Open thread: r/K selection and politics

There has apparently been weak communication between the faction of the Right which considers r/K selection to be influential in politics and the faction (usually HBD folks like Evolutionistx and RaceRealist) who have either not expressed such views or rejected them.

Whichever side is correct, it seems apparent that patrifocal societies (Confucian, Indo-European, Abrahamic) are more right-wing/Authoritarian and more matrifocal ones (modern Sweden, many modern Germanic speaking countries) are more Left-wing/Totalitarian. Politics may ultimately depend on if women are trying to appease men (right-wing), or men trying to appease women (left-wing).

Still, r/K selection theory should be discussed so that the truth might be deduced on this matter.

Argue at will! (even if this is an old post by the time you come across it).

[if no one argues here, then argue somewhere else so that the reactosphere can reach a consensus on this issue]

Advertisements

I Passed Organic Chemistry!

cce133085fa459f6494e8cc97e26e24c[Not to intimidate anyone reading this] and now you all know why I might appear to overanalyze things: in Organic Chemistry, what seems like overanalysis to most people is perfected as an art, hence I have gotten very accustomed to it. Next is Physical Chemistry and Quantitative Analysis. I am getting ever closer to infiltrating Academia. But in the meantime, I can get back to blogging more frequently about philosophical mumbo jumbo. That is unless you want me to blog about Chemistry — most people don’t find that as interesting.

On Death, and How We Deal With It

thrandul2

I have never been all that comfortable thinking about death, but I do it a lot. In recent years most of my grandparents have died, and this has made me feel somewhat isolated and disconnected from my deeper heritage — perhaps my reactionary tendencies are partially a means of compensating for this.

About a month ago my grandmother died somewhat unexpectedly, and it threw me into an internal crisis. I came to the following conclusion:

There tend to be three popular ways of viewing death.

  1. Most atheists and Jews believe that when you die, that is it. You’re dead. Your personality is nonexistent upon death. The end result of this belief is hedonism and base utilitarianism.
  2. Most Muslims and perhaps the majority of conservative Christians believe that most people are tormented in hell forever, and only a few escape this grim fate through being part of the right religious persuasion. The end result of this belief is wasteful religious wars over who is and isn’t going to hell.
  3. Many polytheists, Buddhists and a few Christians (link) believe that the soul is both eternal and that the there is no eternal torment. There may be chastisement in the afterlife followed by a more pleasant eternity, or, in certain religions, reincarnation into a bad life if one has committed moral wrongs, but the idea of eternal torment is alien. The end result usually depends on the IQ of the nation holding these beliefs. India, for instance, is poorer than Japan, but both have religions (Hinduism, Buddhism) which teach some form of reincarnation.

I am not saying the following to insult any religious opinion, but I wish to be honest: Options 1 and 2 are basically pessimistic. Option 2 is often made very pessimistic when it is combined with ideas like total depravity, and the belief I find common among ultra-conservative Christians, that the nature of man is not just sub-par or corruptible, but actually ‘evil’.

Option 3 is the only option which is actually either neutral or optimistic.

I admit I have often been frightened by options 1 and 2. The idea that we die and that’s it (option 1) means that if you lived an incomplete life, you will never have a chance to live a full one, and you will also never be reunited with those you love who have perished.

If option 2 is true than anyone you loved who was not part of the right religion is burning in hell forever and you better figure out which religion is the correct one and become obedient to it, or you will be joining them in eternal torment.

Being somewhat of an empiricist, I consider option 1 more likely than option 2. [Sorry, weird Youtube videos by people claiming to have been in hell don’t count as science]

Nietzsche and Heidegger would likely say that I am staring into the abyss. It takes a lot of courage to stare into the abyss, and it is certainly something I would rather not be doing. In this sense, staring into the abyss, even reaching the point of nihilism, is ascetical and can provide a kind of catharsis, but it is a horrifying catharsis that many, perhaps most people try their best to avoid and that I myself wish to exit.

My sincerest hope is that option 3 is true, although it is something of a conundrum of how to harmonize an afterlife with Nietzscheanism.  In order to do this, the concept of the afterlife cannot teach that this life is to be denied in favor of the next. Rather, one would need to either assume that any life after the present one is like the life we live now (reincarnation, perhaps eternal recurrence),  or that the rewards of an afterlife depend not upon looking forward to that afterlife, but engaging in this life in a highly world-accepting, life-affirming manner. One version of this is the Norse Valhalla, a reward for valiant fighting in a war, an earthly endeavor with an earthly purpose. One might also consider reincarnation itself to be life-affirming in that it encourages one to build or maintain an earthly civilization which one can both reap the fruits of in this life, and return to in a future life — the mindset here is not escapism but is indeed life-affirming, and world-accepting.

Driving the Point Home

Quotes from a very good article I found.

“The playbook of the establishment is very simple and very effective: claim that questioners of diversity are driven by plain hatred, that they are poorly-educated hicks who can’t stand losing their white privilege, and are too parochial to understand the progressive cosmopolitanism marvelously spreading through the West.”

“Through these major epochs, Europeans came to de-emphasize the martial virtues associated with feudalism, and as they turned to commerce, new virtues came to gain precedence: commodious living, orderly existence, and the Protestant emphasis on hard work (notwithstanding the excessive brutality of the religious wars and the interstate rivalries resulting from nation-building during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). David Hume, in An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1777), noted this transformation from the martial temper of medieval times to the “sociable, good-natured, humane, merciful, grateful, friendly, generous, beneficent” qualities of the moderns.”

Clearly, Hume understands the origins of cosmopolitan morality.

So yes, the excessive empowerment of the third estate through laissez-faire capitalism (edit: currently through Neoliberal Ayn Rand ideology) clearly has something to do with the pacification of Western nations to their own destruction, and it’s not just da Jooz, it’s the entire socio-economic phenomenon which has atomized and de-masculinized Western men.

Update 4/15/17: This is not to argue in favor of socialism, but for the recognition of how capitalism has changed the social structure of the West in such a way that previously masculine virtues like defending your own tribe have become de-facto sins simply because they are a hindrance or of no use in the marketplace. As far as I am concerned, economics is not something to fetishize and ‘muh free market’ is not an end in itself.