Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Biological explanation for Liberalism.

Biological explanation for Liberalism.
November 20, 2012, 06:29:01 PM
The lack of stress is turning every body more effeminate. Generally stress increases your "male" hormones, comfort decreases them and raises your "female" hormones.

And I mean real stress, like "my entire family is going to die if this hunt doesn't go as planned" stress.

Re: Biological explanation for Liberalism.
November 20, 2012, 09:05:18 PM
Who says so? Are you talking about physical stress, then it sounds likely.

I read psycological stress in childhood could even impare growth.

People became fags during the neolithics because robust tissue building is more expencive in nutrients than "just enough to work a plow."

Re: Biological explanation for Liberalism.
November 20, 2012, 09:16:02 PM
Caste is not something absolute. It still exists.

Some decent more from the great warriors of the past.
Some from the leaders.
Some from the skilled workers.


Populations decline in the stocastic process where evolution reward the one who breeds more than the other. When there is no direction, everything drowns in this pool of entropy.

Re: Biological explanation for Liberalism.
November 20, 2012, 11:12:25 PM
If all existence is a war of ideas, then the law of causality dictates that an idea must manifest into the physical realm where it fully resolves itself. Liberalism is one such idea which lays out (biological/ sociological/psychosocial) conditions, such that it may exist (physically) and reach resolution, simultaneously. 

I don't think it is purely a lack of masculinity due to the comforts of industrial society.
There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us

Re: Biological explanation for Liberalism.
November 21, 2012, 01:57:13 AM
The lack of stress is turning every body more effeminate.

What about a permissive upbringing? I'd say it is the other way around. The Caucasoid genetic defect of liberalism causes radical egalitarian, permissive comfort seekers. Applied eugenics could wipe this out quickly but their subideology of sexual sterility, which includes feminism, abortion, contraceptives, miscegenation, homosexuality and abstinence for Gaea will eventually rid us of liberals anyway.

Re: Biological explanation for Liberalism.
November 21, 2012, 03:28:56 AM
If all existence is a war of ideas, then the law of causality dictates that an idea must manifest into the physical realm where it fully resolves itself. Liberalism is one such idea which lays out (biological/ sociological/psychosocial) conditions, such that it may exist (physically) and reach resolution, simultaneously.

Do you mean to say liberalism is a process that will inevitably end? One thing I have noticed is that most liberals I talk with hate the concept of history as an ongoing struggle of elemental forces and especially sayings such "well, you know, nothing lasts forever (including liberalism ;))". Their conception of history seems to be one of man existing apart from nature or of becoming enlightened and overcoming nature rather than finding balance with it.

Re: Biological explanation for Liberalism.
November 21, 2012, 11:11:34 AM
Darwinism, taken at face value (the level most people take it at), allows us to feel guiltless in our degeneracy; clearly it isn't degenerate, since we can only progress as a species!  If the only way is up, whatever we do is going up!

History is seen as Man's relatively short and simple ascension from brutality to civilisation; an understanding of the cyclical nature of the rise and fall of high civilisations is lost to most people.  Furthermore, so many are so attached to what is ultimately even for them a horrible way of life that they themselves feel threatened when it is suggested that this way of life ought cease.

Re: Biological explanation for Liberalism.
November 21, 2012, 04:02:22 PM
If all existence is a war of ideas, then the law of causality dictates that an idea must manifest into the physical realm where it fully resolves itself. Liberalism is one such idea which lays out (biological/ sociological/psychosocial) conditions, such that it may exist (physically) and reach resolution, simultaneously.

Do you mean to say liberalism is a process that will inevitably end? One thing I have noticed is that most liberals I talk with hate the concept of history as an ongoing struggle of elemental forces and especially sayings such "well, you know, nothing lasts forever (including liberalism ;))". Their conception of history seems to be one of man existing apart from nature or of becoming enlightened and overcoming nature rather than finding balance with it.

Yes. It is self negating (evil), but will return, perhaps under a different name, when the stars are right again......

If the universe is ordered, it is probably more likely to assume that human history is order arising out of collapsing order, rather than order arising from anarchy. Recorded history seems to confirm this hypothesis.
There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us

Re: Biological explanation for Liberalism.
November 22, 2012, 11:42:21 AM
If all existence is a war of ideas, then the law of causality dictates that an idea must manifest into the physical realm where it fully resolves itself. Liberalism is one such idea which lays out (biological/ sociological/psychosocial) conditions, such that it may exist (physically) and reach resolution, simultaneously.

Do you mean to say liberalism is a process that will inevitably end? One thing I have noticed is that most liberals I talk with hate the concept of history as an ongoing struggle of elemental forces and especially sayings such "well, you know, nothing lasts forever (including liberalism ;))". Their conception of history seems to be one of man existing apart from nature or of becoming enlightened and overcoming nature rather than finding balance with it.

Yes. It is self negating (evil), but will return, perhaps under a different name, when the stars are right again......

If the universe is ordered, it is probably more likely to assume that human history is order arising out of collapsing order, rather than order arising from anarchy. Recorded history seems to confirm this hypothesis.

I tend to agree; as the eventual results of such a system can only lead to large-scale destruction of environmental resources, which, coupled with ongoing population hyper-expansion won’t be able to sustain itself.

But if a new order is to arise out of the collapsed remnants of another, won’t this eventually collapse too. And if that is the case, what is the point?

I think liberalism is a one off. Before it there was only a gradual progression of a natural order. ‘Conservative’ and ‘liberal’ are modern definitions given more or less equal standing but in reality, one is to continue in that natural order as opposed to a complete derailment.

Re: Biological explanation for Liberalism.
November 23, 2012, 06:54:16 AM
Do you mean to say liberalism is a process that will inevitably end? One thing I have noticed is that most liberals I talk with hate the concept of history as an ongoing struggle of elemental forces and especially sayings such "well, you know, nothing lasts forever (including liberalism ;))". Their conception of history seems to be one of man existing apart from nature or of becoming enlightened and overcoming nature rather than finding balance with it.

I think you've hit on the essential nature of the left. If we're allowed to talk as though there is a 'pure' left and a 'pure' right, from which all variants of the left/right derive their energy from, then for the left this is proposition that man exists apart from anything prior to man.

Theoretically this essential nature of leftism was expoused most recently (and elaborately) by Sartre and the continental existentialists (who gave way to critical theory, structuralism and post structuralism and all that guff anyone who has done tertiary education in any sociological/cultural area will have encountered. All this basically tries to impart the idea that there is no text independent (read Prior), to the interpretation - a text is the accidental result of the interplay of impersonal rules of discource and linguistic structures and the author is dead). The idea the "existence preceeds essence" in existentialism is the idea that everyone makes it all up as they go along. There is no fixed basis from which concepts like beauty, justice, morality (and increasingly, among the relativist strands of structualism you can glimpse in Foucault et al, even truth) are measured from. There is only you and your interpretation of your environment, and even this interpretation is a product of the environment. You can see how this ends in either newer interpretations of Buddhism or pyschosis.

I understand that Heidegger is the response from the right in the realm of the above schools (continental philosophy, existentialism, etc). For him in his books like being and time, life is preparation for death. There may not be the anthropomorphic entity known as 'God', but there is death. No one escapes death and so death is something prior to existence and something that gives life a meaninig, independently of individual perspective. Only death is real.

It's interesting to ponder over what exactly is the cause of the left's incessant advance, whether it is the result of economic forces, biological, cultural; whether it can be traced to certain conscious interest groups or not or whether there is no one driving. ONe intersting digression is that the nature of liberalism has been usurped since it's conceptual birth in the 19th century with people like Locke etc. Liberalism used to mean freedom of association, respect for property rights and fairly free market economics. The defeat of scientific marxism in the west after communism's collapse saw the rise of the 'new left' and cultural marxism which is different from marxism proper (old left) in being concerned not with a deterministic theory about the necessary rise of the worker at a certain fixed stage in the relations of production underpinning capitalism but instead with new fuzzy notions such as human rights, gay marriage, minority groups and all that. Liberalism has experienced mission creep. The average fucking member of a liberal party 50 years ago would be expelled now. Hell, even the average member of a left wing marxist group 50 years ago would probably be expelled from a liberal party now as they were never concerned with gay marriage, minority groups and a general hatred of every single traditional cultural arrangement!

But yes, the nature of the left is humanism: man exists prior to any essence. The nature of the right is essentialism: man exists in relation to something absolute and prior to man (be that God (religion, perennialism), the will to power (Nietzscheanism), nature (science, romanticism), death (Metal, Heidegger) or whatever).

The question is: can you run a society totally devoid of an essential base (race, religion, nation?) or bound by only the most superficial, lowest common denominator base (sex, eating, wealth and pleasure). If it is physically possible, is such a society desirable?

Re: Biological explanation for Liberalism.
November 23, 2012, 04:03:35 PM

I tend to agree; as the eventual results of such a system can only lead to large-scale destruction of environmental resources, which, coupled with ongoing population hyper-expansion won’t be able to sustain itself.

But if a new order is to arise out of the collapsed remnants of another, won’t this eventually collapse too. And if that is the case, what is the point?

The point, perhaps, is conservation. To hold onto wisdom such that it will not have to be re-learned.

I think liberalism is a one off. Before it there was only a gradual progression of a natural order. ‘Conservative’ and ‘liberal’ are modern definitions given more or less equal standing but in reality, one is to continue in that natural order as opposed to a complete derailment.

I'm willing to accept the one off nature of liberalism. I submit this hypothesis: The discovery of fossil fuels has gradually given man tools which have provided the illusion that he is free from the bonds of nature. Liberalism is the philosophy of the industrial age.

I still suspect that liberalism is an ethos that exists throughout history. Industrial society created the security & prosperity necessary to make it a global force of decay, rather than localized to a single empire.

I'm torn between the two.
There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us