STEFAN: A challenging proposition: a) homo sapiens appears to vary by selection

STEFAN:

A challenging proposition:

a) homo sapiens appears to vary by selection more than mutation. In other words, our genome contains a portfolio of abilities that can be expressed or suppressed by selection. Most variation between races and classes appears to be endocrinal – and reversible – with pedomorphism the most desirable direction in man as well as beast. And most variation among groups appears to be the degree of pedomorphism and the distribution of gender expression due to the conditions of selection in the historical environment.

b) there is no universally good individual – only a portfolio of people necessary to fill the vast variety of needs under which a polity remains competitive – universalism in values is not only unachievable – it is profoundly undesirable.

c) everything we seem to observe is that coddling children produces a fragile society, and that all humans and all human processes prosper when continuously subject to shocks. Ergo, good parenting requires subjecting children to the largest number of shocks (stresses) possible followed by periods of recovery. This applies to every human individual and all scales of human organizations. Competition ensures unrelenting stresses and shocks.

d) High investment parenting may take the form from anything from Spartan to Social Justice Warrior. The difference is only whether it is high investment or not. Whether we exaggerate the masculine stressful or the feminine is a function of the needs of the gender, family, class, and polity in competition with other genders, families, classes and polities.

e) We cannot know what is good or good for all, we can only know what is bad or bad for all. Ergo there natural law provides the limits within which group competitive cooperation may be maximized because of the forgoing of parasitism within the group. However, this says nothing about competing with other groups. Competing with other groups can be temporally beneficial but inter-temporally destructive, even if conducted morally. However, natural law does not tell us what to do, or seek to create a monopoly set of behaviors among men. it provides only the limits between ingroup members in order for the greatest opportunity for individual and group success. All POSITIVE ASSERTIONS as to desirable human behavior that suggest any MONOPOLY (universalism) actually creates vulnerability and fragility. In other words, it is suicidal. Europe excelled because no one could create an internal empire and end competiton, but instead subjected us to generation after generation of shocks, after each of which we had some sort of reformation that radically revolutionized western civilzation – meanwhile static civilizations that had been wealthier and better organiezed failed.

f) this is why I would like you to look in to the mirror and then try to learn VIA NEGATIVA (natural law and markets in everything) vs yet another religion of universalism inherited from the middle eastern iranians, rather than natural law inherited from our anglo saxon and prior ancestors.

The weak rally and shame. The strong construct law and force its adherence. The strong may create immoral law or moral law.

Only western man succeeded in inventing moral law.

Priests and liars rally and shame for a via positiva monopoly.

Generals and Judges apply force to create a via-negativa polity in which markets exist in all things.

The question is, whether you’re practicing priesthood or law?