Natural Sin

Aurini has been putting out some great stuff. “Betterment of the people”: that is the crux of politics. I was going to leave a comment there, but then I’ve posted my fair share of comments there lately. For some reason, I can write a comment much more easily than a post, unless I change my mind, which is the pleasant case for this post. You might get more out of this post by first reading Aurini’s post.

Cardinal Rule of the Universe: Might Makes Right.

Superlative might of existence, of what makes the cut of being, is evolutionary, btw. It is The Frame of politics and everything.

What freedom to do and to be is what betterment? In the perceptions of short-sighted humanoids, the usual ‘person’, that concern degenerates into who’s betterment, but the systemic changes are what is fundamentally relevant. The great thinking man understands that individual changes are a parcel and byproduct of systemic changes. Individual changes are not an autonomous island. The solipsist is definitively humanoid and ugly, which is why women’ makeup and clothing is seemingly overpriced until you realize the true nature of women.

Like it or not, we have natural laws to constrain the possibilities with causality. In the end, there is an us-vs.-them that must be expressed due to the law of conservation. It is human nature because it is evolutionary nature. Order must remain fluid without losing, well, order. Stable power requires homeostasis, but if that homeostasis itself does not evolve in harmony with the matrix of its raison d’etre, it must crash, and evolution will patiently allow a new order to emerge, one more fitting of the matrix. But who IS the matrix? Which ilk of humans shall it be?

Whether or not there is in fact human choice per free will is irrelevant. There is special interest of descending importance from the smallest replication unit to the greatest system, which is the universe or whatever, which delegates power otherwise impartially for the quasi-living glory of its naturally selected change called progress. The law of conservation favors novel upstarts with the greatest potential for might but not the greatest means. There is a balance that permits the establishment to evolve with upstart novelty rather than rule by natural corruption. The risk of superseding betters to the organic individual (or even the organic species) can NOT be eliminated. It is a natural sin to try.

Culture is politics from the ground up, emerging from an ecosystem of innumerable tests. When men who make civilization find political agreement as autonomous agents in a distributed system, an ecology, they formalize it into institution that becomes government. The mistake is removing the organic process of evolution from the men of the rank-and-file to the bureaucrats of institution. Even institutional charity is wrong, though I don’t believe I can convince you. Oh, I’ve tried with my “Proving Morality” series. And I’ve tried to explain how the banksters defeat their foolish rivals from the axiomatic outset by pruning the counter narratives as part of the entire Narrative Complex, beyond their preferred current and next choices of Hegelian dialectic to include their fallback positions. The NWO’s economic trojan horse of last resort is legal tender, institutionalized sovereign control of the definition of money, which betrays a patience only elite family heritages could have. Gold standard advocates are dupes.

I have had virtually no success reaching the common man with my ideas, and I now realize why. Not only are most people motivated by the fear of discovering themselves to be fraudulent jokes pretending to be virtue (by the group guarantee of Gawd or Gubbermint), but most people are intrinsically unfit to independently operate much less cooperatively compete in a free civilization. Deep down they each know the hallowed core of their self-identity is the pure ugly of natural sin. Repent if you have the potential to be civilized, that ye may seek your sustenance. Destroy me if you don’t, you maggots. You can’t feed any other way, but you just don’t have the husbandry skills to conserve your hosts yourselves, and your ilk is going to die or be domesticated into a distinct subspecies that will become a separate humanoid species if you are worth keeping around that long. I doubt it.

—‘Reality’ Doug, 22 December 2013


About ‘Reality’ Doug

I'm feed up with herd people, so civil and uncivilized, these feckless barbarians with manicures. Where is Galt's Gulch? and where are the people to go there? Who am I? Who is John Galt?
Gallery | This entry was posted in Philosophy and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Natural Sin

  1. FamilyMan says:

    How are you going to conserve yourself separate from those unfit to survive “on their own” — how will you go on your own?

    [RD: I can’t. Step 1: Share ideas. Step 2: Form a group with similar values.]

    Don’t you think that the fittest were put here with a job to do, that involved helping the rest in some way? It doesn’t have to be charity, I think charity is ineffective in its official forms, and I am sympathetic to throwing up your hands in frustration.

    [RD: No. Why do you think we were tasked to help ‘others’? What is your fundamental premise? And does it fit your observations? Cf. The Manipulated Man by Esther Vilar. Morality is typically warm and fuzzy slavery protocol.]

    But what else will you do anyway? And don’t you think spiritual help is available even if the odds seem too long?

    [RD: Existence per evolution is my fundamental premise. Yours must be revealed theology/morality/God. Most revealed knowledge is contradictory, so take your pick.]

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s