Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Will to Power and Selfish Gene theory

  1. #1
    Senior Member Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Will to Power and Selfish Gene theory

    I don't think there's a contradiction between the two, though many might say so. For the sake of the discussion, I'll define the Will to Power as the desire to make another conform to the intentions of oneself by whatever means one judges fit. If anyone (Moody Lawless, I suspect) has a better definition, do put it forward. Selfish Gene Theory is a (the) biological theory of Neo-Darwinism that says (basically) all living beings are constructs of their genes for the purpose of propagating their genes. It fits in fine with sexual selection and, strangely enough, racial nationalism. Richard Dawkins, in his book by the same name, even suggests that racial prejudice could even be an irrational expression of the selfish gene on a larger scale (but then selfish gene theory comes through in instincts, so of course it's irrational, because how do you rationalise instincts? ).

    How does Nietzsche's explanation of master morality vs slave morality fit in with Selfish Gene theory, if at all? I think I've got an explanation.

    Suppose we have two smart people (male and female) and two average people (male and female) who are fairly similar genetically (i.e. of the same subrace and ethnic group). The smart people have, for genetic reasons, a higher dose of testosterone, which is the biological basis of the W2P. Now everyone works - picking grapes, building houses, etc. They use cows as currency.

    Suppose both the pair of average people and the pair of smart people have three kids each. The smart people, who are also the ones with stronger will to power, build axes and threaten to hurt the average people unless they get one quarter of the cows the average people produce (this is tax). Now the smart people then trade the cows back to the average people on the condition that they make wine, houses, and all the stuff an aristocracy would want.

    The smart people are going to invest more care (education, etc.) in their own children. Now, according to selfish gene theory, or the regular understanding of it, why would it matter whether this new aristocracy takes some of the reasources from the two average people, if the smart people aren't breeding any more than they usually would? Answer: will to power actually serves the biological function of population control. Exploitation, control, oppression, even when not serving the direct genetic propagation of the aristocracy, serves to cut down on the breeding capacity of the lower classes. In absolute terms, the aristocracy are gaining genetically at the disadvantage of the lower classes. The two average people can't afford, because of tax, to have three kids now - so they have two. Overall result? More smart people, less average people in the gene pool. Even with unlimited resources, there isn't unlimited time - and if one individual wastes the time of another (through tax), then the person whose time is being wasted has less time to breed and/or invest time in children - the more time invested in children, the better the chances those children will have economically and in propagating their own genes.

    So what if the tax flow is reversed? Say, the stupid people sap the smart people? Then you get dysgenics. But the same principle applies - the stupid people are looting the smart people so they can propagate themselves at the expense of the intelligent people. The danger, of course, is that the smart people are the ones who know how to make the system work - they build the factories, provide the jobs, build the plans - in short, think. Now if the smart people tell the stupid ones they aren't going to think anymore, the system collapses - a la Atlas Shrugged. So the smart people don't have a great deal to lose by exploiting, through taxation, the stupid people. But the stupid people, if they don't watch what they're doing, have everything to lose if they go over the top and tax too hard. Don't think the stupid people are capable of exploiting the smart people? Look at the welfare system.

    Memes are another thing - that's what Richard Dawkins calls thoughts. Now we know the people at the top are Jews. They spread Feminism and multiculturalism and other destructive ideas. What do they gain from it? They run a big risk those ideas will sink in to Jewish communities. But - there are advantages for the Jews. Dissolve white unity and import racial foreigners (foreign even to the Jews), and a mixed racial group is so much easier to control - and exploit, and cut down to size, and take advantage of, and spead one's own genes to the disadvantage of, and so on.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, September 30th, 2005 @ 11:10 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Politics
    undecided
    Posts
    90
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    I'm suprised how much your views on philosophy resemble my own. I agree 100% with your views stated here. The fact that you possessed socialist sympathies as recently as 3-4 weeks ago truly perplexes me.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post

    I was an Objectivist before I came around to European nationalism proper. While I was an Objectivist (that's after I was NS) I still had racialist leanings. My socialist sympathies were built around a pragmatic approach to the current situation, but after reading Atlas Shrugged again I don't think it'd work. And the anarchist tendencies have ben building up for a while.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 @ 09:14 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Gender
    Posts
    2,671
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post

    This synthesis of the Will to Power and Dawkin's 'selfish gene'-model is very close to my personal thoughts on this. You formulated it quite well.

    I was an Objectivist before I came around to European nationalism proper. While I was an Objectivist (that's after I was NS) I still had racialist leanings. My socialist sympathies were built around a pragmatic approach to the current situation, but after reading Atlas Shrugged again I don't think it'd work. And the anarchist tendencies have ben building up for a while.
    While I too think a State-controlled economy will be devastating to the people, I do think some State intervention is proper, and I haven't really figured out why you made the leap into racist anarcho-capitalism. You said to me when I said I planned on buying a book by Ayn Rand:

    Siegfriend, Atlas Shrugged is probably the best book you can get. And I will still tear you apart in an argument if you turn Objectivist-Capitalist, supposing you want to throw Nationalism in there
    Back then, you seemed to think you had some very strong arguments against a synthesis between racialism and capitalism, and I haven't really found anything in your posts that would explain your sudden (or at least it seems to be sudden) conversion. What changed? I'm really interested, as I'm still working on my personal theories on the economy.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Siegfried Augustus
    This synthesis of the Will to Power and Dawkin's 'selfish gene'-model is very close to my personal thoughts on this. You formulated it quite well.
    Thanks


    While I too think a State-controlled economy will be devastating to the people, I do think some State intervention is proper, and I haven't really figured out why you made the leap into racist anarcho-capitalism. You said to me when I said I planned on buying a book by Ayn Rand:

    Siegfriend, Atlas Shrugged is probably the best book you can get. And I will still tear you apart in an argument if you turn Objectivist-Capitalist, supposing you want to throw Nationalism in there
    Back then, you seemed to think you had some very strong arguments against a synthesis between racialism and capitalism, and I haven't really found anything in your posts that would explain your sudden (or at least it seems to be sudden) conversion. What changed? I'm really interested, as I'm still working on my personal theories on the economy.
    Ok.

    I dropped the socialism because I like the idea of being in control of my own life. I don't need regulations to tell me only to sell to whites, or to associate with whites, or to choose a white wife (I'm going to do that of my own free will), and the question remains why those who have every intention of throwing their own genes down the drain should be stopped - consider it a strange form of natural selection. Capitalism provides an open field for whites to challenge Jews on the cultural ground, and it stops the Government from acting in favour of the Jews (through diversity laws, subsidised housing for minorities, affirmitive action etc.) and non-whites, and whites are free to associate with whites - given selfish gene theory and genetic similarity theory (Phillippe Rushton's idea on sociobiology, based on selfish gene theory), I think whites will be charitable to whites and associate with them far more likely than they will with blacks - and no one will stop them. Those who decide to go mate with blacks and throw their lives down the drain weren't worth saving anyway.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 @ 09:14 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Gender
    Posts
    2,671
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post

    Thanks for the reply, Aloysha. I'm not yet convinced, but I'll give it some consideration.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post

    Aloysha; "The Will to Power and Neo-Darwinism".

    Moody Lawless; Will To Power [WTP] is opposed to Social Darwinism [SD]; whereas SD talks of evolution's will to survival, Nietzsche argued that Nature does not seek to so much survive, as to FLOURISH.
    WTP describes that constant expansion of things even to the point of their own extinction and destruction [and hence not always to survival].
    Nietzsche noticed that it was NOT the best human specimens who survive and flourish, but the mediocre, the average - even the down-right botched.
    The great tragedy of life is that the rare and highest types are the most threatened and vulnerable.
    Because of this he wanted to find a way of breeding the best up, and knew this had to be done by a powerful State where a ruling caste will rule the mass of technocrats and slaves.
    He called this breeding master-race the Lords of the Earth, or the Artist Tyrants; the latter because they would work on human genes in the way that a Michelangelo worked on marble.

    Aloysha; "The smart people, who are also the ones with stronger will to power. The smart people are going to invest more care (education, etc.) in their own children.

    Moody; These are groundless assumptions. The "smart" are just as likely to be selfish and spend on themselves and have less children. The masses tend to have bigger families - they were called the Proles [literally 'breeders'] in Rome because they were prol-ific in breeding. The "smarts" don't necessarily exhibit the strongest will, either.

    Aloysha; "Don't think the stupid people are capable of exploiting the smart people? Look at the welfare system".

    Moody; Then they are not to be described as 'stupid'. As Nietzsche noted, it is not the fit who dominate, but the cunning.
    The Master, to Nietzsche, lacked the cunning of the Slave, because he is too Noble.
    This is how the Jews have tended to dominate - by their cunning.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  8. #8
    Senior Member Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless
    Aloysha; "The Will to Power and Neo-Darwinism".

    Moody Lawless; Will To Power [WTP] is opposed to Social Darwinism [SD]; whereas SD talks of evolution's will to survival, Nietzsche argued that Nature does not seek to so much survive, as to FLOURISH.
    WTP describes that constant expansion of things even to the point of their own extinction and destruction [and hence not always to survival].
    Did I mention Social Darwinism? I'm not sure I did, though it'd be good if you could point it out. In either case, it still fits in fine. People want power and people want to show off because it nets them the most sexually attractive women.

    Nietzsche noticed that it was NOT the best human specimens who survive and flourish, but the mediocre, the average - even the down-right botched.
    Nietzsche did not understand Darwinism - it is not the 'best' or 'fittest' in an absolute sense that survive and pass on their genes, but those best suited towards the environment.

    The great tragedy of life is that the rare and highest types are the most threatened and vulnerable.
    This is superficial. In Neo-Darwinism, being castrated is just as bad as being killed. Pack leaders of South African Cape Hunting Dogs castrate their own kin and ensure that they are the only breeders, while the rest of the pack is set to gather food. The female companion of the pack leader (for lack of a better term) kills off young dogs that are not her own. There's will to power and selfish gene in the same system. If the strongest, smartest dogs end up being castrated while they're young, then that's what happens. The pack leaders usually end up being killed off and replaced by those who killed them off, sooner or later, and the cycle continues.

    Because of this he wanted to find a way of breeding the best up, and knew this had to be done by a powerful State where a ruling caste will rule the mass of technocrats and slaves.
    In short, he advocates Selfish Gene theory in favour of a certain group at the expense of the rest.

    Aloysha; "The smart people, who are also the ones with stronger will to power. The smart people are going to invest more care (education, etc.) in their own children.

    Moody; These are groundless assumptions. The "smart" are just as likely to be selfish and spend on themselves and have less children.
    Groundless assumptions? Show me a tyrant or millionnarie who has not invested a lot of money and education in his child/ren if he had any. Spending money on themselves serves sexual selection.

    The masses tend to have bigger families - they were called the Proles [literally 'breeders'] in Rome because they were prol-ific in breeding. The "smarts" don't necessarily exhibit the strongest will, either.
    I never said they always do, but Murray and Hernnstein in 'The Bell Curve' seem to back me up when I say the smart people are always going to end up on top or near the top.

    Aloysha; "Don't think the stupid people are capable of exploiting the smart people? Look at the welfare system".

    Moody; Then they are not to be described as 'stupid'.
    Sure they are. They're just 'fit' in the Darwinian sense - that is, they're adapted towards their environment. They're still stupid though.

    As Nietzsche noted, it is not the fit who dominate, but the cunning.
    Under certain conditions they can mean the same thing.

    The Master, to Nietzsche, lacked the cunning of the Slave, because he is too Noble.
    This is how the Jews have tended to dominate - by their cunning.
    This fits in ok.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post

    Aloysha; "Social Darwinism?"

    Moody Lawless; Social Darwinism is the usual term for the adaptation of Darwinist ideas to social issues; a more recent term for this is 'sociobiology'

    Aloysha; "People want power and people want to show off because it nets them the most sexually attractive women".

    Moody; A generalisation that doesn't work; presumably you mean "men" where you write "people" above; even then, it is fairly obvious that a large number of men in any society desire to be subordinate, and are content to have less than attractive women as mates.

    Aloysha; "Nietzsche did not understand Darwinism - it is not the 'best' or 'fittest' in an absolute sense that survive and pass on their genes, but those best suited towards the environment".

    Moody; Nietzsche was intellectually equiped to understand Darwin; however, DarwinISM is slightly different, and refers to the popularisation of Darwin's ideas, particularly in conjunction with Herbert Spencer's work. This DarwinISM is of the kind you actually describe in your first post with the example of the "cows" and so forth. Again, Nietzsche showed that it was not the fittest [or even the best adapted] who survive - but the MEDIOCRE.

    Aloysha; "This is superficial. In Neo-Darwinism, being castrated is just as bad as being killed. Pack leaders of South African Cape Hunting Dogs castrate their own kin and ensure that they are the only breeders, while the rest of the pack is set to gather food. The female companion of the pack leader (for lack of a better term) kills off young dogs that are not her own. There's will to power and selfish gene in the same system. If the strongest, smartest dogs end up being castrated while they're young, then that's what happens. The pack leaders usually end up being killed off and replaced by those who killed them off, sooner or later, and the cycle continues".

    Moody; And you call me "superficial"! In the beginning of the very book that you are basing your thread on, 'The Selfish Gene', the author says;
    "They made the erroneous assumption that the important thing in evolution is the good of the 'species' (or the group) rather than the good of the individual (or the gene)".
    ['The Selfish Gene', R.Dawkins]

    Aloysha; "Nietzsche advocated Selfish Gene theory of a certain group at the expense of the rest".

    Moody; As the previous quote shows, what you describe is NOT Selfish Gene theory. You have misunderstood it to mean 'selfish group'.
    Therefore Nietzsche's idea of a ruling caste is opposed to SG, just as WTP is opposed to SD as I have already said.

    Aloysha: "Groundless assumptions? Show me a tyrant or millionnarie who has not invested a lot of money and education in his child/ren if he had any. Spending money on themselves serves sexual selection".

    Moody; You were talking of the "smart people" - now you have defined the "smart people" as "tyrants" and "millionaires". This is quite a small group in the overall population; indeed they have very little effect on the quality of the Gene pool.

    Aloysha; "I say the smart people are always going to end up on top or near the top".

    Moody; That's a self-serving tautalogical definition; "smart" = "those near or at the top". As we know, such people are usually of poor quality in today's Capitalist society. Their offspring are often worse than useless.

    Aloysha; "They're adapted towards their environment. They're still stupid though".

    Moody; So now you're saying they're not "smart"? But I thought that the smart are "always going to end up at the top or near the top"?
    They're "smart/stupid" then?
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  10. #10
    Senior Member Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless
    Aloysha; "Social Darwinism?"

    Moody Lawless; Social Darwinism is the usual term for the adaptation of Darwinist ideas to social issues; a more recent term for this is 'sociobiology'
    Ok.

    Aloysha; "People want power and people want to show off because it nets them the most sexually attractive women".

    Moody; A generalisation that doesn't work; presumably you mean "men" where you write "people" above; even then, it is fairly obvious that a large number of men in any society desire to be subordinate, and are content to have less than attractive women as mates.
    Everyone wants power, but a desire is different from working to make it real. This 'working to make it real' is the will to power, testosterone. Men have higher doses of it than women on average, hence, for most of the part, male dominance of social structures. Men don't 'desire' to be subordinate, it's just being subordinate is no issue for them because of their low will to power. "Less than attractive"? By whose standards? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Living beings have instincts to propagate their own genes.

    About the 'settle for less than attractive women'. Let's suppose there's four men in a pub, and five women. Four brunettes and one blonde. Now, all four guys want the blonde, but she's feeling selective and picks the most attractive guy. The other three try asking out the brunettes, but the brunettes say no to them because they don't want to be second-handed. Replay the game. This time all four guys go straight to the brunettes. Everyone wins except the blonde. Evolutionary success. Now, replay. Suppose three guys go after the brunette but one guy decides to run risks ('overcome', Nietzsche might say) and aims higher, and goes for the blonde. He wins. People tend to be realistic with their abilities.

    '... but the dreamers of the day,
    Are dangerous men
    For they may act their dreams,
    With open eyes,
    To make it possible"
    - DH Lawrence, 'Seven Pillars of Wisdom'.

    Tend to.

    Aloysha; "Nietzsche did not understand Darwinism - it is not the 'best' or 'fittest' in an absolute sense that survive and pass on their genes, but those best suited towards the environment".

    Moody; Nietzsche was intellectually equiped to understand Darwin; however, DarwinISM is slightly different, and refers to the popularisation of Darwin's ideas, particularly in conjunction with Herbert Spencer's work.
    Explain how Spencer fits in with it.

    This DarwinISM is of the kind you actually describe in your first post with the example of the "cows" and so forth. Again, Nietzsche showed that it was not the fittest [or even the best adapted] who survive - but the MEDIOCRE.
    Mediocre by what standard? This presupposes you have an absolute to measure it against. It's not about 'survival' (survival in itself counts for nothing, it's a means to an end), but the propagation of genes. The mediocre often do it better (are 'fitter') because they are most suited towards the environment, which is the 'absolute' that natural selection 'measures' against - but it is improper to speak of it as an absolute, as it is always changing. Blacks breed a lot and are less intelligent because this was selected for in unstable, violent Sub-Saharan Africa. Europeans and Asians breed less and invest more time in their children (compared to blacks) because analysis and organisational capacities were selected for by cold North Eurasian climates.

    Aloysha; "This is superficial. In Neo-Darwinism, being castrated is just as bad as being killed. Pack leaders of South African Cape Hunting Dogs castrate their own kin and ensure that they are the only breeders, while the rest of the pack is set to gather food. The female companion of the pack leader (for lack of a better term) kills off young dogs that are not her own. There's will to power and selfish gene in the same system. If the strongest, smartest dogs end up being castrated while they're young, then that's what happens. The pack leaders usually end up being killed off and replaced by those who killed them off, sooner or later, and the cycle continues".

    Moody; And you call me "superficial"! In the beginning of the very book that you are basing your thread on, 'The Selfish Gene', the author says;
    "They made the erroneous assumption that the important thing in evolution is the good of the 'species' (or the group) rather than the good of the individual (or the gene)".
    ['The Selfish Gene', R.Dawkins]
    Groups don't exist, only aggregates of individuals. It fits in fine. I don't see where you pulled group selection from.

    Aloysha; "Nietzsche advocated Selfish Gene theory of a certain group at the expense of the rest".

    Moody; As the previous quote shows, what you describe is NOT Selfish Gene theory. You have misunderstood it to mean 'selfish group'.
    Therefore Nietzsche's idea of a ruling caste is opposed to SG, just as WTP is opposed to SD as I have already said.
    No, I haven't. Nietzsche's idea of a ruling caste IS a selfish aggregate of individuals with things in common (testosterone (will to power), master morality, intelligence, etc.). You claim that Nietzsche advocated eugenics - no idiot (in the literal sense) promotes eugenics. A ruling elite advocating eugenics is another way of articulating the idea of selective genocide, morality aside.

    Aloysha: "Groundless assumptions? Show me a tyrant or millionnarie who has not invested a lot of money and education in his child/ren if he had any. Spending money on themselves serves sexual selection".

    Moody; You were talking of the "smart people" - now you have defined the "smart people" as "tyrants" and "millionaires". This is quite a small group in the overall population; indeed they have very little effect on the quality of the Gene pool.
    Really? Who fights in the wars? The people who get sent off to fight. Who sends them? Those with the highest amount of power. What effect does this have on the gene pool? People get killed off. The people on top can be illiterate thugs, philosopher kings or superb fighters. It doesn't matter - the fact is they have a disproportionate amount of power, and something enabled them to get it, this is the will to power (testosterone), and without a relatively (relative to the mean intelligence of the tribe) high degree of intelligence they would not remain on top.

    Aloysha; "I say the smart people are always going to end up on top or near the top".

    Moody; That's a self-serving tautalogical definition; "smart" = "those near or at the top". As we know, such people are usually of poor quality in today's Capitalist society. Their offspring are often worse than useless.
    Today's society isn't capitalist, it's mixed economy. Furthermore, smart whites are held down by the elite Jews (see 'The Bell Curve' where Murray and Herrnstein point out that the most intelligent sections of the population don't even bother doing tertiary education) who have engineered the system to select for the mediocre (as opposed to intellectually retarded) who are easily puppet-mastered. In a Capitalist society, those 'worse than useless' offspring would have nothing to save them from losing their money. People who make poor investments lose money or go bankrupt.

    Aloysha; "They're adapted towards their environment. They're still stupid though".

    Moody; So now you're saying they're not "smart"? But I thought that the smart are "always going to end up at the top or near the top"?
    They're "smart/stupid" then?
    Nice try. Intelligence can be objectively measured. Being at the top isn't the same as being genetically prosperous.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, June 7th, 2012, 07:26 PM
  2. UK: Selfish To Have More Than Two Children?
    By Nachtengel in forum Parenthood & Family
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Thursday, April 30th, 2009, 07:02 PM
  3. Epigenetics: “Genes might not be so selfish after all”
    By Praetorianer in forum Bio-Anthropology & Human Variation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, September 21st, 2008, 11:42 AM
  4. 'God gene' discovered by scientist behind gay DNA theory
    By Loki in forum Medical & Behavioral Genetics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Sunday, November 14th, 2004, 06:40 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •