pop morality

[Nihilist Virus]

I sometimes wonder Drich if, owing to your obvious sociopathic tendencies (taking your posts on this forum and others as the benchmark) whether you are capable of understanding what people mean when they invoke empathy? Or care? Or love?

This is not a personal attack rather more just an observation. I have over the years tended to conclude your posts contain as much malice as anything else, and an intense need to gain a 1 up at all costs. These of course are traits usually found in sociopaths.

In just wondering what sort of arguments or debates are worthwhile, or whether we bother to engage? I look forward to your answer to my query in my previous post.

If it puts your mind at ease I am not a sociopath, ( I was tested when I was younger/although I did/do have a touch of the autism/ass-burgers) I see things differently is all. I can feel/invoke empathy love and care etc.. However my mind seeks searches and assembles/disassembles everything. as a kid this was madding for a parent because i would often wander off visualizing how something works, or I would get triggered by something i saw or something someone said and start day dreaming rather than partake in 'normal stuff.' By the time i learned to control my 'gift' it was too late for school, so I had to teach myself... everything. (which is why arbitrary rule based academics I suck at/spelling grammar etc, while other physics/logic based disciplines I accel at.)

While I grew up along side people like all of you, I was never completely invested in any of it though. I can and do enjoy limited detachment from society, but only in so far as to not hold anything sacred, that I do not see a value in revering that way. Growing up I found the rules of a society to be trivial and often times based on tradition and what people felt comfortable with. This was illustrated by living in a home that represented two polar opposite cultures. The things my Father and his family held on to, were completely different than the things my mother and her family held on to, for completely different but equally trivial reasons.

My mother's family would often question and wonder why my father would follow stupid american traditions when to them it made sense to act and behaive a different way, and vise versa. All of that taught me was to be objective and to not blindly hold to tradition/culture simply because that's what everyone else does. To break down social patterns and use them if and when they were needed, rather than rituallistically bending my knee to them each and every time society demands it.

Now put the two things together and you have someone who can honestly objectify and analyze the sacred social structure (and Religion, And anything else people get so emotionally attached to they can see straight) for its good, bad and ugly attributes without being pressured to conform to popular morality or thought.

For instance whether you like it or not the United states of America would not be anything like it is today with out slavery. say what you will but it was the taxes the government collected from the work and profit of rich white land owners, that we were able to buy out the french and Spanish colonies, and without this money (which we had no other way of generating at that time) this continent would have been subdivided into french, Spanish, and English colonies possibly even today, if infact hitler did not take control when he invaded those nations, taking the resources those colonies/states offered for himself making him and his ideals unstoppable...

Yes, on an individual level I feel for and would hate to have been a slave, but on a survival of a diverse species level (because hitler was building a single master race if you remember) the slaves and the work/money that slave labor provided had to be done at the time it was done so the survival of multinational humanity.. The same could be said about the American Indians. They were in their infancy/stoneage (by choice) when the rest of the world was well into the ironage/just shy of pre industrial age. again from a species stand point what was done how ever brutal and 'immoral' was needed for the continual survival of a diverse species.

We can not simply ignore or judge our pasts without weighing both the positive and negative attributes even the most appalling events yield. Like for instance the slaughter Germany leveled against the Jews. Bought them back their holy Land. to you this may seem trivial, but it was on top of every jews prayer list for almost 2000 years! The millions that Germany slaughtered was the price "Moral Man" demanded in 1948. We know this to be true because after WWI when the same nations that won WWII (minus Japan) divided up the world, no consideration was given to the Jews. But after WWII and the world was told millions died in camps, and after we saw the pictures, pop morality then demanded that they be given back their home so nothing like this could happen again..

Nothing I've said here is untrue, it's it not something we want to acknoweledge because self righteous morality does not like to acknoweledge anything 'good' to come out of immoral acts, but in truth it is out of 'immoral acts' that the state of human survival hinges on. its because in western culture, you do not like to talk about or be reminded of what harsh brutality affords us. you like to think yourself as better than our forefathers, better than the rest of the world because you yourself do not have to get your hands bloody, but you all fail to ever look at the blood on your feet.. Because WE all stand on the backs of men who thankfully did what they had to do to put us in the position where selective empathy and self righteousness is a luxury we can afford to have if indeed we are so inclined to delude..

Or is it??? That's the bases of the question I want you all to ask yourself. Is your empathy and self righteous/ current version of pop morality some how better than the morality of Hitler's germany, or 18th century America or even late 19th century America? where millions suffered and died.. If so how would you know if nothing you believe strays outside of the right and wrong defined by pop culture affords you? Again all of these cultures mention, saw themselves as 'moral' and what they did as being 'moral' just as you do because their morality like yours is/was sourced from the culture. So then how do you differ?

You stop short of saying slavery is bad. Focusing on how it has helped the species. You even say that the near genocide of native Americans was beneficial to the species.

So explain how eradication of religion, particularly Islam and Christianity, would not further the species. The drawbacks of Islam, I presume, require no explanation. The drawbacks of Christianity are how it is anti-progressive. Certainly it is anti-progressive in terms of civil rights, as you are proving single-handedly, but it is also anti-progressive in terms of scientific advancement.

You should support the eradication of Christianity:

1. You can claim you no longer have pop religion
2. Eradication of Christianity, I assume, can do nothing if not accelerate the endgame that you presumably believe in
3. Eradication of Christianity will advance the human race

You can play your part in this by living a rational life and finding empathy for all living creatures.