Evolution's End

Evolution's End
Leftists pervade the modern world, and their very existence is indicative of evolution's end. The purpose of this discussion is not to express my contempt for their ideology, but to explain why their ideology exists and the implications it has on the evolution of homo sapiens.

Homo sapiens are distinguished among other species by their intelligence. They are a sentient species, capable of critical thought and innovation. Sentience enables homo sapiens to recognize objective truths, such as in physics or mathematics. These objective truths are useful in the development of technology and propagation; however, they are not always applied correctly. For instance, on the one hand, they enable homo sapiens to accomplish the object of evolution; on the other hand, they enable homo sapiens to recognize their work as the mere object of evolution.

The Rightist
The rightist recognizes the object of evolution insofar as it is an evolutionary process; meaning, homo sapiens must pursue the ends of evolution—that is, propagation through the development of technology—in accordance with the defining characteristics of the species, such as the relationship between a male and female and the bonds of family.



The Leftist
The leftist, in direct contravention of those characteristics, does not recognize the object of evolution. Instead, the leftist sees the work of his species as an extension of objective truth; that is, the work of impersonal entities. Therefore, the leftist sees homo sapiens themselves as purposeless. Because purposelessness brings about depression and thoughts of suicide, victims of suicide are predominately leftists. However, purposelessness manifests in several other ways. For instance, among leftists, feelings of inferiority pervade. They are hypersensitive and disdain the object of evolution, such as the capacity of individuals to innovate, because they see themselves as inferior to them.

Because the leftist denies the object of evolution, he must construct artificial objects that nature otherwise provides. In other words, the leftist must construct artificial relationships and bonds between people to establish the requisite purpose for a species's survival. For instance, he wants government or society at large to solve the problems of individuals. Government or society is merely a substitute for real evolutionary constructions that manifest in family and community. Furthermore, his perception of the world is premised on his feelings of inferiority; for instance, in terms of racial groups among other identities, the leftist views some inferior or superior to others based not on truth, but on feelings of inferiority.

The leftist's denial of the object of evolution also manifests in over-socialization. Absent of evolution's object, the leftist must, as an impersonal entity, train and indoctrinate others to think similarly. The over-socialized leftist is a member of the "woke" culture. The leftist must socialize his fellow entities just as a family might. For instance, the leftist will deny the strides of Western Civilization and focus on its negative aspects alone; by extension, anyone who acknowledges the superiority of Western Civilization must be targeted and censored, just as rival tribes might per evolutionary biology. The leftist will, in other words, over-socialize his feelings of inferiority.

With respect to Individualism and Collectivism
Paradoxically, it might seem as though the rightist is collectivist in his belief in the bonds of family, and the leftist is individualist in his belief that homo sapiens are impersonal entities of space. However, the opposite is true because both ideologies maintain a "collective" thought—one real and the other artificial—because nature requires it more than intelligence. However, the rightist is able to recognize the capacity of individuals to pursue the object of evolution, whereas the leftist cannot. Therefore, with respect to "the capacity of individuals" to innovate, and through innovation propagate, the rightist is individualist, while the leftist is collectivist.

Conclusion
These thoughts are tentative, but logically, leftists should not exist, and ipso facto the probability exists that they are an alien species that must therefore be exterminated.

Tl;dr? Have sex.

Have sex

Написао Player 999, 19.11.2019 at 01:21

You deny evolution in humans above the neck in the last 50 000 years. You also deny currently ongoing evolution that's causing national IQ's to sink in the west due to dysgenics.

Написао Tirpitz406, 19.11.2019 at 07:01

You deny evolution in humans above the neck in the last 50 000 years. You also deny currently ongoing evolution that's causing national IQ's to sink in the west due to dysgenics.

Strange thing is, what makes you think Germans have benefited from "evolution above the head" . What if Germans are actually the least intelligent ethnic group? Funny how this talk of evolution and human intelligence has the assumption that Germans are intelligent in some way.

Написао Player 999, 19.11.2019 at 08:56

What if Germans are actually the least intelligent ethnic group?

Possible, but unlikely, given the average IQ of Germans being 100 and the average IQ of Aboriginies being 70. Also it looks like Germans have invented slightly more than Aboriginies, but that's just my opinion.

That's besides the point though. Even if all data suggested Germans were less intelligent than anyone else, I'd still tell you to shut up and accept, that there are group differences and that these are probably caused in part by genetics.

Написао Tirpitz406, 19.11.2019 at 11:10

That's besides the point though. Even if all data suggested Germans were less intelligent than anyone else, I'd still tell you to shut up and accept, that there are group differences and that these are probably caused in part by genetics.

What are these group differences and where is the proof that they are caused by genetics? "The Bell Curve" has been debunked by the vast majority of scientists. Any proof that different races have different inbuilt intelligences? Remember that wealthier and low crime countries tend to have high iqs due to good education, health care, environment, Flynn effect; this is independent of race.

Написао Player 999, 19.11.2019 at 01:21

Написао Tribune Aquila, 18.11.2019 at 20:48

I'm not sure someone who happens to lean to the left denies evolution and science? After all, it is mostly (albeit a small fraction) of conservatives who are denying climate change and literally even evolution itself (creationists are predominantly conservative ). But I agree that there is some over-reach on the left; at the extreme end, there is an obsession with attacking people who historically were dominant. Though dominant groups may have caused harm in the past, it's not fair to attack present members of the dominant group just because some of their ancestors committed harms against other groups.

It's not about science, the matter of science is independent of the root of spectrum-ideology, as in left to right. A lot of the time we aren't able to understand each other because we aren't able to see the root of our disagreements. We usually only focus on the surface issues of, as you mentioned, science or other issues surrounding the political economy, abortion, immigration, among many others. Yes, one can try to distinguish a leftist and rightist based on such surface variables, but what I'm contending is that, at his core, the leftist does not recognize the object of evolution as in mankind's capacity to innovate and thereby advance the species (i.e., propagate). Instead, the leftist atomizes mankind into distinct spacial entities and constructs artificial relationships between such entities to fulfill that which nature must otherwise provide. By this, I mean a powerful government, which makes up for the dissolution of family per the nature of mankind. The matter of science is not exclusively denied by any part of the spectrum. The leftist might not deny evolution, in fact the leftist is often characterized by his acceptance of evolution, but the acceptance of evolution and the way one conducts himself are separate variables. To see oneself as "progressive" requires one to overlook, overturn, or do both to the nature of the species.

Написао Tribune Aquila, 19.11.2019 at 17:25

It's not about science, the matter of science is independent of the root of spectrum-ideology, as in left to right. A lot of the time we aren't able to understand each other because we aren't able to see the root of our disagreements. We usually only focus on the surface issues of, as you mentioned, science or other issues surrounding the political economy, abortion, immigration, among many others. Yes, one can try to distinguish a leftist and rightist based on such surface variables, but what I'm contending is that, at his core, the leftist does not recognize the object of evolution as in mankind's capacity to innovate and thereby advance the species (i.e., propagate). Instead, the leftist atomizes mankind into distinct spacial entities and constructs artificial relationships between such entities to fulfill that which nature must otherwise provide. By this, I mean a powerful government, which makes up for the dissolution of family per the nature of mankind. The matter of science is not exclusively denied by any part of the spectrum. The leftist might not deny evolution, in fact the leftist is often characterized by his acceptance of evolution, but the acceptance of evolution and the way one conducts himself are separate variables. To see oneself as "progressive" requires one to overlook, overturn, or do both to the nature of the species.

There are definitely worldview differences between people who lean liberal versus conservatives, but there's not much evidence that liberals are attempting to hold back humanity. Progressives simply want to move society forward in an equal direction; why should some people be unfairly treated based on factors they cannot control? Why should black people, or other marginalized groups be treated badly? At it's heart, the main goal of liberals is to create a society where even the weakest of us can live a free and happy life.

But yes, it seems family values have been degrading in the west for a while. Divorce rates are high, single parenthood is high etc. There need to be a mix of both liberal and conservative values, for the best life. Too much of either can lead to imbalance and black/white thinking.

Написао King_Unleashed, 21.11.2019 at 19:22

There are definitely worldview differences between people who lean liberal versus conservatives, but there's not much evidence that liberals are attempting to hold back humanity. Progressives simply want to move society forward in an equal direction; why should some people be unfairly treated based on factors they cannot control? Why should black people, or other marginalized groups be treated badly? At it's heart, the main goal of liberals is to create a society where even the weakest of us can live a free and happy life.

But yes, it seems family values have been degrading in the west for a while. Divorce rates are high, single parenthood is high etc. There need to be a mix of both liberal and conservative values, for the best life. Too much of either can lead to imbalance and black/white thinking.

As much as I respect your view, I completely disagree. Of course the Left is not trying to hold back humanity. Their intentions are good. Everyone's intentions are good, but the outcome of their intentions is what I'm concerned with. What does it mean to "hold back humanity"? Preserving freedom or natural laws is not holding back humanity, abandoning freedom or natural laws is what holds back humanity. Ostensibly, the Left wants to "move society forward in an equal direction[,]" but what does that mean? And what has been the outcome of their efforts? Your post is incoherent and rife with ambiguity. Let me explain my argument:

The progress of mankind is progress towards truth. Laws founded in truth—those are, natural laws—are fixed, and they are what a government of a free people must aspire towards. The aforementioned truths outlined in the Declaration of Independence are among them. The "progress" that the Left aspires towards is not progress at all, but a regression and a destruction of truth. The Leftist sees the object of evolution as an extension of some truths, but not truth in itself. For instance, the Leftist does not recognize the established bonds between people. Instead, the Leftist establishes artificial bonds through government, the institution that in his mind replaces and must ultimately displace community. Progress must be made in accordance with truth, which is unobtainable by an imperfect species. But in accordance with the object of evolution, it is our ultimate end to aspire towards.

Of course, equality is one such truth. All men are created equal, and are entitled to equal justice under the law. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no person on either side is suggesting that man is not entitled to equal justice under the law. I have never suggested that some people "should" be "unfairly treated based on factors they cannot control[.]" Inequalities arise for reasons out of one's control in many ways, but inequalities are not contingent on morals. Meaning, inequalities are not "good" or "bad," they only exist. Inequalities afford different people with different opportunities in life. The government, in accordance with natural law, must enable a free people to freely pursue such opportunities. Governments that seek to establish equality of opportunity transcend their function as the governing body of a free people, because man's natural state is one of freedom. To be treated in a way that is unlike another individual is for one to exercise his or her freedom to treat. The inequalities on which those treatments are based are unalterable and cannot be rectified through a government, unless the government ceases to govern a free people. For those who assume disadvantaged positions in life for reasons out of their control, including inheritance, genetic endowment, or social upbringing, such people are entitled to freely pursue opportunities. Government must enable freedom while enforcing equal justice under the law. That is the ideal government, and when the two are mutually exclusive, the notion of a free government is tarnished, which is where your perspective originates from.

Написао Player 999, 19.11.2019 at 01:21

I'm not sure someone who happens to lean to the left denies evolution and science?

The same radlib science which claims gender is meaningless?

Написао Player 999, 19.11.2019 at 01:21

After all, it is mostly (albeit a small fraction) of conservatives who are denying climate change

Because they're thinkers of a naturally untrustworthy philosophy who remembers the 7 decades of global scares from overppoulation, underpopulation, climate cooling, o zone threats and global warming, which is now renamed to global warming for pure public relations purposes. I'm obviously not a conservative but I understand the justifiably paranoid fears they have of international globalists promoting a scare tactic exclusively to western whites which demands radical and negative changes to our lives. It's incredible how all the policies promoted to deal with so-called climate change benefit the interests of the elites. Purely a coincidence, right? And yet all the simple easy solutions are ignored. Also strange.

Solutions to carbon emissions?

-Stop Immigration
-Stop foreign aid (Especially aid to Africa)
-Changing economic policy to alleviate unsustainable growth
-Economic protectionism
-Sanctioning foreign states that don't agree to lowering emissions
-Nuclear power

Annnnnnd yet, this is never sought and anyone seeking these policies is condemned. Instead, they demand MORE immigration leading a higher carbon footprint, LOWER birth rates among whites who already have below replacement level birth rates, Carbon taxes which will only affect the lower classes, and INCREASED urbanisation into already crowded cities, and coincidentally, more public funding of catabolic energy sources like wind and solar which are owned by the same companies that own the oil and gas industries. Why are we rolling back on Nuclear power? It's the most efficient and carob free power source. Why hasn't a single climate change activist promoted nuclear power? If the worlds ending in 60 years, why not go nuclear? Because Nuclear would wipe out all the other energy industries who fund this propaganda for their own interests.

It's obvious to most that the goals of 'climate change' aren't built to deal with it, but are scare tactics with ulterior profit-driven motives. The obvious solutions, which most people want anyway, are denied. That in itself is more than enough evidence to suggest it's likely bullshit. Weren't we told that we'd all be living underwater in 2019 by the labcoats and Al Gore? We're always 10 years away from catastrophe but it never comes, but the demands of the elites never ends. Now they want us to eat bugs to deal with meat consumption. Will the elites be waiting bugs? Nope. Then why the fuck should we?

Написао Player 999, 19.11.2019 at 01:21

and literally even evolution itself (creationists are predominantly conservative ).

Like denying the evolution of race? Or eugenics? Science-worshipping hipsters are worse than creationists. At least the creationists have family values, meanwhile institution-funded labcoats want to teach 5 year olds how to wank and put them in the laps of cross dressing pedophiles in libraries.

"The world began 6000 years ago, and don't be a slut"
VS
"You're a genderless, meaningless little racist who needs to be kept in check to prevent a holocaust and who should never breed and spend the rest of their life pursuing dopamin hits and buying products"

Tough choice of who I'd rather be teaching my kids.

Написао Player 999, 19.11.2019 at 01:21

But I agree that there is some over-reach on the left; at the extreme end, there is an obsession with attacking people who historically were dominant. Though dominant groups may have caused harm in the past, it's not fair to attack present members of the dominant group just because some of their ancestors committed harms against other groups.

Says the White-hating Zionist Supremacist who brings up the holocaust whenever people question immigration. Fuck off.

Написао Player 999, 19.11.2019 at 08:56

What if Germans are actually the least intelligent ethnic group? Funny how this talk of evolution and human intelligence has the assumption that Germans are intelligent in some way.

There it is again. He can't help himself. The Zionist hates the White Man. He hates the German most of all because today, he his epitomises the European seed more than most.

I can't take this post seriously from a faux-conservative who preaches the philosophy of spiritualist original intent but is nothing more than a trumpist neo-con zionist that perpetrates the same myths of post-modernists and Trotskyites.

It's the same William F Buckley bullshit. It all sounds good and then the people implementing it are no different from the left of 10 years before. While there is much truth in the post, it's still written by a liar with ulterior motives. As we say in our politic, you give nothing but red meat. It's just bait to draw people in to a degenerate and utterly liberal worldview using the facade of reactionism.

I prefer the real thing. I prefer true collectivism. The economics of the left and the social views of the right. It is in the interests of the people to bring down illegitimate hierarchies. It is in our evolutionary interests to remove poisonous foreign entities from our collective body. It is absolutely in our interest to seek the healthiest breeding possible.

Individualism is a virus designed to weaken our naturally collectivist immune system.

Написао Tik-Tok, 25.11.2019 at 15:11

I can't take this post seriously from a faux-conservative who preaches the philosophy of spiritualist original intent but is nothing more than a trumpist neo-con zionist that perpetrates the same myths of post-modernists and Trotskyites.

It's the same William F Buckley bullshit. It all sounds good and then the people implementing it are no different from the left of 10 years before. While there is much truth in the post, it's still written by a liar with ulterior motives. As we say in our politic, you give nothing but red meat. It's just bait to draw people in to a degenerate and utterly liberal worldview using the facade of reactionism.

I prefer the real thing. I prefer true collectivism. The economics of the left and the social views of the right. It is in the interests of the people to bring down illegitimate hierarchies. It is in our evolutionary interests to remove poisonous foreign entities from our collective body. It is absolutely in our interest to seek the healthiest breeding possible.

Individualism is a virus designed to weaken our naturally collectivist immune system.

Are there any premises in this post that you disagree with or are you conceding that I'm an infallible God of science?

Написао Tribune Aquila, 25.11.2019 at 17:39

Are there any premises in this post that you disagree with or are you conceding that I'm an infallible God of science?

And yet you still haven't responded to my post in:
https://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=42606

For someone who constantly moans about me not responding, I always respond. It's you who fails to give a reply. 23 days and no response? You brought up the USS Liberty and had the audacity to claim it wasn't deliberate. You name yourself after Trump's speaker and pick that cringey boomer avatar, waffle on about 'muh liberty' and patriotism, and you dared deny the veterans of an Israeli attack? You have some explaining to do, boy.

Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, because evolution says that from simple life forms come complex ones. However the law of entropy says that time heads in a direction that increases disorder, not order. Simple life forms are obviously less complicated than complex ones. As a side, there is no other theory that violates the second law of thermodynamics other than evolution. Any questions?

Написао Gen Lewis Puller, 21.12.2019 at 20:19

Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, because evolution says that from simple life forms come complex ones. However the law of entropy says that time heads in a direction that increases disorder, not order. Simple life forms are obviously less complicated than complex ones. As a side, there is no other theory that violates the second law of thermodynamics other than evolution. Any questions?

This is a misunderstanding of entropy... entropy refers to the number of possible states. Generally this moves toward disorder, and the universe will one day be nothing more than a wasteland of sub-atomic particles, but, since consciousness and other non-physical states independent of physical-material reality can continue to evolve toward higher states, evolution and entropy are not in opposition toward one another. The double slit experiment confirms that physical-material reality is not fundamental, and is dependent on consciousness, but until this is more uniformly accepted, then many will continue to incorrectly view the entropic and evolutionary processes as in conflict.

Цитирај:

This is a misunderstanding of entropy... entropy refers to the number of possible states. Generally this moves toward disorder, and the universe will one day be nothing more than a wasteland of sub-atomic particles, but, since consciousness and other non-physical states independent of physical-material reality can continue to evolve toward higher states, evolution and entropy are not in opposition toward one another. The double slit experiment confirms that physical-material reality is not fundamental, and is dependent on consciousness, but until this is more uniformly accepted, then many will continue to incorrectly view the entropic and evolutionary processes as in conflict.

I am not arguing about non-physical states and processes but merely physical ones. Evolution as a purely physical process is not logical.

Цитирај:

Написао Gen Lewis Puller, 31.12.2019 at 22:39

This is a misunderstanding of entropy... entropy refers to the number of possible states. Generally this moves toward disorder, and the universe will one day be nothing more than a wasteland of sub-atomic particles, but, since consciousness and other non-physical states independent of physical-material reality can continue to evolve toward higher states, evolution and entropy are not in opposition toward one another. The double slit experiment confirms that physical-material reality is not fundamental, and is dependent on consciousness, but until this is more uniformly accepted, then many will continue to incorrectly view the entropic and evolutionary processes as in conflict.

I am not arguing about non-physical states and processes but merely physical ones. Evolution as a purely physical process is not logical.

Evolution is completely entropic, you start with the three branches, Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya which split off into trillions of different life forms. That's messy not orderly, believe me I know.