the house, and for the woman to make the house a cosy home. There's a natural 'division of labor' among the sexes, among the mother and father. Men are supposed to lead and guide, be protectors and providers (for their own wife and children.)

The one and only reason women destroy nations, is that subverters, Jews and Freemasons and other traitors, manage to set up this entity The State, and to, via it, then give women a power one the societal level that women would normally never, ever have. This is done by skillful manipulation of the normal people, the men and the women. My impression, and I certainly don't know how it happened in all jurisdictions, is it was often not women themselves but men who pushed for women's Suffrage (I assume Jews or Freemasons.) It's a subversive hidden agenda, conspiracy, from the start.

If you keep awareness of the subversives, you can keep them out of all societal influence, and if they are caught acting on their subversive personality, you can give them the traditional choice between death and exile. This way you will keep the anti-nature forces from substituting The State for the natural society. You will have individuals with their natures intact, they will form healthy families, which are the building-blocks of nations, and the races will be preserved. Life as it should be, and largely has been for maybe 200 000 years.

Normal women are by definition perfect as women. Their indirect, subversive actions via The State, are a symptom of the hidden agenda, the conspiracy, and of the natures of those who have probably been slowly trying to implement that conspiracy since several thousands of years. Attacking women is like shooting the messenger, or like puttuing a band-ain on a bullet hole... To add one more, we should avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If you are a psychopath, which I think you did claim, I don't know how that would 'typically' work with regard to treasuring these natural social groups, including the ethnic people and the race, but I invite you to consider my notion that the natural social groups, the enemy of the globalists, function very simply via good, normal people acting out of self-interest and their innate nature; no harm needs to come to anyone, for these structures to continue on. Rather than oppressors, leaders are what make strong communities.