Excellent podcast Rolo. I believe that so called "conservatives" and "libertarians" are just as corrosive and a detriment to the folk as cultural Marxists. Listen to their main battle cry "lower my taxes" its all self centered. There's no community spirit no cultural, ethnic or racial solidarity. This is why so many on "the right" happiily work for and support the machinations of the Yid agenda. They have no loyalty just want that largess flowing from the modern day shtels of media, Hollywood, big pharma, Federal Reserve , AIPAC and ADL AKA the Kosher CHEKA. Examples of such national and cultural sell outs, Nikki Halley, Ron De Santis, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter (she'll never mention the hallowed "J" word), that fat bastard Limbaugh gone and not missed and the Christian Zionist "clerics". Eeven Trump he had no issues with his daughter marrying into the sleaze ridden greasy Kushner family his sons married into the tribe too. They want that fat Yid paycheck.
In drafting the nation's founding documents the founding fathers set up the nation as a system to protect wealth seizure by the state and a state in which a small oligarchy controlled decision making. The difference was the system allowed other to join the oligarchy. All that was needed was money and a prol Anglo Saxon outlook. Until the early 20th century when the Jews began to infiltrate thr elites and between 1945-1965 took it over supplanting the WASP elites that gave iittle or no push back. They partnered WASP and Jewish money. The founding fathers never imagined such a catastrophe as this. Nor could they have imagined a 21st Century Weimar USA would ever exist. Though Adam's and Jefferson both feared a decent into either mob rule, or oligarchic tyranny. From the beginning it was and remained a republic of money. That's what "conservatives" and "libertarians " really long for and they cover their avarice and greed with a facade of so called "traditional values" that most behind closed doors do not have.
I'm a European born naturalized American Eurocentric nationalist. I see only a nationalist people's authoritarian movement as the only way to save the west from collapse. Lowering taxes, sending billions to enemy states, and sucking up to lobbyists and mentally ill deviates won't do it, just hasten the fragmentation and destruction of the culture and folk.
We need a Freikorps to clean national, political and cultural house and a people's socialism not a liberal Marxist WOKE swindle. An ethnic socialism where the motto is "one for all and all for one" not "all for me and fuck you" which is and has been the motto in the USA and the west for far too long. Keep up the good work.
I think Americans believe they want a Republic, but their voting habits suggest they want a strong leader with near absolute power. It’s just in our nature. So long as he doesn’t call himself king they will let him keep the crown.
Republic yes agreed. I do believe we need to clean house . The current status quo serves only selfish interests. That's why multinational conglomerates support leftist WOKE agendas BLM, Antifa, and sexual perversions of all kinds and push for open borders. It's all about personal financial gain at the expense of the masses (peasants as you call them) and national culture and blood. Politics is about delivering to the people something the "right" in the USA never understood. Platitudes about "freedom", "liberty" and "democracy " don't mean much if anything to a debt ridden, brow beaten, hand to mouth living man or woman. That on top of this they are told they're evil for have Caucasian DNA, owe a debt to so called minorities and should tolerate sexual degeneracy including the chemical and surgical mutilation of their children. I think a movement similar to the flangists in Spain, the Syrian Baath Party or the Peronists Judicial Party would work quite well in the USA. The state and the multinationals work for the masses not the other way around. The masses/peasants would love it.
The Grubby ruling elites who plant "hopium" faux populists into the outraged political zeitgeist would like you to believe populism devolves into authoritarianism, just like they want the proles to believe that in order to compete with China the US must replicate its surveillance technocracy. This is ironic, as China is a Western social engineering project and often surveillance technology is tested on the Chinese before being deployed in the West. But I digress, authoritarianism does not guarantee a more well-run government, a safer society, or workers leading a more dignified life. What it does guarantee, is a repressive society where individual freedoms are eliminated and the possibility for change is almost nonexistent. That's why the US is "stuck" in a corrupt political duopoly. It's not because it's too democratic, but because it's actually too authoritarian. The Oligarchs/entrepreneurs are protected by the security state who have compromised every politician. These ghouls don't practice capitalism they deploy gangsterism. Clearly, it's not authoritarianism which will enhance lives as it's designed to protect power.
Don't be fooled by clean streets and a bullet train. If the ghouls wanted to end homelessness and to rebuild the US infrastructure it would happen overnight. They want you to believe such changes can only happen under even greater authoritarianism.
Grants concession that morality is subjective kind of renders his whole argument useless. If morality is subjective that on what grounds should the needs of the people trump those of the managers and renters? If morality is subjective than why is it wrong to engage in hypocrisy? When you concede that morality has no ontological value than there is no more that we "ought" to do for abstract reasons like "justice" or "liberty". There is only concrete self interest and there is absolute no way to quantify how the masses interest trump those of the managers. Can you prove how a million fairly content peasants and a hundred indifferent managers is better than a million unhappy peasants and a hundred very, very happy managers?
Authority is itself an abstract concept and the relevant question is what is rightful authority? Does "rightful" authority derive from managers and renters or the peasants? A little bit of both? From the sword? From God? Personally I think its a little bit from the sword and a lot from God. That is rightful authority is hierarchical, its not democratic and it doesn't derive from either the people or the renters. When it comes to how to manage the nation acting like the peasants need to pretend to care about political systems and ideologies is like saying women need to pretend they want to be Army Rangers, bank executives and firemen.
I know Rolos thoughts on the OT but the King/Emperor/Tsar/Furher/whoever ought to be the head of the nation just like Adam was supposed to be the head of a family. When Adam surrendered some of his God given authority to a woman and a talking snake it all went to shit.
Republicanism and Democracy are just Satanic full stop and anyone promoting them is going to hell.
You're a theist Dr. Livci, I wouldn't make such an argument to you. For you, morality is objective and I have zero desire to convince you otherwise. When you don't have that belief it is inconsistent to believe that morality is objective, and I also believe that there are some nasty behavioral consequences for atheists who have the hubris to believe that morality is objective and that they know what it is (that is to say, they know what morally correct behavior ought to look like for EVERYONE). I just know what is right for me and mine. We probably overlap quite a bit. If you're curious about the particulars of how this works Alex Macris wrote a great article that more or less describes my position (you'll note though that he makes the case for that the subjective morality I speak of is actually objective because it has an objective standard, namely individual preferences). https://treeofwoe.substack.com/p/the-dietary-theory-of-morality
Well my point is that its unreasonable for you to object to the hypocrisy, lies, treason etc etc of our enemies when they are simply pursing their interest with in the framework of a worldview where morality has no ontological existence. If will to power is all there is than anything goes. If you yourself dont even believe in ontological morality than you critiquing hypocrisy in others amounts to slave morality.
How is it "inconsistent" for shitlib atheists and whoever to force their morality on others? It would be inconsistent if they werent pursing their self interest by all means necessary. If basic virtue is subjective than that means consistency can either be useful or harmful depending on circumstances. It follows from that that our shared enemies will be consistent when it suits them and hypocrites when it suits them. And you have no grounds to object when you have surrendered ontological truth/morality. In fact your objections just telegraph confusion and flaccid pearl clutching over morals you dont even believe in yourself.
To be clear I dont idolize moral codes. I view morality as a tool kit that originated in the mind of God and was given to men as a means of running society. But it isn't analogous to God. Morals can be twisted, misused and misapplied like any tool. But the general point is that if you want to build something stable and nurturing for your people it simply cant be laid on a foundation of lies and hypocrisy. Liars are parasites on the honest. Thats just a perennial truth but there is no objective reason to not be a liar as per your world view other than "it doesn't work for me". Well it works for your enemies and who are you to go wagging your finger at them. Are you mad they are violating your rights and interfering with your self interest? Well that's exactly how they view people like you. In their world people like us shouldnt exist and as far as they are concerned its in their self interest to get rid of us. In a world where all is subjective and the highest law is "what works for me and my own" they are actually being more consistent than you.
While you are trying to shame them for not living up to ideals that neither you or them actually believe have objective existence they are consistently doing what works for them to achieve their self interest. You dont even believe in objective morals to begin with but you are complaining about liars. That makes you a hypocrite actually. You would presumably not want your children turned into NPC trannies but apparently the individual preference itself is how you measure morality. That is choice basically. So we ought to respect everyone's individual preferences so long as they don't infring on others? You really dont see the problem here?
If thats the hill you are going to die on than you are left trying to shame the shameless for not respecting your preference to not be like them. This is pathetic and I think its beneath you. What our enemies are engaged in isnt just a "preference" its evil, disgusting, and it ought not to exist.
You either can call evil out for what it is and act accordingly, or you need to play the brute will to power game in a universe where all is "preference" and nothing more better than those who "prefer" you be wiped from the face of the earth. Theres no third position.
I do believe in ontological morality, I just believe that the ultimate source of that morality is human consciousness. Based on what you've said, I think our positions are actually pretty close to one another. When I talk of consistency I speak of logical consistency. It is the consistent application of logic that lets us see that there is no objective value for economic goods. This is not intuitive, but it is nonetheless true. There is widespread agreement on the economic value of things at first glance, but look closer and you'll find that people only make exchanges because we value things unequally. To describe the situation you've laid out using my paradigm I would say the issue that we face is that there are people who signal that they value/adhere to certain moral standards while they don't. I see this as a form of social fraud. I also see all forms of fraud, theft, and coercion as immoral. This is logically tied to the fact that the vast majority of people would rankle at being defrauded, stolen from, or coerced, even if they might try to justify doing it themselves. What can I say about someone who would consider such abuse fair though? Since such a stance is hypocritical I can't say that such an individual is immoral, they just have a different code and one that is alien to my own. My ontological moral rules can be boiled down to two statements: Don't be a hypocrite and don't be delusional. Tied into this is the non-aggression principle. I think it is appropriate to respond to aggression proportionally. Saying morality is subjective isn't saying there aren't objective reasons for moral behavior. There are objective reasons that hypocrisy and deceit are bad for civilization. In order for me to make the ontological leap and say that those things are morally wrong, I invoke my preferences. This is just a philosophical exercise though. As far as I'm concerned there is good and evil. I look at it as levels of analysis. From my perspective there is good and evil, free will exists, and there are cosmic forces at play. I also believe that my perspective is one of many products of a material universe that follows basic rules of causality.
If the human mind is the source of morals and standards than this is just another way of saying they are social constructs. Human minds can hypothetically come up with almost an infinite amount of such constructs and there is no particular reason to adopt one over the other besides preference. You have elevated personal choice as some kind societal imperative but theres no reason for others who prefer another system to respect this. Why is personal choice sacred here when the human mind can come up with an infinite amount of moral codes and all of them are ontologically true? If they aren't all true than explain why yours is but theres isnt. "It works" isnt good enough because it just works for you.
About the people who would abuse others while screaming about being abused even when they arent....bro these people hate you...they literally want you dead. Not even exaggerating. They destroy the monuments of our ancestors, they are trying to turn our kids into catamites and they are replacing us with foreigners. They want us dead. Im going to go all caps here: THEY LITERALLY DONT THINK YOU HAVE ANY GROUNDS TO CALL THEM OUT ON ANYTHING AND THEY VIEW YOUR MORALS AS THINGS TO EITHER BE DISCARDED OR EXPLOITED AS THE SITUATION WARRANTS. Your opinions on whether or not their behaviour is good for society are irrelevant to them because they prefer an entirely different society.
And if personal choice and preferance are your highest values you have nothing to oppose them with on logical grounds because they dont share your logic. You want peoples actions to be in line with their stated principles but this is just your very subjective view on what constitutes good consistentcy. They will always do whatever furthers their principles and their first principle is basically nihilist revolution. They WILL ALWAYS CONSISTENTLY DO THAT. They are consistent and they are principled. Its a destructive parody of course but as long you are going to insist the human mind is the arbiter of good and evil there is no reason to agree or disagree that your version of consistency is better than theirs. Its just personal preference. Consistentcy of words matching deeds or consistently single mindedly achieving your goals no matter what is expedient to say at whatever given time. Consistent disregard for truth is still consistentcy and you can't seriously claim that humans are the arbiters of morality but truth has some existence independent of humans. If humans can say its moral to lie and its so because morality originates in the human mind than you cant say truth holds some special status regardless of what humans think. Disregarding truth is a personal preference that you just dont share. In short whoever is the arbiter of a societys morality is also the arbiter of truth and your moral framework concedes way too much to those who would happily piss on everything thats sacred to you.
You see lies and deceit destroying the civilization you love and conclude that they are objectively bad in general. But when you have already elevated the human mind and personal preferences to the very arbiters of morality and thus whether truth has any special value to begin with you have already surrendered the most potent weapons we have in the fight against such people.
Regarding our enemies I believe that we can build a coalition of conspecifics to fight back and ultimately subjugate them. I believe shared moral values is one of many means by which such a coalition can be built.
It isn't another way of saying its a social construct if you're not a blank slater. There are constraints set by nature, in this case genetics. Within the range of all possible genetic information, only some can be human. I think the very thing that sets us apart from other animals is related to certain fundamental differences in this information that correspond to the emergence of concepts like morality and free will.
Rolo, the obvious criticism to your thesis, which has been made for a very long time, is that a King is good, in fact the best ... if you have a good King. But, if you have a King who is evil or insane, you may not be able to be rid of him for decades. Sometimes it really seems that democracy has only one purpose, to let the people get rid of really bad leaders, and that is all. Unfortunately, I'm now thinking that power has faded to a very low level. Trump would never have been elected at all, if the establishment (old word, but really the same as 'deep state'), had believed there was any chance it could happen.
I think one needs to rid themselves of the delusion that the masses have any real power in a republic whatsoever. From there, you might be more able to roll the dice on the occasional bad king.
What you're advocating here is just another form of democracy, where people take power into their own hands whenever necessary to depose a bad king. So maybe we're in agreement: we need for democracy to work better.
Hmm ... 'occasional'. Maybe you could gather some data. Unfortunately, it seems that the 'good' Kings are so rare, they are often called 'the Great'. I wonder if you could make a list of the French and English Kings and rate them. Perhaps you are right and 'good' Kings are less rare than it seems to me.
-2.00: "When I think of ingroup and outgroup, I just don't think it falls along race and ethnic lines, but on the lines of people who have within them the capacity for cooperation and who that comes easily to" MILQUETOAST! MILQUETOAST!
I brought up your name in the comment section at the Simplicius substack. Somebody else posted that you've also gone by the aliases of Vincent Law and Roy Batty. You don't sound the least bit Slavic. Am I the last to know?
About Simplicius, I pointed out that he's been headlining his posts with predictions of an imminent Russian offensive which was supposed to happen in February. He slithered off by saying that it didn't happen because of an early mud season, and pointed to fine print in his earlier articles where he hedged his bets.
He's still predicting a summer offensive, unless there isn't one. Which, he admits, is really very likely.
HIs main point is that Russia is grinding forward all along the front, however slowly. In that sense, they're winning the war and they're performing acceptably well. It seems to me that you're living on the same planet as the 5D bloggers, after all.
And if you consider this a "doxxing" please feel free to delete. I'm curious if you would recommend your previous incarnations (if indeed the informer at simplicius is correct), or if your views have changed.
Excellent podcast Rolo. I believe that so called "conservatives" and "libertarians" are just as corrosive and a detriment to the folk as cultural Marxists. Listen to their main battle cry "lower my taxes" its all self centered. There's no community spirit no cultural, ethnic or racial solidarity. This is why so many on "the right" happiily work for and support the machinations of the Yid agenda. They have no loyalty just want that largess flowing from the modern day shtels of media, Hollywood, big pharma, Federal Reserve , AIPAC and ADL AKA the Kosher CHEKA. Examples of such national and cultural sell outs, Nikki Halley, Ron De Santis, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter (she'll never mention the hallowed "J" word), that fat bastard Limbaugh gone and not missed and the Christian Zionist "clerics". Eeven Trump he had no issues with his daughter marrying into the sleaze ridden greasy Kushner family his sons married into the tribe too. They want that fat Yid paycheck.
In drafting the nation's founding documents the founding fathers set up the nation as a system to protect wealth seizure by the state and a state in which a small oligarchy controlled decision making. The difference was the system allowed other to join the oligarchy. All that was needed was money and a prol Anglo Saxon outlook. Until the early 20th century when the Jews began to infiltrate thr elites and between 1945-1965 took it over supplanting the WASP elites that gave iittle or no push back. They partnered WASP and Jewish money. The founding fathers never imagined such a catastrophe as this. Nor could they have imagined a 21st Century Weimar USA would ever exist. Though Adam's and Jefferson both feared a decent into either mob rule, or oligarchic tyranny. From the beginning it was and remained a republic of money. That's what "conservatives" and "libertarians " really long for and they cover their avarice and greed with a facade of so called "traditional values" that most behind closed doors do not have.
I'm a European born naturalized American Eurocentric nationalist. I see only a nationalist people's authoritarian movement as the only way to save the west from collapse. Lowering taxes, sending billions to enemy states, and sucking up to lobbyists and mentally ill deviates won't do it, just hasten the fragmentation and destruction of the culture and folk.
We need a Freikorps to clean national, political and cultural house and a people's socialism not a liberal Marxist WOKE swindle. An ethnic socialism where the motto is "one for all and all for one" not "all for me and fuck you" which is and has been the motto in the USA and the west for far too long. Keep up the good work.
I think Americans believe they want a Republic, but their voting habits suggest they want a strong leader with near absolute power. It’s just in our nature. So long as he doesn’t call himself king they will let him keep the crown.
Republic yes agreed. I do believe we need to clean house . The current status quo serves only selfish interests. That's why multinational conglomerates support leftist WOKE agendas BLM, Antifa, and sexual perversions of all kinds and push for open borders. It's all about personal financial gain at the expense of the masses (peasants as you call them) and national culture and blood. Politics is about delivering to the people something the "right" in the USA never understood. Platitudes about "freedom", "liberty" and "democracy " don't mean much if anything to a debt ridden, brow beaten, hand to mouth living man or woman. That on top of this they are told they're evil for have Caucasian DNA, owe a debt to so called minorities and should tolerate sexual degeneracy including the chemical and surgical mutilation of their children. I think a movement similar to the flangists in Spain, the Syrian Baath Party or the Peronists Judicial Party would work quite well in the USA. The state and the multinationals work for the masses not the other way around. The masses/peasants would love it.
Great exchange on morality w/regard to shared identity. Worth a second listen.
The Grubby ruling elites who plant "hopium" faux populists into the outraged political zeitgeist would like you to believe populism devolves into authoritarianism, just like they want the proles to believe that in order to compete with China the US must replicate its surveillance technocracy. This is ironic, as China is a Western social engineering project and often surveillance technology is tested on the Chinese before being deployed in the West. But I digress, authoritarianism does not guarantee a more well-run government, a safer society, or workers leading a more dignified life. What it does guarantee, is a repressive society where individual freedoms are eliminated and the possibility for change is almost nonexistent. That's why the US is "stuck" in a corrupt political duopoly. It's not because it's too democratic, but because it's actually too authoritarian. The Oligarchs/entrepreneurs are protected by the security state who have compromised every politician. These ghouls don't practice capitalism they deploy gangsterism. Clearly, it's not authoritarianism which will enhance lives as it's designed to protect power.
Don't be fooled by clean streets and a bullet train. If the ghouls wanted to end homelessness and to rebuild the US infrastructure it would happen overnight. They want you to believe such changes can only happen under even greater authoritarianism.
Grants concession that morality is subjective kind of renders his whole argument useless. If morality is subjective that on what grounds should the needs of the people trump those of the managers and renters? If morality is subjective than why is it wrong to engage in hypocrisy? When you concede that morality has no ontological value than there is no more that we "ought" to do for abstract reasons like "justice" or "liberty". There is only concrete self interest and there is absolute no way to quantify how the masses interest trump those of the managers. Can you prove how a million fairly content peasants and a hundred indifferent managers is better than a million unhappy peasants and a hundred very, very happy managers?
Authority is itself an abstract concept and the relevant question is what is rightful authority? Does "rightful" authority derive from managers and renters or the peasants? A little bit of both? From the sword? From God? Personally I think its a little bit from the sword and a lot from God. That is rightful authority is hierarchical, its not democratic and it doesn't derive from either the people or the renters. When it comes to how to manage the nation acting like the peasants need to pretend to care about political systems and ideologies is like saying women need to pretend they want to be Army Rangers, bank executives and firemen.
I know Rolos thoughts on the OT but the King/Emperor/Tsar/Furher/whoever ought to be the head of the nation just like Adam was supposed to be the head of a family. When Adam surrendered some of his God given authority to a woman and a talking snake it all went to shit.
Republicanism and Democracy are just Satanic full stop and anyone promoting them is going to hell.
The authority of God translates to the authority of priests. Plato's ideal.
The esoteric right's position, as exemplified in the writings of Evola and others, is a society under the authority of warriors.
You're a theist Dr. Livci, I wouldn't make such an argument to you. For you, morality is objective and I have zero desire to convince you otherwise. When you don't have that belief it is inconsistent to believe that morality is objective, and I also believe that there are some nasty behavioral consequences for atheists who have the hubris to believe that morality is objective and that they know what it is (that is to say, they know what morally correct behavior ought to look like for EVERYONE). I just know what is right for me and mine. We probably overlap quite a bit. If you're curious about the particulars of how this works Alex Macris wrote a great article that more or less describes my position (you'll note though that he makes the case for that the subjective morality I speak of is actually objective because it has an objective standard, namely individual preferences). https://treeofwoe.substack.com/p/the-dietary-theory-of-morality
Well my point is that its unreasonable for you to object to the hypocrisy, lies, treason etc etc of our enemies when they are simply pursing their interest with in the framework of a worldview where morality has no ontological existence. If will to power is all there is than anything goes. If you yourself dont even believe in ontological morality than you critiquing hypocrisy in others amounts to slave morality.
How is it "inconsistent" for shitlib atheists and whoever to force their morality on others? It would be inconsistent if they werent pursing their self interest by all means necessary. If basic virtue is subjective than that means consistency can either be useful or harmful depending on circumstances. It follows from that that our shared enemies will be consistent when it suits them and hypocrites when it suits them. And you have no grounds to object when you have surrendered ontological truth/morality. In fact your objections just telegraph confusion and flaccid pearl clutching over morals you dont even believe in yourself.
To be clear I dont idolize moral codes. I view morality as a tool kit that originated in the mind of God and was given to men as a means of running society. But it isn't analogous to God. Morals can be twisted, misused and misapplied like any tool. But the general point is that if you want to build something stable and nurturing for your people it simply cant be laid on a foundation of lies and hypocrisy. Liars are parasites on the honest. Thats just a perennial truth but there is no objective reason to not be a liar as per your world view other than "it doesn't work for me". Well it works for your enemies and who are you to go wagging your finger at them. Are you mad they are violating your rights and interfering with your self interest? Well that's exactly how they view people like you. In their world people like us shouldnt exist and as far as they are concerned its in their self interest to get rid of us. In a world where all is subjective and the highest law is "what works for me and my own" they are actually being more consistent than you.
While you are trying to shame them for not living up to ideals that neither you or them actually believe have objective existence they are consistently doing what works for them to achieve their self interest. You dont even believe in objective morals to begin with but you are complaining about liars. That makes you a hypocrite actually. You would presumably not want your children turned into NPC trannies but apparently the individual preference itself is how you measure morality. That is choice basically. So we ought to respect everyone's individual preferences so long as they don't infring on others? You really dont see the problem here?
If thats the hill you are going to die on than you are left trying to shame the shameless for not respecting your preference to not be like them. This is pathetic and I think its beneath you. What our enemies are engaged in isnt just a "preference" its evil, disgusting, and it ought not to exist.
You either can call evil out for what it is and act accordingly, or you need to play the brute will to power game in a universe where all is "preference" and nothing more better than those who "prefer" you be wiped from the face of the earth. Theres no third position.
I do believe in ontological morality, I just believe that the ultimate source of that morality is human consciousness. Based on what you've said, I think our positions are actually pretty close to one another. When I talk of consistency I speak of logical consistency. It is the consistent application of logic that lets us see that there is no objective value for economic goods. This is not intuitive, but it is nonetheless true. There is widespread agreement on the economic value of things at first glance, but look closer and you'll find that people only make exchanges because we value things unequally. To describe the situation you've laid out using my paradigm I would say the issue that we face is that there are people who signal that they value/adhere to certain moral standards while they don't. I see this as a form of social fraud. I also see all forms of fraud, theft, and coercion as immoral. This is logically tied to the fact that the vast majority of people would rankle at being defrauded, stolen from, or coerced, even if they might try to justify doing it themselves. What can I say about someone who would consider such abuse fair though? Since such a stance is hypocritical I can't say that such an individual is immoral, they just have a different code and one that is alien to my own. My ontological moral rules can be boiled down to two statements: Don't be a hypocrite and don't be delusional. Tied into this is the non-aggression principle. I think it is appropriate to respond to aggression proportionally. Saying morality is subjective isn't saying there aren't objective reasons for moral behavior. There are objective reasons that hypocrisy and deceit are bad for civilization. In order for me to make the ontological leap and say that those things are morally wrong, I invoke my preferences. This is just a philosophical exercise though. As far as I'm concerned there is good and evil. I look at it as levels of analysis. From my perspective there is good and evil, free will exists, and there are cosmic forces at play. I also believe that my perspective is one of many products of a material universe that follows basic rules of causality.
If the human mind is the source of morals and standards than this is just another way of saying they are social constructs. Human minds can hypothetically come up with almost an infinite amount of such constructs and there is no particular reason to adopt one over the other besides preference. You have elevated personal choice as some kind societal imperative but theres no reason for others who prefer another system to respect this. Why is personal choice sacred here when the human mind can come up with an infinite amount of moral codes and all of them are ontologically true? If they aren't all true than explain why yours is but theres isnt. "It works" isnt good enough because it just works for you.
About the people who would abuse others while screaming about being abused even when they arent....bro these people hate you...they literally want you dead. Not even exaggerating. They destroy the monuments of our ancestors, they are trying to turn our kids into catamites and they are replacing us with foreigners. They want us dead. Im going to go all caps here: THEY LITERALLY DONT THINK YOU HAVE ANY GROUNDS TO CALL THEM OUT ON ANYTHING AND THEY VIEW YOUR MORALS AS THINGS TO EITHER BE DISCARDED OR EXPLOITED AS THE SITUATION WARRANTS. Your opinions on whether or not their behaviour is good for society are irrelevant to them because they prefer an entirely different society.
And if personal choice and preferance are your highest values you have nothing to oppose them with on logical grounds because they dont share your logic. You want peoples actions to be in line with their stated principles but this is just your very subjective view on what constitutes good consistentcy. They will always do whatever furthers their principles and their first principle is basically nihilist revolution. They WILL ALWAYS CONSISTENTLY DO THAT. They are consistent and they are principled. Its a destructive parody of course but as long you are going to insist the human mind is the arbiter of good and evil there is no reason to agree or disagree that your version of consistency is better than theirs. Its just personal preference. Consistentcy of words matching deeds or consistently single mindedly achieving your goals no matter what is expedient to say at whatever given time. Consistent disregard for truth is still consistentcy and you can't seriously claim that humans are the arbiters of morality but truth has some existence independent of humans. If humans can say its moral to lie and its so because morality originates in the human mind than you cant say truth holds some special status regardless of what humans think. Disregarding truth is a personal preference that you just dont share. In short whoever is the arbiter of a societys morality is also the arbiter of truth and your moral framework concedes way too much to those who would happily piss on everything thats sacred to you.
You see lies and deceit destroying the civilization you love and conclude that they are objectively bad in general. But when you have already elevated the human mind and personal preferences to the very arbiters of morality and thus whether truth has any special value to begin with you have already surrendered the most potent weapons we have in the fight against such people.
Regarding our enemies I believe that we can build a coalition of conspecifics to fight back and ultimately subjugate them. I believe shared moral values is one of many means by which such a coalition can be built.
It isn't another way of saying its a social construct if you're not a blank slater. There are constraints set by nature, in this case genetics. Within the range of all possible genetic information, only some can be human. I think the very thing that sets us apart from other animals is related to certain fundamental differences in this information that correspond to the emergence of concepts like morality and free will.
Rolo, the obvious criticism to your thesis, which has been made for a very long time, is that a King is good, in fact the best ... if you have a good King. But, if you have a King who is evil or insane, you may not be able to be rid of him for decades. Sometimes it really seems that democracy has only one purpose, to let the people get rid of really bad leaders, and that is all. Unfortunately, I'm now thinking that power has faded to a very low level. Trump would never have been elected at all, if the establishment (old word, but really the same as 'deep state'), had believed there was any chance it could happen.
I think one needs to rid themselves of the delusion that the masses have any real power in a republic whatsoever. From there, you might be more able to roll the dice on the occasional bad king.
What you're advocating here is just another form of democracy, where people take power into their own hands whenever necessary to depose a bad king. So maybe we're in agreement: we need for democracy to work better.
Hmm ... 'occasional'. Maybe you could gather some data. Unfortunately, it seems that the 'good' Kings are so rare, they are often called 'the Great'. I wonder if you could make a list of the French and English Kings and rate them. Perhaps you are right and 'good' Kings are less rare than it seems to me.
Actually, many of the "greats" are the tyrants and corrupt kings that you fear. Peter the Great, Casimir the Great, Cyrus the Great, etc.
-2.00: "When I think of ingroup and outgroup, I just don't think it falls along race and ethnic lines, but on the lines of people who have within them the capacity for cooperation and who that comes easily to" MILQUETOAST! MILQUETOAST!
I brought up your name in the comment section at the Simplicius substack. Somebody else posted that you've also gone by the aliases of Vincent Law and Roy Batty. You don't sound the least bit Slavic. Am I the last to know?
About Simplicius, I pointed out that he's been headlining his posts with predictions of an imminent Russian offensive which was supposed to happen in February. He slithered off by saying that it didn't happen because of an early mud season, and pointed to fine print in his earlier articles where he hedged his bets.
He's still predicting a summer offensive, unless there isn't one. Which, he admits, is really very likely.
HIs main point is that Russia is grinding forward all along the front, however slowly. In that sense, they're winning the war and they're performing acceptably well. It seems to me that you're living on the same planet as the 5D bloggers, after all.
And if you consider this a "doxxing" please feel free to delete. I'm curious if you would recommend your previous incarnations (if indeed the informer at simplicius is correct), or if your views have changed.