We share a disdain, Laurent, for Darwin's insufferable superiority. In When Words Die, Worlds Die, I cite Paul Hawkins:
"I want to end with Blessed Unrest again and the Fuegian people, the Yamana, about whom Darwin said, “I believe if the world was searched, no lower grade of man could be found.” A missionary orphan named Thomas Bridges spent 21 years putting 32,000 of their words into a dictionary before he died; Shakespeare used 20,000 distinct words in his entire collection. It has more verbs than English. These describe subtle nuances of everyday life, from marrying someone selfishly or with impure intent to two people looking at each other, hoping the other will do something that neither wants to do. The word for depression is the same as a crab molting its shell. The word yamana itself means the highest form of life, living, being alive. [92] There are now only two yamana speakers, Paul Hawken reports, and they don’t talk to each other." https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/when-words-die-worlds-die
My latest also happened to talk about Yuval, about whom I've done six episodes, linked here: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/souls-and-roles. I find him to sometimes be so blunt in revealing the WEF agenda that it seems like he wants it to fail. His post-Oct 7th endorsement of the Israel narrative was sickening. In the final video linked there, Alien Nation, I plotted famous atheists and theists by their beliefs on the X-axis and their sense of superiority on the Y-axis. I found that smug theists like Ben Shapiro had more in common with smug atheists than either did with people who saw others as equal, no matter their belief in a God.
Wow, thank you very much Tereza. That was fascinating to read. Louis-Ferdinand Céline writes, “The only true regret of the bourgeois is not having been born a Jew.” - I still remember when supremacists of all stripes flocked together under the banner "we are all in this together" - apparently it is they who do not want to evolve.
Falahi, thank you for subbing my stack! We share a love of etymology and your bio had so much food for thought. Transcribed here for others: falaḥ (فلح): To plow, cultivate or till. fallāḥ (فلّاح): one who plows; a peasant, farmer. falāḥ (فلاح): the working out of the will of the Divine planted within us; the perfection of latent goodness; the means and ends of a fruitful life; salvation.
The back cover of my book says that it holds one consistent belief: that people are inherently good and, when they behave badly, systems and stories are to blame. It's been the most controversial statement of the book. The belief in evil is far more dogmatic than a belief in God, and is equally held by atheists and theists. Of course, a belief in the evil of others is also a belief in one's own moral supremacy.
So 'the perfection of latent goodness' is speaking my language.
And I love that Céline quote. I appreciate how much Laurent is bringing this out. And since you are also interested in him, you might like these:
While I have my issues with Darwin ... l'm very skeptical about this white knighting for the Yamana. Primitive peoples do exist. Just accept this as part of reality.
The Yamana were mostly naked, covered with a thick layer of whale blubber or bear fat, I forget exactly. This protected them from the elements, unlike Darwin's men who died in droves from exposure in their wet wool clothing. Which is primitive?
Your use of declarative sentences and admonishment to accept 'reality,' of which you are the sole arbiter, reveals your gender. Military base brat, perhaps? That would certainly fit the assumption of superiority over primitive people like native Hawaiians and your inherent 'right' to use their island as an aggressive launching point, and therefore target, for foreign weapons.
I remember a photograph of Darwin where he looked like an old monkey.Maybe thats why he tried telling everyone that they are descendants of monkeys,I dont know.Its a purely materialistic world-view.Probably became the Rothschilds second-most loved book,after Das Kapital.
Vox Day has been examining the conventional evolutionary model for some time (with a very critical eye), worth a read if the subject interests you: https://voxday.net/?s=evolution.
I think Darwin did great work. He was a thorough observer. The word "fittest" is very flexible. Stronger? Better suited? More violent? More intelligent? More ruthless? Less risk avoiding? More collaborative? More manipulative? More adaptive? More funny? More beautiful? Also, he observed animals mostly. Humans aren't animals, no matter if of our genome is 99% identical with chimpanzees.
Materialism isn't his fault. The sickness of materialism in natural science and science in general is a multifaceted issue, although its central root remains Malthusianism with its idea of the fixed size pie. Einstein and Bohr killed materialism as we know it once and for all on the theoretical level. Everybody who remains nowadays a materialist is really a denier of science in itself. Darwin was much more pragmatic and faithful to observation than all those feeding on his work later on who forged their own little ideologies for their own purposes. Everybody took out of it anything that suited their own taste and objective.
In the middle ages people were tortured to death for failing to be the right kind of Christians. Did Jesus advocate for that? Was it somewhere written in the Evangiles that we should torture people to death because they don't believe the right thing? Was Jesus responsible, that these people were tortured? The guys who collected money from people promising them a place in Heaven in exchange, these were probably also a kind of proto-materialists.
Well, I guess materialists are always and since ever those who move from esoteric to exoteric, from real world experience to hearsay and interpretation, mixed up with their own survival instinct and the seven sins.
I basically agree. I was not attacking Darwin, but Darwinism, as taught in school. Just like Freudians are more dogmatic than Freud, so are Darwinists to Darwin. However, I believe that "accidental changes" and "natural selection" can account for small evolution within a species (this Darwin established, and it is common sense), but not for speciation, the birth of one species out of another, and ultimately evolution of all species from the primal bacteria by mere random mutation, which is what Darwinism is really about. Darwin was an honest scientist, but he was wrong. There is something else going on, either of the Intelligent Design type or of the vitalist type (Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields).
Good to hear that! I also completely agree, that speciation is inexplicable with mutation. Darwin was a pioneer in many ways. We have to see his results in a historic context. Nowadays we have tools of exploration he couldn't even have dreamt of. Which is why Dawkins is so ridiculous.
Translation: Your Jewish overlord, goy, will do this to you.
"Wait for our Messiah to return, goy, surely it will happen if everyone in the world is converted to our Yehohshuite Jewish cult that worships a Jew that other Jews don't worship and don't have to, and surely that will be your salvation, goy. Here are some crumbs from the master's table, little dog, now consider yourself blessed and "set apart", like we've always been. Take our hand-me-down narcissistic fantasy religion and hate your family and race now, goy. Eventually we'll do whatever we want to you with even more technology you'll invent for us, goy, and you'll pay for it goy, and it will just be another test of your FAITH, goy".
The true villain here is not Darwin, or even Nietzsche, but Kant. It was Kant who argued that morality could be bootstrapped from something intrinsic to humanity (reason) alone. With one fell blow God was made dispensable and ethics cut adrift from divine authority. Western moral philosophy has degenerated further ever since - a significant milestone of course being Nietzsche's championing of the psychopath. Our moral compass is so out of whack today that demons like Yuval Harari receive a standing ovation for declaring that the technological future is so bright that 90% of us will be redundant. Welcome to the rainbow at the end of the Enlightenment project folks.
Moral authority *can only* derive from a deity. Anything else is simply one man's word against another, no matter how it is dressed up in scientific or philosophical garb. No amount of Science can conjure right and wrong from quantum physics. Natural law and moral law *are* two independent orders of things - with no overlap I might add. What little remains in the West of morality is entirely derived from Christian teachings. Darwin's theory of biological evolution by natural selection is utterly devoid of moral meaning and any imputed to it by moral philosophers following in the Kantian tradition - the worst offender being Hegel - is a subversion of moral teachings. So the fittest survive and get procreate - we think this was somehow unknown before Darwin formalized his theory? Did Christ not understand this iron law of the natural world?
The good news is that Darwinism operates on many levels. A society is a super organism which requires a strong moral 'backbone' in order to support itself and function. One whose moral framework is degraded beyond a certain level will collapse and perish, to be replaced by another 'fitter' one. The Enlightenment has doomed Christendom and the selfish gene will ensure that the inheritors of the West will be a God-fearing folk. Stick that in your in and smoke it Mr Dawkins.
I sense emotionality and outrage, but a lack of sound science. You, as well as those who oppose Darwin, create a false dilemma whereby life must have a mind if complex information is conveyed. Living beings at least have the ability to react to the biological information around them. So life itself is God. This, of course is not the same thing as saying that Man is God, which is what Harrari tries to turn it into. But if you think it through, he is a Darwin denier and so you shouldn't want to be. Harrari doesn't like the idea of constraints, as Jews often don't because they want what they want when they want, consequences be damned. Therefore, he wants to find a way to cheat Darwin, as the Talmud was very much their way to cheat God (and no, this is not me saying that Darwin is God or that because the Talmud was written to subvert the Old Testament that the Old Testament is therefore good or pro white. It is in fact, pro Jewish. Something I'm sure we'd both agree on).
It is very superficial to think that the left today are in any way Darwinists. Because western man has been so successful from a darwinian perspective (resources acquisition, invention, etc.) that he has been put in the simultaneously blessed (and cursed) position of being able to shield himself from the harsh Darwinian realities that were, under the historical reality of the day before yesterday, taken as par for the course. Making him fatter, weaker, gayer, more self hating than nature would allow because under the law of Darwin, such creatures could never survive. Western man is dying from a lack of Darwin, not too much of him.
But not just a lack of Darwin in the physical sense of ridiculously lowered mortality salience as a result of the medical innovations western man developed because of the high IQ harsh Darwinian selection pressures eventuated in, but in a psychological orientation because mutations of the body foretell mutations of the mind, seeing as how the mind is 84 percent of the genome. These mental mutations manifest themselves in maladaptive ideas (putting other races first, inverting sex roles, feminized men, masculine women, attacking your history/culture, favoring the out race). One literally sees it in the asymmetrical mutated faces of such people. Dutton does an excellent job of discussing this in 'How to Judge People by what they Look Like'.
Such talk frustrates me from a man as intelligent as you, because the same people who attack the west, attack the reality of two sexes, who say we should allow non whites to kill/murder/destroy our cities justify such outrages on anti-Darwinian grounds. We shouldn't fight for our group genetic interests, we should be pathologically altruistic even if it hurts us in the game of biological survival. We have people arguing for blacks/nons be rewarded with freedom for raping/murdering their own children. And you think the problem is too much Darwin? I'm sorry, Laurent. This is as immoral as any of the Jewish insanity in the Bible which you rightly condemn. And this is a problem with folks such as yourself and Adam Green who zero in on the JQ. You begin to think that whites fighting for their own Darwinian interests is some sort of Jewish psyop. This is suicidal Green pilled Gnostic lunacy and just as deadly as replacement or Jewish lies. Encouraging whites not to fight for their own biological interest brought us to this point. Lamenting our own people conquering other parts of the world would entail lying about how much better we made the world and would also entail turning against the Grecco/Roman tradition you claim to cherish. And even if western man had not made everywhere he went better, more peaceful, civilized, with a greater reverence for law/order/nature, it is destructive to advocate for the rights of these other groups who make it clear that they only desire our death.
Next you'll be saying that the only reason non whites are violent is because of white racism, when they ruined their own countries that whites ran with great efficiency. The JQ is important but it has blinded you to other existential realities that people face and encouraged you to swallow anti-imperialist anti-darwinian ideas which strengthen Jews and weaken our people.
One of the reasons the right is so limp in it's response against the people who want to destroy our institutions and replace our people and decry our ancestors as evil racists is because they rejected Darwin and said what really matters is Jesus. One of the primary characteristics of the left who supposedly fetishize Darwin (at least on a superficial level) is that they deny biological and racial reality. Scientific truth will go the way of the dodo bird without a European mind to conceive and actualize it. Don't forget that and don't toss it aside. I am reminded of when you told Kevin that Muslims once cared more about science than Christians while ignoring that they borrowed everything from Europeans and didn't carry it nearly as far as Europeans would because they couldn't. Their IQs didn't reach the same heights because they weren't under the same selection pressures (stable harsh ecologies) and they themselves fell into dysgenics, feminism, permissiveness, as we are now. Hence, now they're inbred (the permissiveness having happened in the context of weak selection and low IQ and so the only Arabs left to react to the decline were themselves stupid), they're dumb and contribute nothing but Islamic studies.
Evolution is simply the mechanical formulation via biology of the deeply religious belief of the west in progress and historical development to an aim, which was first enunciated way back in Gothic Christianity by people like Joachim of Floris and is to be radically contrasted with the Classical belief in descent from a Golden age and the Orthodox,Islamic and Jewish belief in apocalyptic.
The Reformation valorised daily work as it's urban bourgeoisie expression once the chivalrous and aristocratic expression of deed and quest and the symbolic expression of clergy were no longer possibile due to urbanisation.Then the Puritans gave it a an even more extreme iconoclastic and fundamentalist individual bent.
Finally in the late secular centuries of ours the replacement of Gods personal existence with simply a universal Will ,which is what evolution and progress really mean, which is indistinguishable from the modern western idea of God/'the Universe'.
Methinks Guyenot is seriously misrepresenting Schopenhauer here.
He creates an artificial temporal proximity between his cherry-picked Schope-quotes with Darwin's works, to give the false impression that Schopes disagreed with Darwin's conclusions.
The snippets LG presents as disagreement here are merely Schopes defending his "Will to Live" metaphysics against what he saw as an doctrinal threat from pure deterministic materialism.
Then this: "The Darwinian vulgate is largely responsible for the widespread psychopathy of the elites who govern us today."
Nonsense. It might provide a certain means of rationalization, but the psychopathology would exists and persist regardless. LG himself articulates at length and with great skill in his major works that the psychopathology of "our elites" derives directly from the Torah...which of course predates Darwin's thesis by tens of centuries.
Getting back to the seeming incompatibility of the Will to Live and pure determinism, I find it easy to reconcile the two. The Universe plays out deterministically according to the higher-order, metaphysical "law of nature" (or physics), which laws themselves are prefixed by a willful (and malevolent) motivating force. Simple as.
I'm trying to write short articles, so I take shortcuts. I understand your objection, and actually I am not against a certain amount of "social darwinism", competition favouring the fittest. What I condemn is atheism and pure materialism, that is, the reduction of life and mind to mere chemical processes: this is the essence of the Darwinian catechism (I am not really concerned here with what Darwin really taught, more with what we are taught at school), and that, I think, is what Shopenhauer condemns too. So I don't think that I give a "false impression" here.
I understand your hang-up against "atheism and pure materialism," but Schopenhauer is an odd bedfellow for you to choose in that regard. He is non-theistic or even antitheistic or maltheistic, since one might fairly consider his "Will to Live" a type of god--a blind, cruel, senseless one that Schopes regards with contempt.
My point is that whatever antipathy he expressed toward pre-Darwinian naturalism is very different from your, more rose-tinted, form of disagreement.
In fact, reading Schopenhauer always astonishes me due to his similarities to Darwin in sensibility and subject matter. Both of them dwell on Mother Nature's callous treatment of her creatures as well as the conspicuous visible continuum of life forms. The naturalistic illustrations employed by Schopenhauer frequently flirt with natural selection, coming across as proto-Darwinian musings. (Schopenhauer even quipped, according to Edgar Saltus, that if man had started as an elephant, he would be an intelligent elephant, but was instead an intelligent monkey. This was before Darwin, mind you.)
Darwin's great innovation was gloriously to relate the awful bloodbath of existence with the varying visible forms of living beings, showing that one is a function of the other.
Regarding what you call the "Darwinian catechism" of pure determinism: well, neither Darwin nor his successors came up with that. That goes all the way back to Democritus. And Schopenhauer did not differ in that regard--he believed, "Everything that happens, happens necessarily." If is the inevitable end-point of all ruthlessly honest philosophy.
There is nothing about Darwinism and The Selfish Gene that is incompatible with morality but it's still not the universalist morality Dawkins would agree with. It's ethnocentric. We didn't succeed or fail as individuals but as tribes and later nations of related people whose shared genetics persisted and proliferated thanks to cooperation and altruism of its carriers. Social Darwinists who tried to spin evolution into justification for individualism and selfishness are thus guilty of pseudoscience.
Oh come on. You don't cite amazing scientists and biologist who have zero to do with Darwin or your version of materialism. Ecosystems pioneers. Rachel Carson's of the world. Millions from China to Nigeria to even the Vatican.
Biologists uncovering cell evolution. Scientists fighting the capitalist henchmen and henchwomen cooking up more fucking cancers from all those plastics and resins and pesticides and fertilizers.
Now, that old time fucking Christian Judaic materialism of the polluted religious kind pushing Doctrine of Discovery and the new Israel and with their Nazi protection racket, yeah, sure. All of those magical thinkers with their bloody patriarchal religion .
Get off your high horse . You know nothing of the scientists working in hundreds of fields attempting to stave off this human and god-given army of human and animal and ecosystems enslavers.
Citing transhumanism and Internet of bodies and cells ain't the mainstem of amazing and spiritually good scientists who follow their golden rule and believe in ' do no harm.'
These AGI guys are megalomaniacs and certainty disconnected from mother nature and systems thinking.
Masturbation is areal Jewish fake science thing. Coral reef and mangrove experts are a far cry from some German nihilistic cunt.
Oppen-Monster-Heimers are not natural scientists. They are supremacist thinkers taught and guided by rabbis.
We share a disdain, Laurent, for Darwin's insufferable superiority. In When Words Die, Worlds Die, I cite Paul Hawkins:
"I want to end with Blessed Unrest again and the Fuegian people, the Yamana, about whom Darwin said, “I believe if the world was searched, no lower grade of man could be found.” A missionary orphan named Thomas Bridges spent 21 years putting 32,000 of their words into a dictionary before he died; Shakespeare used 20,000 distinct words in his entire collection. It has more verbs than English. These describe subtle nuances of everyday life, from marrying someone selfishly or with impure intent to two people looking at each other, hoping the other will do something that neither wants to do. The word for depression is the same as a crab molting its shell. The word yamana itself means the highest form of life, living, being alive. [92] There are now only two yamana speakers, Paul Hawken reports, and they don’t talk to each other." https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/when-words-die-worlds-die
My latest also happened to talk about Yuval, about whom I've done six episodes, linked here: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/souls-and-roles. I find him to sometimes be so blunt in revealing the WEF agenda that it seems like he wants it to fail. His post-Oct 7th endorsement of the Israel narrative was sickening. In the final video linked there, Alien Nation, I plotted famous atheists and theists by their beliefs on the X-axis and their sense of superiority on the Y-axis. I found that smug theists like Ben Shapiro had more in common with smug atheists than either did with people who saw others as equal, no matter their belief in a God.
Wow, thank you very much Tereza. That was fascinating to read. Louis-Ferdinand Céline writes, “The only true regret of the bourgeois is not having been born a Jew.” - I still remember when supremacists of all stripes flocked together under the banner "we are all in this together" - apparently it is they who do not want to evolve.
Falahi, thank you for subbing my stack! We share a love of etymology and your bio had so much food for thought. Transcribed here for others: falaḥ (فلح): To plow, cultivate or till. fallāḥ (فلّاح): one who plows; a peasant, farmer. falāḥ (فلاح): the working out of the will of the Divine planted within us; the perfection of latent goodness; the means and ends of a fruitful life; salvation.
The back cover of my book says that it holds one consistent belief: that people are inherently good and, when they behave badly, systems and stories are to blame. It's been the most controversial statement of the book. The belief in evil is far more dogmatic than a belief in God, and is equally held by atheists and theists. Of course, a belief in the evil of others is also a belief in one's own moral supremacy.
So 'the perfection of latent goodness' is speaking my language.
And I love that Céline quote. I appreciate how much Laurent is bringing this out. And since you are also interested in him, you might like these:
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/from-yahweh-to-zion
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-hatest-story-ever-told
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/what-is-a-jew
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-ad
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/hebrews-in-egypt-slaves-or-masters
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/maga-the-crocodile-demon
While I have my issues with Darwin ... l'm very skeptical about this white knighting for the Yamana. Primitive peoples do exist. Just accept this as part of reality.
The Yamana were mostly naked, covered with a thick layer of whale blubber or bear fat, I forget exactly. This protected them from the elements, unlike Darwin's men who died in droves from exposure in their wet wool clothing. Which is primitive?
Your use of declarative sentences and admonishment to accept 'reality,' of which you are the sole arbiter, reveals your gender. Military base brat, perhaps? That would certainly fit the assumption of superiority over primitive people like native Hawaiians and your inherent 'right' to use their island as an aggressive launching point, and therefore target, for foreign weapons.
You need to fix one serious error. Marx never wrote a thing to Hegel. You meant to write Engles ... Marx's goy boy toy.
Don't know about Hegel, but the name is *Engels.
Corrected. Thanks
Damn dyslexia😤.
The universe itself is conscious. Life is the manifestation of this consciousness in the material world. Panpsychism is a very old idea.
I remember a photograph of Darwin where he looked like an old monkey.Maybe thats why he tried telling everyone that they are descendants of monkeys,I dont know.Its a purely materialistic world-view.Probably became the Rothschilds second-most loved book,after Das Kapital.
Vox Day has been examining the conventional evolutionary model for some time (with a very critical eye), worth a read if the subject interests you: https://voxday.net/?s=evolution.
I think Darwin did great work. He was a thorough observer. The word "fittest" is very flexible. Stronger? Better suited? More violent? More intelligent? More ruthless? Less risk avoiding? More collaborative? More manipulative? More adaptive? More funny? More beautiful? Also, he observed animals mostly. Humans aren't animals, no matter if of our genome is 99% identical with chimpanzees.
Materialism isn't his fault. The sickness of materialism in natural science and science in general is a multifaceted issue, although its central root remains Malthusianism with its idea of the fixed size pie. Einstein and Bohr killed materialism as we know it once and for all on the theoretical level. Everybody who remains nowadays a materialist is really a denier of science in itself. Darwin was much more pragmatic and faithful to observation than all those feeding on his work later on who forged their own little ideologies for their own purposes. Everybody took out of it anything that suited their own taste and objective.
In the middle ages people were tortured to death for failing to be the right kind of Christians. Did Jesus advocate for that? Was it somewhere written in the Evangiles that we should torture people to death because they don't believe the right thing? Was Jesus responsible, that these people were tortured? The guys who collected money from people promising them a place in Heaven in exchange, these were probably also a kind of proto-materialists.
Well, I guess materialists are always and since ever those who move from esoteric to exoteric, from real world experience to hearsay and interpretation, mixed up with their own survival instinct and the seven sins.
I basically agree. I was not attacking Darwin, but Darwinism, as taught in school. Just like Freudians are more dogmatic than Freud, so are Darwinists to Darwin. However, I believe that "accidental changes" and "natural selection" can account for small evolution within a species (this Darwin established, and it is common sense), but not for speciation, the birth of one species out of another, and ultimately evolution of all species from the primal bacteria by mere random mutation, which is what Darwinism is really about. Darwin was an honest scientist, but he was wrong. There is something else going on, either of the Intelligent Design type or of the vitalist type (Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields).
Good to hear that! I also completely agree, that speciation is inexplicable with mutation. Darwin was a pioneer in many ways. We have to see his results in a historic context. Nowadays we have tools of exploration he couldn't even have dreamt of. Which is why Dawkins is so ridiculous.
Translation: Your Jewish overlord, goy, will do this to you.
"Wait for our Messiah to return, goy, surely it will happen if everyone in the world is converted to our Yehohshuite Jewish cult that worships a Jew that other Jews don't worship and don't have to, and surely that will be your salvation, goy. Here are some crumbs from the master's table, little dog, now consider yourself blessed and "set apart", like we've always been. Take our hand-me-down narcissistic fantasy religion and hate your family and race now, goy. Eventually we'll do whatever we want to you with even more technology you'll invent for us, goy, and you'll pay for it goy, and it will just be another test of your FAITH, goy".
Excellent piece. Thank you.
"The difference between god and demons largely depends upon where one is standing at the time."
Lorgar Aurelian
The true villain here is not Darwin, or even Nietzsche, but Kant. It was Kant who argued that morality could be bootstrapped from something intrinsic to humanity (reason) alone. With one fell blow God was made dispensable and ethics cut adrift from divine authority. Western moral philosophy has degenerated further ever since - a significant milestone of course being Nietzsche's championing of the psychopath. Our moral compass is so out of whack today that demons like Yuval Harari receive a standing ovation for declaring that the technological future is so bright that 90% of us will be redundant. Welcome to the rainbow at the end of the Enlightenment project folks.
Moral authority *can only* derive from a deity. Anything else is simply one man's word against another, no matter how it is dressed up in scientific or philosophical garb. No amount of Science can conjure right and wrong from quantum physics. Natural law and moral law *are* two independent orders of things - with no overlap I might add. What little remains in the West of morality is entirely derived from Christian teachings. Darwin's theory of biological evolution by natural selection is utterly devoid of moral meaning and any imputed to it by moral philosophers following in the Kantian tradition - the worst offender being Hegel - is a subversion of moral teachings. So the fittest survive and get procreate - we think this was somehow unknown before Darwin formalized his theory? Did Christ not understand this iron law of the natural world?
The good news is that Darwinism operates on many levels. A society is a super organism which requires a strong moral 'backbone' in order to support itself and function. One whose moral framework is degraded beyond a certain level will collapse and perish, to be replaced by another 'fitter' one. The Enlightenment has doomed Christendom and the selfish gene will ensure that the inheritors of the West will be a God-fearing folk. Stick that in your in and smoke it Mr Dawkins.
I sense emotionality and outrage, but a lack of sound science. You, as well as those who oppose Darwin, create a false dilemma whereby life must have a mind if complex information is conveyed. Living beings at least have the ability to react to the biological information around them. So life itself is God. This, of course is not the same thing as saying that Man is God, which is what Harrari tries to turn it into. But if you think it through, he is a Darwin denier and so you shouldn't want to be. Harrari doesn't like the idea of constraints, as Jews often don't because they want what they want when they want, consequences be damned. Therefore, he wants to find a way to cheat Darwin, as the Talmud was very much their way to cheat God (and no, this is not me saying that Darwin is God or that because the Talmud was written to subvert the Old Testament that the Old Testament is therefore good or pro white. It is in fact, pro Jewish. Something I'm sure we'd both agree on).
It is very superficial to think that the left today are in any way Darwinists. Because western man has been so successful from a darwinian perspective (resources acquisition, invention, etc.) that he has been put in the simultaneously blessed (and cursed) position of being able to shield himself from the harsh Darwinian realities that were, under the historical reality of the day before yesterday, taken as par for the course. Making him fatter, weaker, gayer, more self hating than nature would allow because under the law of Darwin, such creatures could never survive. Western man is dying from a lack of Darwin, not too much of him.
But not just a lack of Darwin in the physical sense of ridiculously lowered mortality salience as a result of the medical innovations western man developed because of the high IQ harsh Darwinian selection pressures eventuated in, but in a psychological orientation because mutations of the body foretell mutations of the mind, seeing as how the mind is 84 percent of the genome. These mental mutations manifest themselves in maladaptive ideas (putting other races first, inverting sex roles, feminized men, masculine women, attacking your history/culture, favoring the out race). One literally sees it in the asymmetrical mutated faces of such people. Dutton does an excellent job of discussing this in 'How to Judge People by what they Look Like'.
Such talk frustrates me from a man as intelligent as you, because the same people who attack the west, attack the reality of two sexes, who say we should allow non whites to kill/murder/destroy our cities justify such outrages on anti-Darwinian grounds. We shouldn't fight for our group genetic interests, we should be pathologically altruistic even if it hurts us in the game of biological survival. We have people arguing for blacks/nons be rewarded with freedom for raping/murdering their own children. And you think the problem is too much Darwin? I'm sorry, Laurent. This is as immoral as any of the Jewish insanity in the Bible which you rightly condemn. And this is a problem with folks such as yourself and Adam Green who zero in on the JQ. You begin to think that whites fighting for their own Darwinian interests is some sort of Jewish psyop. This is suicidal Green pilled Gnostic lunacy and just as deadly as replacement or Jewish lies. Encouraging whites not to fight for their own biological interest brought us to this point. Lamenting our own people conquering other parts of the world would entail lying about how much better we made the world and would also entail turning against the Grecco/Roman tradition you claim to cherish. And even if western man had not made everywhere he went better, more peaceful, civilized, with a greater reverence for law/order/nature, it is destructive to advocate for the rights of these other groups who make it clear that they only desire our death.
Next you'll be saying that the only reason non whites are violent is because of white racism, when they ruined their own countries that whites ran with great efficiency. The JQ is important but it has blinded you to other existential realities that people face and encouraged you to swallow anti-imperialist anti-darwinian ideas which strengthen Jews and weaken our people.
One of the reasons the right is so limp in it's response against the people who want to destroy our institutions and replace our people and decry our ancestors as evil racists is because they rejected Darwin and said what really matters is Jesus. One of the primary characteristics of the left who supposedly fetishize Darwin (at least on a superficial level) is that they deny biological and racial reality. Scientific truth will go the way of the dodo bird without a European mind to conceive and actualize it. Don't forget that and don't toss it aside. I am reminded of when you told Kevin that Muslims once cared more about science than Christians while ignoring that they borrowed everything from Europeans and didn't carry it nearly as far as Europeans would because they couldn't. Their IQs didn't reach the same heights because they weren't under the same selection pressures (stable harsh ecologies) and they themselves fell into dysgenics, feminism, permissiveness, as we are now. Hence, now they're inbred (the permissiveness having happened in the context of weak selection and low IQ and so the only Arabs left to react to the decline were themselves stupid), they're dumb and contribute nothing but Islamic studies.
Evolution is simply the mechanical formulation via biology of the deeply religious belief of the west in progress and historical development to an aim, which was first enunciated way back in Gothic Christianity by people like Joachim of Floris and is to be radically contrasted with the Classical belief in descent from a Golden age and the Orthodox,Islamic and Jewish belief in apocalyptic.
The Reformation valorised daily work as it's urban bourgeoisie expression once the chivalrous and aristocratic expression of deed and quest and the symbolic expression of clergy were no longer possibile due to urbanisation.Then the Puritans gave it a an even more extreme iconoclastic and fundamentalist individual bent.
Finally in the late secular centuries of ours the replacement of Gods personal existence with simply a universal Will ,which is what evolution and progress really mean, which is indistinguishable from the modern western idea of God/'the Universe'.
in vulgar and pofane street venecular... confuse and s-crew [ modus operandi ] byand of the psycopaths... dear good God please HELP!!!
Methinks Guyenot is seriously misrepresenting Schopenhauer here.
He creates an artificial temporal proximity between his cherry-picked Schope-quotes with Darwin's works, to give the false impression that Schopes disagreed with Darwin's conclusions.
The snippets LG presents as disagreement here are merely Schopes defending his "Will to Live" metaphysics against what he saw as an doctrinal threat from pure deterministic materialism.
Then this: "The Darwinian vulgate is largely responsible for the widespread psychopathy of the elites who govern us today."
Nonsense. It might provide a certain means of rationalization, but the psychopathology would exists and persist regardless. LG himself articulates at length and with great skill in his major works that the psychopathology of "our elites" derives directly from the Torah...which of course predates Darwin's thesis by tens of centuries.
Getting back to the seeming incompatibility of the Will to Live and pure determinism, I find it easy to reconcile the two. The Universe plays out deterministically according to the higher-order, metaphysical "law of nature" (or physics), which laws themselves are prefixed by a willful (and malevolent) motivating force. Simple as.
I'm trying to write short articles, so I take shortcuts. I understand your objection, and actually I am not against a certain amount of "social darwinism", competition favouring the fittest. What I condemn is atheism and pure materialism, that is, the reduction of life and mind to mere chemical processes: this is the essence of the Darwinian catechism (I am not really concerned here with what Darwin really taught, more with what we are taught at school), and that, I think, is what Shopenhauer condemns too. So I don't think that I give a "false impression" here.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
I understand your hang-up against "atheism and pure materialism," but Schopenhauer is an odd bedfellow for you to choose in that regard. He is non-theistic or even antitheistic or maltheistic, since one might fairly consider his "Will to Live" a type of god--a blind, cruel, senseless one that Schopes regards with contempt.
My point is that whatever antipathy he expressed toward pre-Darwinian naturalism is very different from your, more rose-tinted, form of disagreement.
In fact, reading Schopenhauer always astonishes me due to his similarities to Darwin in sensibility and subject matter. Both of them dwell on Mother Nature's callous treatment of her creatures as well as the conspicuous visible continuum of life forms. The naturalistic illustrations employed by Schopenhauer frequently flirt with natural selection, coming across as proto-Darwinian musings. (Schopenhauer even quipped, according to Edgar Saltus, that if man had started as an elephant, he would be an intelligent elephant, but was instead an intelligent monkey. This was before Darwin, mind you.)
Darwin's great innovation was gloriously to relate the awful bloodbath of existence with the varying visible forms of living beings, showing that one is a function of the other.
Regarding what you call the "Darwinian catechism" of pure determinism: well, neither Darwin nor his successors came up with that. That goes all the way back to Democritus. And Schopenhauer did not differ in that regard--he believed, "Everything that happens, happens necessarily." If is the inevitable end-point of all ruthlessly honest philosophy.
There is nothing about Darwinism and The Selfish Gene that is incompatible with morality but it's still not the universalist morality Dawkins would agree with. It's ethnocentric. We didn't succeed or fail as individuals but as tribes and later nations of related people whose shared genetics persisted and proliferated thanks to cooperation and altruism of its carriers. Social Darwinists who tried to spin evolution into justification for individualism and selfishness are thus guilty of pseudoscience.
Oh come on. You don't cite amazing scientists and biologist who have zero to do with Darwin or your version of materialism. Ecosystems pioneers. Rachel Carson's of the world. Millions from China to Nigeria to even the Vatican.
Biologists uncovering cell evolution. Scientists fighting the capitalist henchmen and henchwomen cooking up more fucking cancers from all those plastics and resins and pesticides and fertilizers.
Now, that old time fucking Christian Judaic materialism of the polluted religious kind pushing Doctrine of Discovery and the new Israel and with their Nazi protection racket, yeah, sure. All of those magical thinkers with their bloody patriarchal religion .
Get off your high horse . You know nothing of the scientists working in hundreds of fields attempting to stave off this human and god-given army of human and animal and ecosystems enslavers.
Citing transhumanism and Internet of bodies and cells ain't the mainstem of amazing and spiritually good scientists who follow their golden rule and believe in ' do no harm.'
These AGI guys are megalomaniacs and certainty disconnected from mother nature and systems thinking.
Masturbation is areal Jewish fake science thing. Coral reef and mangrove experts are a far cry from some German nihilistic cunt.
Oppen-Monster-Heimers are not natural scientists. They are supremacist thinkers taught and guided by rabbis.
https://open.substack.com/pub/paulokirk/p/magical-thinking-fascism-jews-in?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=5i319