PDA

View Full Version : Is Morality Nothing More than an Evolutionary Strategy?



Resist
Thursday, April 4th, 2019, 03:38 PM
Thomas Jackson, American Renaissance, April 1995

The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life, Robert Wright, Pantheon Books, 1994, 466 pp.

Sociobiology, the discipline named after E. O. Wilson’s 1975 book of that name, claims that evolution can explain not only human biology but human behavior. It was a decisive departure from the view that has dominated social science for most of this century: that there is essentially no such thing as “human nature,” and that behavior is determined by environment.

A view so utterly and obviously wrong prevailed only with the help of radical egalitarianism. Since sociobiology was an open attack on the foundations of egalitarianism, it had to be driven underground amidst accusations of racism and sexism. Happily, as Robert Wright explains in The Moral Animal, it has been quietly thriving even while its practitioners cover their tracks by calling themselves evolutionary psychologists or Darwinian anthropologists rather than sociobiologists. Mr. Wright’s book is an illuminating survey of recent work in the field, with a particular concentration on theories about the origin of moral values.

The Moral Animal- Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life, Robert Wright
The Primacy of Evolution

“If psychologists want to understand the processes that shape the human mind, they must understand the process that shaped the human species,” writes Mr. Wright. This restatement of the premise of sociobiology—that behavior has genetic and evolutionary origins—has received strong confirmation in recent studies described in these pages (see, especially, Aug., 1993 and Dec., 1994). Behavior, just like physiology, appears to be the result of millions of years of random experiments, in which only the useful results were kept.

Evolution can be most easily understood at the level of the gene, not the group or the individual. A tree or a man or a virus can then be seen as a vehicle for carrying genetic information into the next generation. It is only genetic information that is potentially immortal; evolution operates for its benefit, and only indirectly for that of the organisms that carry it. The entire living universe can therefore be understood as a vast battlefield, in which organisms engage in constant struggle in the service of the genes they carry. A gene that confers a physical or behavioral advantage that helps its carriers survive and reproduce ensures the gene’s survival; one that confers no advantage comes to a dead end when its carrier dies or fails to reproduce.

As Mr. Wright explains, it is evolution that has done most of the “thinking” in nature. Bees do not build combs of hexagonal cells because every bee determines for itself that this is a good idea. Evolutionary theory holds that building honey combs is something that bees stumbled upon only after endless generations of trial and error. The mutation that produced this useful behavior spread through the population because it helped its carriers survive and reproduce.

All animal behavior can be explained this way. Squirrels store nuts for the winter because genes that make squirrels store nuts help squirrels survive. Evolution has done the “thinking;” squirrels just store the nuts.

Though many people refuse even to consider the possibility, human behavior is likewise the result of countless generations of trial and error that have produced very sophisticated strategies for keeping genes in circulation. Although humans are self-conscious in a way that no other animal is, they are often no more aware than bees or squirrels of the evolutionary “thinking” that underlies their behavior.

For example, men think they “want” children, but, as Mr. Wright explains, evolution designed the process for the benefit of genes, not men. Men have sex because they are driven by their genes to do so. Most of the time they are not thinking about children at all; they just want sex. They then find that they love the little bundle that appears nine months later. Both the sex-seeking and the carrier’s love for its children are powerful strategies the genes have designed to ensure that new copies of themselves are first made, and then loved and looked after until the new carrier can make yet more copies.

Whether the carrier is happy or sad about any of this is of no concern to the genes, which, of course, have no consciousness whatever. The entire process is the result of an infinite number of accidents, in which survival is the final criterion—not because survival itself is in any sense good, but only because it is the criterion that keeps genes, and therefore behavior, in circulation.

The Battle of the Sexes

Sociobiological analysis particularly illuminates human sexual behavior. Although both sexes can be seen as packages of genes looking for opportunities to make more packages of themselves, biological differences between men and women ensure that they view sex in radically different ways. In Mr. Wright’s view, they might as well be two different species that view the other merely as sources of reproductive resources.

For men, every act of copulation, including rape, is one more chance for their genes to be reproduced. Sex has virtually no debilitating or time-consuming consequences, so men can be expected to have evolved an omnivorous interest in copulating with any and every fertile woman. (They can also be expected to have little interest in having sex with old, infertile women, since that is a reproductive waste of time.)

For women, sex is a much more serious undertaking. While the number of children a promiscuous man can have is practically unlimited, a woman can usually have no more than a dozen. Reproduction also ties her down to a brood of very demanding young in a process that is much more likely to be successful if she can persuade a man to stick around and help. Women have therefore evolved to be much more choosy about sex partners. Their instincts are to seek commitment rather than recreational sex, because in the environment in which they evolved, sex without a man’s commitment could leave them all alone with small mouths to feed. Ancient proto-human females that were casual about sex partners probably froze or starved to death along with their children—which snuffed out the casualness along with the genes that caused it.

Mr. Wright reports that someone has bothered to test the obvious: When an attractive woman approached men on a college campus and offered to have immediate sex, three fourths of her prospects agreed. Not one woman agreed to a similar offer from an attractive man.

Consciously or not, men cloak their short-term sexual interests in the appearance of long-term attachment. As Mr. Wright puts it, “natural selection may favor males that are good at deceiving females about their future devotion and favor females that are good at spotting deception.”

Infidelity has different genetic consequences for men and women. From an evolutionary point of view, there is no greater fool than the cuckold, who lavishes paternal care on a little package of genes not his own. This accounts for the great ferocity with which men punish female infidelity; they have a deep, evolutionary revulsion for it.

Women can be expected to have a somewhat greater tolerance for male philandering because it can never leave them looking after a child they think is their own but is not. Women are much more threatened by the prospect of mates deserting them and caring for babies they may have with other women.

It is probably male revulsion for the consequences of cuckoldry that explains why, in every society, women who are sexually loose are alluring short-term prospects but not thought to be good marriage material. Mr. Wright explains that the “Madonna-whore” message encoded in male genes may be something like this:

If you find a woman who appears genetically suitable for investment, start spending lots of time with her. If she seems quite taken by you, and yet remains sexually aloof, stick with her. If, on the other hand, she seems eager for sex right away, then by all means oblige her. But if the sex does come that easily, you might want to shift from investment mode into exploitation mode. Her eagerness could mean she’ll always be an easy seduction—not a desirable quality in a wife.

Feminists and liberals are likely to say that contraception has changed all this, and, of course, it can change the consequences of sex. However, the instincts that drive men and women are, in the short term, immutable. Any attempt to build society on assumptions that ignore them will only sow confusion and misery.

The Moral Animal

Mr. Wright casts evolutionary light on a great many interesting questions—who benefits from monogamy, why people make friends, the purpose of righteous indignation, why hierarchy is inevitable—but perhaps the most interesting question is why people sometimes behave morally.

When animals sacrifice their own interests for those of others biologists call it altruism. The sacrifice of parents for children is easily explained: it promotes the parents’ genes. There is even genetic utility in dying for one’s kin, if this saves enough lives and enough copies of shared genes.

But what about altruism directed towards non-kin? As Mr. Wright explains, for some time evolutionists thought in terms of group selection. When there was a battle between bands of hunter-gatherers, the group that had members willing to take risks to save the group was more likely to rout a band whose members operated every-man-for-himself. Lately, the more common view is that stranger altruism probably evolved like virtually all other behavior: in the service of the individual and his genes. Sacrifice and cooperation that arose for the benefit of kin groups slowly broadened to include non-kin.

The reason is that for almost all individuals, cooperation is more beneficial than constant competition and exploitation because cooperation so often leaves both parties better off than they were before. A job that is impossible for one man is often easy for two or three; all are better off in a system based on seeking and returning favors.

In Mr. Wright’s view, what passes for morality is still very much in the service of the genes. From an evolutionary point of view, helpfulness to others is a kind of bargain-hunting, in which a man’s willingness to cooperate is instinctively calibrated to the likelihood and usefulness of the pay-back. As Mr. Wright points out, people tend to be indulgent towards those who are in positions to help us and more demanding of those who are not.

Even feelings of guilt are evolutionarily useful. They remind us that we owe favors that could be profitably returned. Guilt is also the prompting that keeps us doing the things that maintain our reputation. Reputation affects status, which translates into ability to secure mates and provide for children.

Mr. Wright points out that stranger altruism is different from kin altruism in a very important way. Kin altruism must be real sacrifice in order to benefit the right genes, but the mere appearance of stranger altruism may be enough to elicit favors in return. For example, it does little genetic good to pretend to have made great sacrifices for one’s own children if they died anyway. However, a carefully constructed—though false-reputation for helping neighbors can be very useful. Thus, human beings probably have an instinctive desire to keep their reputations clean and they are often willing to make real sacrifices to do it. It would appear, therefore, that man is by nature cooperative but only when there is something in it for him. He is also entirely capable of theft and double-cross when he thinks he can get away with it.

Although Mr. Wright only hints at this, as the different human groups evolved they probably developed different instinctual levels of cooperation. As Prof. Levin explains elsewhere in this issue, tropical Africa was probably not an environment in which cooperation was as crucial to survival as it was in colder climates. When groups that appear to have different levels of cooperation come into contact, friction is inevitable.

That morality may be instinctual has other provocative implications. It may be that the sense of mutual obligation that all men feel, and to which many transcendental moralists appeal as proof of the existence of God or of objective morality, is just one more gene-propagating device like lust and hunger. Mr. Wright suggests that humans may have made a fetish out of what appears to be altruism but is really just another self-serving genetic strategy. If bees had a religion they might worship the hexagon, believing that an evolutionary accident had mystical powers.

Mr. Wright makes a strong case for his view. After all, one of the functions of the human mind is to devise rationalizations that throw a moral cover over selfish behavior. Once humans gained a certain level of self-consciousness, it became useful to encourage others to believe in a transcendent moral authority that had the power to punish sinners who were beyond the reach of human retribution. If everyone believed in it, everyone benefited from the moral behavior that ensued. Even non-believers had reason to encourage others to believe, since they benefited from society’s standards but could violate them privately.

If genes are at the root of behavior that has always been thought to be in the service of a higher power, eliminating the higher power eliminates free will. If man is a mere product of evolution just as animals are, the only sources of all his actions must be genes and environment. The illusion of free will arises from the fact that men are often no more able than bees or squirrels to fathom their own genetic predispositions, and from the diffuse and subtle way environment and the memory of past environments act upon the mind.

As Mr. Wright points out, if all human actions are the inevitable products of heredity and environment, neither blame nor praise are justified, because men are no more capable than animals of choosing vice or virtue. Paradoxically, punishment and praise are still vital parts of the environment because they are essential for training humans just as they are for training animals.

Sentimental Liberalism

Since Mr. Wright is a senior editor of The New Republic, his environment probably conspired with his genes to reduce him, in the end, to advocating a morality of universal brotherhood that he admits runs directly counter to everything he says about human nature. He says that even if there is no transcendent power that directs us to do so, we should try to love all humans, no matter how alien, just as we love ourselves. Along with a breezy, gee-whiz style and some unnecessary digressions into the private life of Charles Darwin, this sudden retreat into the arms of universalism detracts from an otherwise absorbing book.

Mr. Wright rejects out of hand the obvious form of conscious morality that can be derived from the trial-and-error morality that evolution appears to have produced. Until welfare threw the process into reverse, evolution had a clear, upward direction. A firm believer in evolution like Mr. Wright should have no trouble embracing a morality that directs our species towards ever-greater achievements, variety, and capabilities. As he points out, it has taken only about 5,000 generations of dogs to breed Saint Bernards and Chihuahuas from the ancestral wolf. Social policies are breeding policies, and evolutionists have few excuses for pretending otherwise.

The Jesuit philosopher and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin understood this more than 40 years ago:

So far we have certainly allowed our race to develop at random, and we have given too little thought to the question of what medical and moral factors must replace the crude forces of natural selection should we suppress them. In the course of the coming centuries it is indisputable that a nobly human form of eugenics, on a standard worthy of our personalities, should be discovered and developed.

The great, self-destructive irony is that in the very era when the evolutionary process that formed our species is more widely studied and accepted than ever before, governments are sabotaging that process. Mr. Wright’s book is a fascinating summary of current thinking in sociobiology but his conclusions are part of the intellectual atmosphere that drove it underground.https://www.amren.com/news/2019/03/moral-animal-sociobiology-robert-wright/

SaxonPagan
Thursday, April 4th, 2019, 05:33 PM
Though many people refuse even to consider the possibility, human behavior is likewise the result of countless generations of trial and error that have produced very sophisticated strategies for keeping genes in circulation. Although humans are self-conscious in a way that no other animal is, they are often no more aware than bees or squirrels of the evolutionary “thinking” that underlies their behavior.

For example, men think they “want” children, but, as Mr. Wright explains, evolution designed the process for the benefit of genes, not men. Men have sex because they are driven by their genes to do so. Most of the time they are not thinking about children at all; they just want sex. They then find that they love the little bundle that appears nine months later. Both the sex-seeking and the carrier’s love for its children are powerful strategies the genes have designed to ensure that new copies of themselves are first made, and then loved and looked after until the new carrier can make yet more copies.

Whether the carrier is happy or sad about any of this is of no concern to the genes, which, of course, have no consciousness whatever. The entire process is the result of an infinite number of accidents, in which survival is the final criterion—not because survival itself is in any sense good, but only because it is the criterion that keeps genes, and therefore behavior, in circulation.

This is a point I've repeatedly tried to make on this forum. All the young, single males who are obsessed with procreating should, if their testosterone levels were normal, be talking about ****ing women. Procreation would at some stage be the natural product of this, but instead they consider sex as a purely biological function rather than as a source of pleasure which (paradoxically) is the very type of behaviour that deters potential partners! Hel, I don't even know how you're supposed to get an erection whilst thinking about babies :scratch :bconfused

As for all I read about 'morality', this leaves me stone cold! :thumbdown There's common decency of course, which is a separate issue altogether, but show me someone who showcases their morality all the time and I'll show you someone with sexual problems. The same goes for all the biblical BS, which is another useful cover, but nature isn't interested in this any more than I am and nature will always triumph over these man-made concepts ... it's a no-contest!

Elizabeth
Thursday, April 4th, 2019, 05:38 PM
Wow that is a long post. I can't read it right now. I'm too tired. But I want to say that morality is something one is born with. You either have it or you don't. I think some of those who don't have it try to have it by following a religion that tells them how to behave. I was born with morality.

SaxonPagan
Thursday, April 4th, 2019, 06:08 PM
I was born with morality.

Are you sure about this? ;) :D

schwab
Thursday, April 4th, 2019, 11:31 PM
Nobody is born with morality. One's morality is shaped from child on by the culture surroundings.........religion, politics, schools, friends..........

Elizabeth
Friday, April 5th, 2019, 12:16 AM
Are you sure about this? ;) :D


Yes.

Elizabeth
Friday, April 5th, 2019, 12:19 AM
Nobody is born with morality. One's morality is shaped from child on by the culture surroundings.........religion, politics, schools, friends..........


I disagree. I believe some people are born with morality and knowing right from wrong, and some people just don't have it and don't care. There are people who are "raised right" yet have no morals and are a disappointment to their parents.

SaxonPagan
Friday, April 5th, 2019, 12:22 AM
Well, I accept that we're all born innocent but I think our set of moral values takes a good while to acquire.

I don't see how anyone can have them right from birth, in the same way as nobody is born a Nationalist or a Communist.

These things have no meaning whatsoever to newborn babies and you couldn't possibly describe how you behaved 'morally' at that early age.

In any case, Elizabeth, you (like the rest of us) would have virtually no recollection of the first couple of years of your life.

Elizabeth
Friday, April 5th, 2019, 12:24 AM
Well, I accept that we're all born innocent but I think our set of moral values takes a good while to acquire.

I don't see how anyone can have them right from birth, in the same way as nobody is born a Nationalist or a Communist.


For example:
I am a natural Nationalist. I was raised by a Communist/socialist and I always leaned Nationalist.

Simple things like my saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes even though it wasn't said to me growing up.

SaxonPagan
Friday, April 5th, 2019, 12:38 AM
Yes, but you only 'leaned Nationalist' from the first time you recall doing so and this would have been after several years.

There's no way you were born a Nationalist (..which I'm beginning to think you didn't mean literally, so apologies if I'm being pedantic here).

Anyway, something will have surely triggered it, even if it wasn't your parents. It may even have been a reaction against them.

Elizabeth
Friday, April 5th, 2019, 12:48 AM
Yes, but you only 'leaned Nationalist' from the first time you recall doing so and this would have been after several years.

There's no way you born a Nationalist (..which I'm beginning to think you didn't mean literally, so apologies if I'm being pedantic here).

Anyway, something will have surely triggered it, even if it wasn't your parents. It may even have been a reaction against them.



In the nature vs nurture argument I am for nature. I believe people are born a certain way. Nurture can only do so much, if anything.

SaxonPagan
Friday, April 5th, 2019, 02:06 AM
I don't disagree with this.

However, your behaviour is determined by something and is most probably the product of the genes you inherited, which themselves are the product of thousands of years of human evolution. Nothing happens purely by chance (..especially in nature!) and the OP describes how 'morality' came to be what it is today.

It probably isn't the great virtue we all deem it to be and may serve a more selfish purpose ;)

velvet
Friday, April 5th, 2019, 07:17 AM
However, your behaviour is determined by something and is most probably the product of the genes you inherited, which themselves are the product of thousands of years of human evolution. Nothing happens purely by chance (..especially in nature!) and the OP describes how 'morality' came to be what it is today.

What Elizabeth said before, "knowing right from wrong". This is a pretty instinctual thing, and when something, some gene, prevents you in addition from being easily gullible to nonsense (whether it's communism or stranger-altruism or the dictated morals to support the "vulnerable" or whatever), it's maybe not untrue to be a "natural nationalist", and then not necessarily in a political concept-way but rather instinct. They(foreigners)'re not ingroup, they dont belong into "my" group, they're not my kin, I'm not obliged to make room for them, nor to help them and so on. It's only a consequent listening to instinct, to what "is right", and modern politics are not.


It probably isn't the great virtue we all deem it to be and may serve a more selfish purpose ;)

Since you know German, you may want, one day, read Nietzsche's "Genealogie der Moral", an intellectually challenging read for sure but one, I believe, well worth the investment. :)

Basically he cuts apart the ideologically driven "moralities" and promotes biologically driven morality instead. His rejection of monotheism stems for large parts from this view, too. But it's really vital to read it in German, with the "language" (also of the late 19th century) in mind. Nietzsche is often very multilayered in his statements, and most translations weaken or even take away some of these layers. Highly recommended, in any case.

Chlodovech
Friday, April 5th, 2019, 09:01 PM
I think we're born as opportunists, neither good or evil, but that God has nonetheless instilled us with a conscience to differentiate between wrong and right. Religion brings some order in what would otherwise be a chaotic and ambiguous mess and restricts our opportunistic nature. In western society, devoid of religion, we can see the result of limitless opportunism.

Uwe Jens Lornsen
Friday, April 5th, 2019, 09:16 PM
I don't read copy'n'paste text completely anymore .

Morality is very likely in the eye of the beholder .


Everything "New" will get some sales , especially , when
morality is considered as promoted by a "death cult" , like
the Christian Religion based on the tongue of a God Abandoned Nest Person .

Christianity promotes Eyiil Statean and the Parachute Army in the Cloud,
so since Gad does not show himself as Superhuman ,
it is easy to switch elsewhere for an opportunity ,
as for the eternal nourishing as asylum seeker ...

SaxonPagan
Saturday, April 6th, 2019, 12:56 AM
Since you know German, you may want, one day, read Nietzsche's "Genealogie der Moral", an intellectually challenging read for sure but one, I believe, well worth the investment. :)

Basically he cuts apart the ideologically driven "moralities" and promotes biologically driven morality instead. His rejection of monotheism stems for large parts from this view, too. But it's really vital to read it in German, with the "language" (also of the late 19th century) in mind. Nietzsche is often very multilayered in his statements, and most translations weaken or even take away some of these layers. Highly recommended, in any case.

Just got this sorted, velvet! I found a free PDF version :)

Wow, 'multi-layered German' is gonna look great on my CV :thumbup :bravo

velvet
Saturday, April 6th, 2019, 08:15 AM
I think we're born as opportunists, neither good or evil, but that God has nonetheless instilled us with a conscience to differentiate between wrong and right. Religion brings some order in what would otherwise be a chaotic and ambiguous mess and restricts our opportunistic nature. In western society, devoid of religion, we can see the result of limitless opportunism.

Presence of religion looks like modern-day Turkey, Arabia, Afghanistan, India or christian Mexico or Brasil for that matter, and it does nothing to promote societal values worth living in. In no shape or form, nowhere, nor did it ever anywhere. Also not in 'romantised' "christian" Europe. (Organised) religion always, ever, everywhere, only ever served the purpose of rulership over chunks of the population, it did not, ever, serve the purpose of educating people.

Our modern-day dilemmas of society dont stem from an absense of religion, because we do have a religion, which is Multikultism, with all the bullshit attached to it. They've raised "tolerance" to a religious belief and diversity has become the only-god. The heretics of today are called "racists", "xenophobes" and what not, and if not (secular) laws would prevent them from doing so (for the time being, that is), they'd happily burn "us nutzies" on the stake. We even already have "public stonings", all the scandals that turn individuals into persona-non-gratas for this or that "racist" statement, ruining their lives. This entire modern-day concept of society is 1:1 based on christian, religious doctrines, including the inquisition methods to go after heretics of the absolutist religion of Multikult.

Re the opportunistic human nature. Yes, you're right. Every successful surviving organism must by nature be opportunistic, otherwise he will not survive. Social cooperation, ingroup sociality, is just as opportunistic, just that you cannot see it, because you think social cooperation must be dictated from some god - basically against human nature - because otherwise humans would run around randomly killing their neighbours or ripping them off. This is however not the case. Every herd animal is capable of ingroup altruism, selfsacrifice for the good of the group and social cooperation, whether it's apes or meerkats or wolves or horses or reindeers or ants or bees, because it ensures their survival as a group = genes. Social cooperation is just an expression of the opportunistic human nature as herd animal. It does not require a mythical jewish rebel rabbi for the liberation of Israel from Roman occupation to come into being. And it does not require christianity to be maintained either.

Our modern day problems stem from the detail that we are ruled by traitors or worse, people who are not ingroup members of our Volk, who promote a religion (see above) and "values" that go fundamentally counter the valid interest of self-preservation of our group, who import foreigners en masse, destroy social cohesion, the base natural trust that is the very basis for social cooperation, plunder our wealth, our ancestral lands and promote self-hate under the guise of altruism, tolerance and world openness and all the other bullocks. The problem is not the absense of christianity, but the presense of these demagoges and that their "values" (UN) have become the global religion and rule over and against us. And that they could sneak their way into these positions finds its roots in christian values, so christianity does not offer a solution to this problem, quite the opposite. Christianity evolved into communism and communism evolved into global "multikultism", with the pope being the greatest promoter for more mass migration, just like bishops in former centuries promoted tolerance for Jews (which was most of the time the case, the exclusion of Jews never lasted long before some fundamental christian reinvited the "Volk of his savior"!), the catholic church was at the forefront to promote the colourblindness which France prides itself with for more than 100 years, today it looks like Somalia, christian rulers across the board imported foreigners, not individuals but hole villages to prove how peaceful and happy different religions can live together. Reconquering Spain took some 800 years, right. Yet, this obsession with proving that multikultism works is not gone. And it will never be gone. They're obsessed with "undoing" the curse of the Babel Tower story. The obsession to prove that "humanity is one" is at the very root of this religion, and it will eradicate all human races, peoples, cultures and probably humankind as such on the way, because, if not stopped, they will try it over and over and over again until nothing is left but a deserted planet void of higher life. Of course, who cares? The "kingdom of god" waits in the afterlife, right?

Chlodovech
Saturday, April 6th, 2019, 07:25 PM
Velvet, you can call the dominant ideology in Western societies a religion, the belief in equality and victimhood is indeed a substitute, counterfeit religion and for the worst of the virtue signalling over socialized mob it's a functional substitute. It has sinners and saints, commandments, masses and vigils, heretics and true believers ... but there's no God and there's no salvation under social liberalism. You can never redeem yourself after being born white or male or hetero or all three and no-one dies for our sins (But then sometimes people do die for their perceived sins, perhaps none more so than the Afrikaners - and nobody cares). The sky is empty and heaven is here or will be here one day, supposedly.

Most of the believers are in it for social validation - social standing and all the good things that come with it. You have that kind of people in actual religions too, their opportunism may open doors for them but their emptiness makes them supremely unlikable. Quite like the media's legion of saints.

It's a fundamentally empty religion and if you like me yearn for a mystical experience and more genuine spirituality, and the truth, then it will never fill the hole in your soul. For me an ideology can never replace religion, Velvet. Furthermore: a (based) Catholic or Christian can never be 100% onboard with any ideology - 99% is possible, yes, but never entirely, least of all when ideologies don't leave some room for the Holy Spirit. Ideologies promise us humans will solve all our problems somehow by ourselves and that these problems are earthly and material. Some obviously more so than others.

I don't need my ideology to be another religion, I'm fully motivated for both without having the race to take the place of God, I'm loyal to race, Reich, state, nation and God - but I sure can imagine that the type of person who is part of the secular religion which now dominates the West instantly trading their current secular religion for the next popular one - they're spineless like that. Pretty much how Madrid was a staunch Republican city during the Spanish Civil War, but as soon as Franco's troops entered Madrid the inhabitants welcomed him with open arms. At heart, most progressives of today are the very same crowd which hailed Franco as their saviour, the same dumb people of the same superficial mindset - but they're good at surviving.


Christianity evolved into communism and communism evolved into global "multikultism"

And metal evolved into nu-metal. I have two words for you: Linkin Park. Is metal bad too now? :P If Satan is real, then subverting Christianity and creating ideologies which mimic Christianity would be his modus operandi. Communism was and is always about destroying Christianity and the Christian social order in the first place, which at the same time wrecks our nations (also intentionally), and only then economics.

And I would say that many of our problems do indeed stem from a moral crisis, all serious problems do - and it's obvious.

This discussion we're having now is reoccuring in our circles - and I would say your side of the debate will always point out that progressivism/communism evolved out of Christianity - and that's very possible - but my side of the debate will always point out that the decline of Christianity between 1789-1968 remarkably coincides with the rise of these ideas - it's too much of a coincidence. And in some cases the relation is completely undeniable - the feminist madness for instance. Even if Christianity somehow served as an inspiration to historical feminists, one can hardly say Christian churches historically endorsed it or that it's biblical or traditional. Hence not Christian.


Presence of religion looks like modern-day Turkey, Arabia, Afghanistan, India or christian Mexico or Brasil for that matter, and it does nothing to promote societal values worth living in.

Or Russia or Poland.


Re the opportunistic human nature. Yes, you're right. Every successful surviving organism must by nature be opportunistic, otherwise he will not survive.

Absolutely. But if you make an ideology out of opportunism then you get a neoliberal society of all against all and the top against the bottom. And tons of migrants so the people at the top can become even richer.


Social cooperation, ingroup sociality, is just as opportunistic, just that you cannot see it, because you think social cooperation must be dictated from some god - basically against human nature - because otherwise humans would run around randomly killing their neighbours or ripping them off. This is however not the case. Every herd animal is capable of ingroup altruism

I can see it alright, basic altruism doesn't require Christianity, but not all forms of social cooperation are equal - or just as opportunistic - and not all opportunism is wrong either, of course. Some forms of social organisation and even opportunism are blessed because backed by a heavenly mandate or they're at least functional. The same can't be said about all ideologies. You can go wrong with an ideology, but you can't go wrong with the word of God.

In conclusion I'll say: naturally you should go for the truth because it's the truth and not because it may personally benefit you, either financially or otherwise, that's what makes one a scammer of sorts. That's the kind of opportunism I'm denouncing here. But obviously no Skadite is a blatant opportunist otherwise we wouldn't be here in the first place.

SaxonPagan
Saturday, April 6th, 2019, 07:36 PM
Religion brings some order in what would otherwise be a chaotic and ambiguous mess and restricts our opportunistic nature. In western society, devoid of religion, we can see the result of limitless opportunism.

I don't see how limiting opportunism can possibly be favourable.

Whether it's a business opportunity or a romantic one, life is full of these and 'he who hesitates is lost', as the saying goes.

Those who allow religion (an artificial, man-made construct) to get in the way of finding a partner will inevitably lose out to those who follow their more natural instincts.

You can counter this with a lecture about 'morality' if you like but the takeaway message of the OP is that nature simply doesn't recognise this!

Chlodovech
Saturday, April 6th, 2019, 07:51 PM
I don't see how limiting opportunism can possibly be favourable.

Next time 1000 blue collar Englishmen lose their job, we'll ask them for their thoughts on this conundrum.


Whether it's a business opportunity or a romantic one, life is full of these and 'he who hesitates is lost', as the saying goes.

Those who allow religion (an artificial, man-made construct) to get in the way of finding a partner will inevitably lose out to those who follow their more natural instincts.

You can counter this with a lecture about 'morality' if you like but the takeaway message of the OP is that nature simply doesn't recognise this!

Yes, indeed, I can counter this with a lecture about morality or by pointing out that there are much less business and romantic opportunities than you think - precisely because of a lack of morality and altruism. But I've done that in other threads and there's no need to repeat myself tonight.

SaxonPagan
Saturday, April 6th, 2019, 08:50 PM
Next time 1000 blue collar Englishmen lose their job, we'll ask them for their thoughts on this conundrum.

Well, Chlod, if you're referring to the excesses of predatory capitalism in this globalised age then I agree that this is a bad thing.

However, I was talking about 'opportunism' on an individual level that involves personal initiative and an enterprising spirit.

I don't believe in stifling this, any more than we should stifle a person's chances of finding a partner under the weight of religious morality.

Theunissen
Saturday, April 6th, 2019, 09:27 PM
Presence of religion looks like modern-day Turkey, Arabia, Afghanistan, India or christian Mexico or Brasil for that matter, and it does nothing to promote societal values worth living in. In no shape or form, nowhere, nor did it ever anywhere. Also not in 'romantised' "christian" Europe. (Organised) religion always, ever, everywhere, only ever served the purpose of rulership over chunks of the population, it did not, ever, serve the purpose of educating people.
.....

Well, organized secularism is how present day Western Europe looks like. Welcome everyone, no restraint on sexual or other behavior, while lipservice to pacifism and humanism is paid.

I have to disagree that Medieval and Early Modern Christian Europe is the equivalent of Saudi Arabia and the like.
In fact this is what brought us the scientific revolution, Age of Exploration, Rule of Law and an orderly society. One factor may have been that society was understood trifunctionally with three different bases of power: a spiritual/intellectual one (represented by the church or klerus), a political/military one (represented by the nobility) and an economic one (represented by farmers, peasants and citizenry). That actually kept the system in check and the other two estates could counterbalance, when there were abuses in the other. There were of course deviation attempts from this as can be seen in the late medieval Catholic Church before the Reformation or in the late modern clerical parties of a distinguished Catholic nature. But I don't think even this was as insane as the present universal Humanism, diversity doctrine or multiculuralism. Even those old clerics kept a sense of realism in their politics, even if they were out of line. At present it is certain capital concentrations and emphatically secular structures in civil society that run the show often backed by the former or by politicians that funnel money their way.

Human activity is based on valuation and to do proper valuation a sound and generally accepted value system needs to be in place. Otherwise people are controlled by desires or even addictions in their behavior, which is not a good basis for decisions. That brings us btw back to trifunctionality were reason, force and desire are kept in balance. It's out of balance now, everything has to be subjected to human desires whether they are perverted or not.

velvet
Saturday, April 6th, 2019, 10:59 PM
Velvet, you can call the dominant ideology in Western societies a religion, the belief in equality and victimhood is indeed a substitute, counterfeit religion and for the worst of the virtue signalling over socialized mob it's a functional substitute. It has sinners and saints, commandments, masses and vigils, heretics and true believers ... but there's no God and there's no salvation under social liberalism. You can never redeem yourself after being born white or male or hetero or all three and no-one dies for our sins (But then sometimes people do die for their perceived sins, perhaps none more so than the Afrikaners - and nobody cares). The sky is empty and heaven is here or will be here one day, supposedly.

Most of the believers are in it for social validation - social standing and all the good things that come with it. You have that kind of people in actual religions too, their opportunism may open doors for them but their emptiness makes them supremely unlikable. Quite like the media's legion of saints.

You criticise the "social validation", but you expect "salvation" (==validation) from your religion, your god, too. There's no difference, other than the semantics of the religiously coloured language. It's both seeking recognition, a biologically progammed opportunism.


It's a fundamentally empty religion and if you like me yearn for a mystical experience and more genuine spirituality, and the truth, then it will never fill the hole in your soul. For me an ideology can never replace religion, Velvet. Furthermore: a (based) Catholic or Christian can never be 100% onboard with any ideology - 99% is possible, yes, but never entirely, least of all when ideologies don't leave some room for the Holy Spirit. Ideologies promise us humans will solve all our problems somehow by ourselves and that these problems are earthly and material. Some obviously more so than others.

I don't need my ideology to be another religion, I'm fully motivated for both without having the race to take the place of God, I'm loyal to race, Reich, state, nation and God - but I sure can imagine that the type of person who is part of the secular religion which now dominates the West instantly trading their current secular religion for the next popular one - they're spineless like that. Pretty much how Madrid was a staunch Republican city during the Spanish Civil War, but as soon as Franco's troops entered Madrid the inhabitants welcomed him with open arms. At heart, most progressives of today are the very same crowd which hailed Franco as their saviour, the same dumb people of the same superficial mindset - but they're good at surviving.

I dont even disagree that a religion, a god, is a desireable asset to complement the ideology guiding the nation, that they must not be antagonistic to each other. I just wonder why "we" Europeans, Aryans, should worship a foreign god and not our own, the gods of our blood.

I've seen christians say to this: because christianity was superior and won over our own. How deep a treason this is. Lever död en slav? Didnt they who did so and those who are defending this takeover today just spinelessly switching their religion for the next fashion that came along?



And metal evolved into nu-metal. I have two words for you: Linkin Park. Is metal bad too now? :P

Cheap trick.


If Satan is real, then subverting Christianity and creating ideologies which mimic Christianity would be his modus operandi. Communism was and is always about destroying Christianity and the Christian social order in the first place, which at the same time wrecks our nations (also intentionally), and only then economics.

If Satan was real, christianity would be his modus operandi.

https://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=114652&stc=1&d=1554585643



And I would say that many of our problems do indeed stem from a moral crisis, all serious problems do - and it's obvious.

If you mean by moral values and rules how to treat your neighbours and abide to laws, yes, there is a "moral" crisis.
I just dont agree that christianity is the sole bringer of morals, or that today's world is the 'automatic' product of the absense of christianity but really of a hostile ideology designed to extinct the white people.


This discussion we're having now is reoccuring in our circles - and I would say your side of the debate will always point out that progressivism/communism evolved out of Christianity - and that's very possible - but my side of the debate will always point out that the decline of Christianity between 1789-1968 remarkably coincides with the rise of these ideas - it's too much of a coincidence. And in some cases the relation is completely undeniable - the feminist madness for instance. Even if Christianity somehow served as an inspiration to historical feminists, one can hardly say Christian churches historically endorsed it or that it's biblical or traditional. Hence not Christian.

I will point out, then, that, while the decline of christianity is indeed "caused" or at least accompanied by the rise of these ideas, the reason why the bearers of these ideas could walk masked among us is because of christianity. Which is the base problem.

I would even go further and say, the reason why christianity was here in the first place is because these people brought it here. As Nietzsche pointed out, we are too cold for a "warm" religion like christianity, that's why it allowed us to even thrive on (viewed in detail, often against) it for a while. But, as Himmler pointed out, we (as Volk, and that means all Germanic/European Volks) must overcome christianity from within ourselves, because ultimately, it's a sickness. We will not survive with christianity.



Absolutely. But if you make an ideology out of opportunism then you get a neoliberal society of all against all and the top against the bottom. And tons of migrants so the people at the top can become even richer.

I was talking about the biological motivation of "opportunism", not the egotism of capitalists.
I also didnt say to make this opportunism the ideology, I just think that we need an ideology that is conscious about the biological bases of ethnicites/cultures, and does not fight the instincts or slams them with all sorts of guilt-words like neoliberalism / communist capitalism does today. And we neither need a religion that makes a sin of instincts and biology.



I can see it alright, basic altruism doesn't require Christianity, but not all forms of social cooperation are equal - or just as opportunistic - and not all opportunism is wrong either, of course. Some forms of social organisation and even opportunism are blessed because backed by a heavenly mandate or they're at least functional. The same can't be said about all ideologies. You can go wrong with an ideology, but you can't go wrong with the word of God.

The word of god? Did he finally make a book? Must have missed this :P
C'mon, you cant seriously try to sell off the wild collection of vastly different (and not rarely oxymoronic) writings that is the bible for the "word of god" - to me. Herr Chlodovech, please. :)



In conclusion I'll say: naturally you should go for the truth because it's the truth and not because it may personally benefit you, either financially or otherwise, that's what makes one a scammer of sorts. That's the kind of opportunism I'm denouncing here. But obviously no Skadite is a blatant opportunist otherwise we wouldn't be here in the first place.

That's what I do, Chlod. I stepped outside the glass house that is christian-based western ideology, and viewed from the outside this card house looks pretty worn out, sick and broke. The truth, dear Chlod, is not in your church, your religion. It's the anti-truth by definition, it demands belief.

Your god kicked your imagined ancestors (werent your ancestors, after all) out of paradise for eating from the tree of knowledge. Our god gave his own eye to obtain the tools for seeking knowledge (the runes) and gave them to his Volk for that they grow and thrive. You talk of truth, but worship a god that hates nothing more but truth and knowledge.

If I just knew how to heal you from this infection. But it's like with alcoholics, they must realise for themselves that they are sick...