Uccisore
You mean it shouldn’t be a surprise? The problem you describe seems to be not that progressives are manipualting morality so much, but that they try to do so using language, which ultimately backfires on them.
Kind of reminds me of what feminists are doing. They take terms which signifies something generally regarded as extremely bad from a certain viewpoint (racism/rape and accusations of being racist/rapist) and which evokes strong emotional disapproval in many people. Racism here means, as you said, to literally believe that some/all other races should be completely killed, and rape being a person having sexual intercourse with another person without consent. Then under these terms (racism/rape, racist/rapist accusations) they try to include many other things which can be regarded either as a little bit bad or not bad at all, such as simply recognizing the existence of races or catcalling, and they try to get people to have the same response of automatic emotional disapproval to these things too by using the same accusatory term (racist/rapist) for these minor things as they would for extreme things (actual rape and racism). What they end up achieving is the opposite and instead of being able to push little offenses as being big offenses by using the term used to denote big offenses to also include little offenses, now they’ve completely corrupted the term for big offenses by including little offenses in it too, effectively reducing the strength of emotional disapproval previously connected to the term for big offenses, which yes, paves the way for the resurgence of real big offenses.
It’s what happens when people forget that language is a tool for communicating about reality, and that you cannot use language to manipulate reality because language is based on and dependent on reality.
Besides, one can then be almost thankful to progressives - they’ve successfully removed the stigma around the word “racist” with their desensitization and now people are more likely to explore the term fully.
My problem with your usage of the word is that you used the word “liberty” and I know you had in your mind a very particular, American kind of liberty, as if it was the liberty, the only type of liberty to exist, which it is not.
Except that analogy fails because survival here doesn’t mean the same as a foundation in a house, it means the same as EXISTENCE. So you aren’t comparing a mansion on an adequate foundation to X, you’re comparing a NON EXISTENT mansion, or a mansion which falls apart (ceases to exist) and kills everybody in it in the process. That is my point - some things get filtered out of existence by natural selection, and unless we want to fall prey to it, we better pay attention to the processes of natural selection to learn how to deal with them, to learn which things to avoid so that we can survive. Hippies, f.e. just cannot exist in the long-term - they can only exist until they run out of other people’s money/until other people stop providing for them. Their way of life is non-sustainable in and of itself.
A society is based on genes of a peoples and memes produced by these peoples interacting with a particular environment - blood and soil. Blood (genes) and soil (environment, territory) resulting in particular memes.
Since memes (culture) are produced by particular types of genes (peoples), it is impossible for the same memes to survive if genes are replaced - likewise, it is impossible that genes produce and accept any type of memes.
Your text is based on the (false) assumption that there is no connection between genes and memes so that
- any memes can survive with any genes
[tab](If in 100 years, there is a place called the United States of America that largely has the same values, flag, geography, holidays, and religion as we have now, but 90% of the population is hispanic, did our society survive, or didn’t it?)[/tab]
and - that any genes can produce any memes [tab](Alternatively, if in 100 years this geographic region is called something different, has different values, holidays, morals, but everybody here is still white, did our society survive, or didn’t it?)[/tab],
Black people might become Christian and adopt memes produced by whites, but they do not preserve them as they are, instead they modify them to be more suited to their own genes (biology of their peoples) - look at black church service: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EaI0U1_IW4[/youtube]
Remind you of anything?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHd_0B_kQDo[/youtube]
You can take the negro out of Africa…
One of the fundamental principles of communism is the lack of social hierarchy, aka, non-existence of social classes. This is impossible because reality and nature are all about hierarchy. The destruction of hierarchies would necessitate the destruction of all life, which is far from wonderful I think.
As for free market, I’m not even gonna start there because that could be an entire separate conversation. The word “free” itself has so much bullshit attached to it, especially when used in such a context.
If you push it to the extreme, yes, but I am not advocating for that. It seems to me that to you it is a matter of absolute either/or - either I must advocate for principles which result in destruction of my own kind (liberalism/cuckservatism) or I must advocate for the other end of the extreme, where nobody but me and a select few can live. To me it is a matter of degree and seeking balance after setting certain boundaries. Just recently watched a video giving one (among many) reasons it wouldn’t benefit us to “make disappear” everybody but a few people: [tab]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rk2hPrEnk8[/tab]
All principles are based on self-interest, and all principles ultimately end up benefitting one side more than the other. Even the self-destructive principles of white liberals are based on self-interest, in that they hate themselves so much that they don’t mind to see themselves and everybody who is like them, extinct.
But hey, don’t listen to me. Whites used to be 90%+ majority in America. Now they are 60-70% and going down, slowly. Couple of decades more and true equality will be achieved. And then you’ll begin melting in the melting pot.
[tab][/tab]
NO. Basic survival is never covered. Life is perpetual war and struggle. One must ALWAYS remain vigilant. In your country our race is reducing in number as we speak, and you tell me basic survival is covered?
Because race is not only about skin color and because it is impossible for any country to thrive if it consists mainly of negroes, aborigines, and races of similar average IQ. Because race is a RELEVANT category which cannot be dismissed and ignored.
If one wants to survive one must adapt to the tactics of their enemy to an extent, pretending the enemy doesn’t exist and is no threat is useless.
Lol. So only after whites are, what, less than 10% of population (AKA, WHEN IT IS TOO LATE) they can begin to think about self-defense, and even then it is not a “justified ideology”, whatever the fuck that means?
And one of the things both black and white people do is wage war based on tribal identifications - this war was waged even between groups with very minute differences such as Serbs and Croatians, and the hostilities exist to this day (as a Croatian I can testify to this myself). Of course there will be conflict between groups such as whites and blacks where group differences are MUCH more pronounced, especially when one group (whites) doesn’t in any relevant way benefit from existing in the same society as the other group (blacks), and the blacks would benefit existing as parasites in a white society, so there is great risk they will be subversive and adopt a gibs-me-dat mindset, which is precisely what they do.
But you’re also a Christian, so don’t you think we all end up in paradise anyway so it doesn’t really matter if we are fucked in this life here of 50-100 years when we’ll enjoy paradise for an eternity? Well not we, obviously I as a filthy atheist will be sent to hell to burn for an eternity, I mean you and other proper Christians.
Masculinity cannot go extinct. If a society becomes too emasculated, it is usually just conquered by another, more masculine society, all other factors equal. So masculinity in general cannot go extinct, although particular types of masculinity of certain groups of course die with those groups.
In a situation like what? What caused that situation? What came first, biological organisms or human cultures? Did biological organisms precede human cultures, or was it the other way around? Are human cultures based on the biology of organisms constructing that culture, or does the culture exist first, somehow?
Note, I am not saying that culture doesn’t influence organisms at all, I think they both affect each other, but I also think that organisms construct cultures and so they determine culture more than culture determines them.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence at all that areas generally populated by blacks are shitty places to live, and I can’t lie to myself and pretend it is all about “culture”, which seems almost like a superstitious excuse.
Values such as what?
EDIT: added a video in tab and the paragraph about foundations.