Lies are told again and again. Most of the success of lies is based on repetition.
You’re not thinking long-term. Political/Social selection ultimately works within the boundaries of natural selection, it cannot transcend it. The reason unintelligent humans can have as many children as they do in the first place is BECAUSE of the social constructs created by intelligent humans. If intelligent humans die out there will be nobody to maintain the social constructs necessary for sheltering the unintelligent humans, and they will be faced with the harshness of nature and get culled. Eventually, only the least stupid of the stupid will survive, so intelligence will be selected for again, then these intelligent (least stupid) humans will construct societies and invent technology, essentially re-creating the previous environment of social constructs and allowing stupidity to flourish again. . .
As you can notice, it goes in cycles.
It may be possible to break the cycle, but I don’t want to further go off-topic in this thread.
I am thinking long-term. You have misunderstood me. I am not saying that the political/social selection has nothing to do with the natural selection. I am merely saying that the political/social selection contradicts the natural selection, although it is embedded in natural selection. This is what I have been saying for a very long time and with many of my posts in several threads (you may read them). If a thing contradicts another thing, then this does not necessarily mean that the contradicting thing is outside of the contradicted thing. The relation of this things can be a hyperonym/hyponym, a superordination/subordination, set/subset relation. So, actually, we agree, but you have misunderstood me. I am also saying that political/social selection works within the boundaries of natural selection. There are many selections that contradict natural selection but are nonetheless part of it.
Maybe the following charts depict the relations properly:
N: Natural selection.
S: Sexual selection.
K: Kin selection.
P: Political selection.
As long as all these “islands” (in the charts: P, K, S or S-K-P [there are more than shown in this charts]) will exist and will contradict their “ocean” (in the charts: N) they will also have their own order within their own boundaries.
The everyday lives of the humans, if they are healthy and not somehow disabled, are more surrounded by their human environmant than by their natural environment. If asked where they live, they would answer with words that clearly indicate that their way of life is mainly surrounded by an artificial (cultural) environment, although this is completely embedded in a natural environment. This is comparable with the geocentric and the heliocentric point of view. In everyday lives of the humans the geocentric interpretation is more important than the heliocentric interpretation of the movements in the solar system. In an everyday life it is more important to know for example when the sun “goes down” and not when the rotation of the planet Earth has reached the corresponding “position” -. although both informations refer to the same issue. The former information is important for surviving and the organization of the daily life, the latter information is merely important for science/philosophy and some other aspects (except those that belong to the former information) and has only indirectly but not directly to do with surviving and the organization of the daily life.
Humans are mainly selected by humans, although they are natural. Most of the currently living 7.4 billion humans live because of relatively few other humans (and most of this relatively few humans are already dead), and those humans who were and are not allowed to live did or do not live also because of that relatively few other humans. Without human’s technology (especially in medicine, hygiene, … and so on and so forth) there would currently be merely about 1 billion humans; without human’s selecting politics there would currently be about 10 billion humans or another number of humans (depending on the respective kind of the alternative politics). In addition, many living beings have become extinct because of humans, and many other living beings do live just becasue of humans. The natural selection, although the basal selection or God as the natural selector would have nothing to do, if the humans were capable of selecting like the natural selector - who- or whatever this may be -, and they are not but try to be in their typical way.
That is what I have been saying for many years.
My philosophy is mainly based on a cyclicality. So we are in agreement here again. According to my philosophy there are cycles from very short-dated to very long-dated. Precisely said this cycles are spiral cycles because of the physical time.
To go into detail would derail this thread.
Yes, it may be possible, especially by catastrophes. Otherwise, if cycles become very old (and many of them do), they flatten, thus their amplitude becomes shorter and shorter.
Okay. But I think our short detour is not off-topic in this thread, because the “tiger/pussycat”-example shows not only that there are strength and weakness, people of strength and weakness, rhetorical misuse of the words “strength” and “weakness”, … and so on and so forth, it also can show the fact that the “higher” (thus: more decadent, more nihilistic, closer to anarchy/chaos) so-called “civilizations” are the more their people have to be weak, have to be cynical, have to lie, and consequently have to invert values. So “suddenly” - for example - “strength” seems to be “weakness”, “weakness” seems to be “strength”, “war” seems to be “peace”, “peace” seems to be “war”, a “tiger” seems to be a “pussycat”, a “pussycat” seems to be a “tiger”, … and so on and so forth. This is an answer to the question why the person B confuses the tiger with a pussycat: B is “high civilized”.
What I would do is not pretend like I’m going to save civilization form the idiots, and simply try and continue to live life the best I can, learning as much about myself and the world around me as possible, and when I die I die. I wouldn’t resort to violence unless I or my family/tribe was being threatened with violence.
If humanity becomes so stupid that it goes extinct, then so be it. It’s not like it will be the end of the world, but merely the end of humanity. I am not going to cause great suffering (such as violence and murder) to a fellow human being simply because they suffer from being immensely stupid. But that’ just me.
Can’t anybody spell in this place? I call that reality-denial–>misspelling. All misspellers should drink vast amt. of toxic ink while receiving auto-checks tattooed across their heads in the form of every imaginable word in existence now and forever more!
Before speaking about how to deal with reality-denial, let us first take a step back and explore further the mechanics behind reality-denial, which could possibly answer why it is so detrimental to things which we, or at least some of us, hold dear:
1)Memetic survival (intellectual/mental conflict, philosophical argumentation)
2)Genetic survival (physical conflict, fighting/war)
The consequences of reality-denial for Physical/Genetic conflict and survival
It is obvious how reality-denial is detrimental to surviving physical conflict– if one is faced with a real threat whose existence he denies, or if he has poor judgment and thinks that what is a threat is not a threat, one puts their own life in peril. The consequences of being a reality-denying imbecile usually swiftly follow with regards to physical conflict and survival, as my tiger-example in the OP shows.
The consequences may be postponed if society intervenes, so a stupid person who thinks tigers are cute kittens to be cuddled with may be prevented by the society from going in the vicinity of a tiger, or may be saved and the tiger may be shot by guards if he does manage to get into its vicinity. He may even live his whole life and die a clueless retard, believing tigers are cute cuddly kittens, if he was consistently protected by society from putting that belief to the test.
The consequences can never disappear though – society has to put resources and effort into saving retards from their own retardation, so in place of a single retard suffering, the entire society suffers.
Memetic conflict
is a bit more trickier.
The equivalent of war/fighting for physical conflict would be philosophical, rational argumentation with connection to reality for memetic conflict. Philosophical, rational argumentation demands communication.
Words sharing the referent is necessary for any kind of communication to occur in the first place – if I say „tree“ and somebody thinks of a small furry animal that meows, communication has failed because for them that word has a different referent than for me . Reality is the common referent accessible to all (or, at least, those of us with healthy senses) that allows for communication in the first place. A child learns what the word “apple” denotes by their mother pointing to an object in reality that is perceptible to both. The fact that the word “apple” even though used in different contexts by different people at different times stands for the same thing is what makes it possible for us to say “apple” and the other person to understand what we mean. Yes, relative to the context of a particular speech, “apple” can also denote a category of things, that is to say many things sharing a similar set of properties (the type of things that is categorized as an apple), instead of a single concrete apple, which children also learn in later stages of cognitive development.
Even for abstract terms like “the” we agree that they perform a particular function in a language, and although the referent is in language, language still exists within reality so the referent to reality is vaguely present even in this very abstract sense.
People who deny reality thus deny the common referent which is necessary for communication to occur at all, and they continue communicating usually by inventing a more pleasurable and feel-good common referent, and although the constituents of this common referent are based on reality, their sum is not. A frequently used example to explain this is that of a Unicorn (horse+horn) or Pegasus (horse+bird wings). Although horses, horns, and wings, exist individually, their combinations do not. Every fantasy is, to an extent, based on what was previously perceived, aka, it is based on reality (but again, to an extent/degree).
Therefore, language is no longer used as a tool for communication about reality, but as a toy for communication about whatever feels good, or it denies communication altogether and indulges in self-flattering hedonistic proclamations: „I am beautiful“, „I have value“, „I am the first to deserve sex“ etc. etc.
Given that it is so easy to undermine philosophical, rational argumentation with a simple lie, memetic conflict usually isn’t resolved by rational means.
Instead, memetic conflict is mostly settled by more deceitful methods - trickery, seducing the emotions of the masses, flattery, etc. Consider religions – 90% and more of the world are religious despite religions selling obvious horseshit. How so? Simply, religions play to people’s weaknesses, telling the masses that they have worth, that they are loved by God, promising afterlife and justice, providing a sense of belonging, etc.
Despite being untrue, religions dominate.
More about that in the next post.
Reality-denial and masculinity, femininity, environments.
Yes, that’s right. Go fuck yourself, Kriswest.
First I will just note that when I am speaking about masculinity and femininity, I am talking from an evolutionary point of view. Men and women evolved to fulfill different sexual reproductive roles. Because of this, they evolved differently and have different traits and abilities. The abstract qualities and functions based on these traits/abilities are masculinity for those connected with the male sexual role and femininity for the female.
Men evolved to deal with the natural environment, the reality, directly, by either providing (extracting resources from nature) or protecting from it (sheltering). Both necessitate an honest relationship with reality because reality is objective, aka, outside of the human subject (brain) and thus doesn’t possess any potential needs or wants one could exploit to get what one wants. If you’re starving in the middle of the woods, reality doesn’t give a shit if you call it immoral that it doesn’t magically conjure food for you, or if you cry, or if you lie and say: „Food will appear in front of me!“ or „If food doesn’t appear in front of me, I will do X to harm reality“. None of that works. Either you learn how to acquire food, or you die. This was the male task.
Femininity is about seeking the best genes to replicate, the most alpha male, the one who can deal with reality most efficiently so that she is protected from it and provided for. Females are not on average as strong, fast, courageous, intelligent, etc. as males (although it is worth pointing out that the gap in intelligence is significantly smaller than other gaps), they are not capable of dealing with reality on their own, so they submit to the strongest masculine entity they find, which is either an individual alpha male (traditionalistic, obsolete in modernity), or the abstraction of the alpha male - the state. This protection and provision allows females to freely act on their nature and fulfill their reproductive role, within the safe confines of the alpha male’s physical and memetic domain. This means that not only did females evolve to be less capable of dealing with nature and thus less capable of an honest relationship with reality, but that in a typical environment in which humans live there is no incentive for them to have an honest relationship with nature because others deal with nature/reality for them.
This is the core reason for the detachment, in short – sheltering. And that is why it is so prevalent in feminine minds.
And while the feminine approach (reality-denial) may function, it is very situational – it only works while the said feminine entities are protected by a masculine entity from reality.
Just like a child can only play around and think that a tiger is a pussycat while its parents protect it.
Since the social environment created and maintained by the masculine entity of the state consists of mutually dependent subjective agents with their own needs and wants, feminine entities can manipulate those needs and wants to get away with their reality-denial and even force others to deny reality for the sake of their feelings. For example, a female may say that unless she is treated as equal to men (unless a man is willing to deny reality, suspend reason and evidence, and treat her as equal when she is not so), she will withhold sex and attempt to socially ostracize that male by speaking negatively about him to other females.
The problems occur when a feminine approach is taken to deal with reality. The perfect example of this is how feminists want to deal with Muslims… you can only blackmail and emotionally manipulate entities which are either feminine or forced to be feminine, an average female cannot control and manipulate an average male without the daddy state standing behind her and holding a gun/sword to that man’s throat. If the daddy state does nothing, females get groped, raped, beaten, etc. because masculinity dominates femininity unless prevented to do so by another masculine entity.
On the other hand, it can be more beneficial to take a feminine approach when dealing with society/social reality, because there masculine traits – openly saying what one thinks, honesty, etc. can be considered hurtful and aggressive., so perhaps also a masculine approach to dealing with the social environment is also a problem?
It is because the social environment necessitates pandering to people’s feelings that politicians are so feminine and have to constantly keep what they say under check. An exception to this are politicians who are/want to be the embodiment of masculinity themselves, instead of serving an abstraction – tyrants, dictators, monarchs, et cetera. Trump comes to mind – instead of playing the feminine game of pandering to feelings and not hurting anybody, he takes the more masculine approach of directly pointing out real problems and suggesting solutions. This is why many people have taken to him – he represents the masculinity that is lacking in modern times.
Memetic conflict cont. and more on environments
Memetic conflict works within the parameters of natural selection, and natural selection doesn’t give a shit about truth, it is about fitness and adaptation to environment, which may also include dishonesty in any of its forms.
Dishonesty/reality-denial is quintessentially feminine as it is a consequence of weakness and not being able to deal with reality, a response to this inability. Take for example some animals which puff themselves up to appear bigger and more menacing, which is a physical type of dishonesty, trying to present oneself as more than what one is because one cannot deal with the other as what one truly is because of weakness.
A human social environment prefers disconnection from reality because the harshness of reality upsets the dull masses.
However, disconnection from reality is only fit if the person is either 1) disconnected about something irrelevant/harmless, 2) if the person’s disconnection about a particular part of reality is compensated for by another person who is disconnected about it.
And it is not fit in the long-term as I will show below.
Natural environment necessitates an honest relationship with it, because otherwise one dies (as previously stated).
The human social environment exists within the natural environment, which exists within the larger environment of the cosmos. Most of the known cosmos is a very austere environment antagonistic to human needs. The comfortable, safe, sheltering environments are constructed by living organisms, the most comfortable/safest for humans being human constructed environments, particularly in the West. However, that is not how most of the universe is, that is not its default state.
What makes constructing such safe/comfortable environments possible in the first place is need which arises due to the lack of such an environment. Need is the mother of all invention, or something like that. Once human needs are placated in a sheltering environment, we can see the rise of stupidity, degeneracy, hedonism, and other kinds of behavior which lead to the downfall of a sheltering environment that made those behaviors possible in the first place, as it is impossible to be a hedonist in a natural environment of scarcity and impossible to be a degenerate without the system protecting you from the natural consequences of degeneracy.
The troubling contradiction is this – humans make it so that something which is unfit and swiftly punished in nature is acceptable and fit for human environments. Because the human environment exists within the natural one, it is still judged by natural standards, and so it will, eventually, collapse or get conquered because it contradicts the natural environment.
In a natural environment, because there is a scarcity of food, people will tend to eat as much as they can. This is evolutionarily fit behavior for this environment. However, to retain the same mindset in an environment of abundance leads to poor health and fatness. Yet, most people still do it – they respond very predictably and instinctively to their environment without giving much thought to long-term consequences of their actions.
This means that, in order to maintain civilization and resist succumbing to natural cycles of rise/fall of civilizations, it would be mandatory to think beyond the immediate environment and strive to be fit and remain strong in relation to nature/cosmos, not the human made environment, EVEN IF the human made environment currently allows for weakness. If one becomes weak, then one drains resources from the very environment that allows his weakness to persist. It is a self-defeating behavior in the long-term.
In other words, a behavior that is fit in human environments may only be made so in the short-term, until the human artifices fail, which is why it is important to think beyond human environments for fitness and be fit (strong) in relation to nature and cosmos.
Has this fantasy ever happened? That people, when given the chance to fuck things up and indulge in mindless hedonism and degeneracy, don’t do that, but rise above it and seek improvement through conflict even if there is no IMMEDIATE need for it?
Aside from a few, very few, exceptions, this is impossible. The majority of people, and I mean more than 90% , will always remain nothing more but manimals. Because of this, maintaining civilization seems impossible if humans are allowed to act on their instincts and fuck things up.
Thus the only way to maintain a civilization is to have a political system that doesn’t allow humans to act on their instincts and fuck things up - fascism or national-socialism or some other highly authoritarian system that forces people to remain strong and fit regardless of whether there is an immediate need for it or not, but I suspect that even in that case, sooner or later a generation would be born that would fuck it all up with nihilism and hedonism, thinking that they are “progressive”, “hip”, “rebellious” and the usual hippie nonsense. But maybe that can be prevented by proper education. Or the system would fail because authoritarian dictatorships are prone to corruption and can too easily turn into self-interested, short-term thinking oligarchies with no regard for their people.
It can be noticed that the masculine approach (adapting to nature/cosmos) signifies ascent progress, while the feminine approach (adapting to human environments) signifies descent, regress, collapse.
Because of this I also conclude that masculinity is generally superior to femininity, as males are better at adapting to more austere and demanding environments which constitute the majority of the cosmos, while females are better at adapting to sheltering male-made environments, reducing the significance of their adaptation, since it is dependant on masculine entities, and what is dependant on something else is weak/inferior in relation to it.
Then again, men are highly dependent on women to reproduce. Females give birth to a child, but it is because of the male that the child lives on.
Perhaps this analogy can be applied to natural cycles – the destruction/collapse of what was gives birth to a new system (feminine), and males make that system survive by providing for it and protecting it until accumulated feminine energies cause its collapse again in order to give birth to a new one…
Yes, I really went on a tangent with this environment talk, but it needed to be said.
The societal inversion of natural/real hierarchies of probability and possibility
In a social environment populated by delusional masses, the most practical and feasible solution, meaning one with the highest probability of succeeding at producing a desired outcome, may have the least chance of actually being executed, and the course of action with the lowest actual probability of succeeding at solving the problem may have the highest chance of being picked. Especially if it is a kind of social environment where decision-making depends on democratic processes - voting and mass consensus, reducing everything to the lowest common denominator further increasing the chances the decision will be detached from reality.
This is based on a mistaken perception of reality, more precisely, the principles which govern the interactions occurring in reality, wrongly assigning to them a divine purpose and meaning which is not there, and assuming the existence of a God, which is also not there. It is thus another form of (indirect) reality-denial.
An example: The problem is crossing the river. A small group of people suggest building a bridge. Others decide that it is a waste of energy doing that, when they can just pray for God to conjure a bridge for them. Regardless of the fact that building a bridge has a higher probability of actually solving the problem, people opted for praying instead, as it is a path of least resistance and requires no thinking or working, only blind obedience to a non-existent deity that is asked to do the work and thinking on their behalf, like a parent would for a child.
Is it any wonder he is called the Heavenly father, or the sky-daddy?
AutSider warned for last-but-one post beind outside forum rules; fourth warning, week ban.
Is it possible to know, reflect upon, and interpret this true nature of reality in an objective sense or are we left with subjective interpretations?
Of course not all subjectivist interpretations of reality being equal…
There is always a subject which is doing the experiencing and that subject has limitations.
And quite a lot of thinking we do throughout the day has nothing to do with establishing certain facts and is more about how to apply those facts (be they accurate or even way off base) to get to what we need and want. And what those needs are is very much dependent on the person in question.
And even beyond that most thinking activity is not even about applying facts but habitual reactions and thought-patterns to certain stimulations.
Sounds very subjective. We then really are left to subjective interpretations built on experiences where coming to know of an all encompassing reality in the objective sense being impossible. Limitations of the human mind and consciousness.
Objective in the sense of Rand, no.
But the now popular Marxist subjectivism shtick they are teaching isn’t good either for the development of a man’s potential. Not for most anyway, I think.
Well, I can tolerate that. Randian objectivists are a bunch of self righteous pompous asshats.
Like I said, not all subjectivism is equal as I view subjectivism as a manifestation of competing beliefs, ideas, and perceptions all vying for supremacy. That’s really what a lot of social philosophy is reduced to.
Marxists are idiots without an iota of understanding anything on human nature.
Great video, the reference to the tiger is really in the spirit of the thread.
I was banned on ILP until 20th for saying something along the lines of ‘Fuck you, Kriswest’ in one of my posts. I said that because Kriswest complained about inserting discussions about gender everywhere, and I was inserting it in this thread. Admittedly, I wrote that with an infantile, devilish smile on my face and hoped it would get taken as a light-hearted joke by anybody reading the post. Apparently, it warrants a week ban.
SJW-level moderation aside, I heard a great joke recently which immediately made me think of this thread.
The joke:
The contrast between
- rationalistic(not rational), scholastic, deductive approach of trying to infer particulars from previously established, often only presumed, general principles, or some authority, be it state or religious ancient texts
- empiricist, scientific, inductive approach of first perceiving the particular, concrete, physically existing things, and building generalizations/abstract principles and categories based on it, where one’s own mind is the final judge
You are free to do everything in modern society, of course - just don’t examine reality by yourself, directly, without permission and guidance of the holy religious/state authority, that’s blasphemous/non-openminded.
Where open minded means being open to having your eyes closed to reality.
Our senses are our connection to reality - is it any wonder that the first step of those who want to trick us into adopting their particular kind of reality-denial will be to attempt to destroy that connection?
Or, alternatively, they will try to insert some sort of a proxy, an authority that would decide which sensual information is accurate, and which isn’t.
(mod edit: link to other forum removed)
Guilty of the first [ see sig ] but not of the second. Now were it not for my open mindedness then I might not be able to
post this link for Know Thyself is supposedly not for me. Well all I can say to that is I decide what I like not any one else
I do think I am unique but only in the sense that everyone else is too. And as far as egotism is concerned I have no need
for it and particularly as I seek those rather more intelligent than my self with regard to my own knowledge acquisition
(mod edit: link to other forum removed)
No and no. First one because I am an atheist and second one because I absolutely refuse to
deny free speech merely because the subject matter is deemed too controversial to debate
Reality-denial and modern SJWS vs more moderate liberals/leftists
From here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=190328&start=75#p2607656
This recent development is interesting. More and more people are denouncing SJWs and feminism lately. The majority of people now call themselves egalitarians and will hold very confused views about men and women. From my experience, most often they will claim that the differences are minor, and mostly social constructs, and that neither males nor females are generally superior, but that they supplement each other in their weaknesses and strengths. Those a bit on the edgy side and a little less mainstream may also pretend to acknowledge some more important but still shallow differences between men and women, and they consider this proof of their intellectual honesty.
SJWs have succeeded in promoting leftist/liberal ideas in that the SJW ideology is such blatantly insane bullshit that now its less radical variants are starting to seem like a good deal in comparison to the average person. Those who are moderately detached from reality and moderately stupid will pride themselves in not being extremely so. Yet they still buy into the core of the leftist/liberal bullshit, which is also the core of SJW ideology. For example, they will also take immense pride in not being “racist”, and they will constantly use comparisons to “nazis” and “fascists”, usually only as buzzwords and without actually understanding, or caring to understand, NS and fascism. Not to mention the comparisons to Hitler, who is pretty much made out to be the modern Satan.
Then there are those women, like Shit-Maiden, who noticed that it is very unlikely that they will get more than the current amount of privileges in modern societies without male backlash, so they decided to settle for what advantages they had managed to procure so far. They will try to preserve the current status quo and pacify men and convince them that this is how things are supposed to be. Best examples are those anti-feminist-but-egalitarian, and usually anti-MRA chicks you can find on YT.
The ones with a somewhat deeper understanding of things, like Karen Straughan (girlwriteswhat), may support MRA, because their ideals are based not on an instinctive response to the current environment, but on an understanding of the prevalent and harsh natural environment underlying the facade of human technology and social constructs, so they may notice that castrating their own men legally will backfire in the long-term.
Continuing on that:
I dislike the Milo guy whom some consider to be at the forefront of this anti-SJW movement when it comes to RL activism. I see the entire idea of him opposing SJWs or whomever because he is gay so he cannot be criticized or shamed like heterosexual men as a capitulation to liberal/leftist tactics and an admission of defeat. The same goes for Christina Hoff Summers. The fight against SJWs is only a fight against the most extreme forms of detachment from reality, while the majority of channels doing that, like thunderfoot, Sargon, and all other channels like Bearing, Skeptorr, etc. (most of which I don’t watch much anymore, and I never watched the likes of Bearing and Skeptorr) concede that the less extreme forms are alright, or even belong to these less extreme forms of reality detachment themselves.
Issues like inequality between the sexes are usually only admitted on a trivial level, such as pointing out female higher sexual value and male higher physical strength, mention intellectual differences, cognitive differences, differences in sexual roles, and suddenly everything becomes mystical, too complex to make any judgments confidently, or you’re simply outright bigoted and a Hitler-like fascist nazi or something.
Inequality between the races is even more of a taboo and you’re pretty much guaranteed to be called a racist if you point out some of the relevant advantages of whites over blacks, while of course nobody will mind if you point out blacks can run faster and jump higher.
If you think that the racial/sexual inequality should result in inequality before the law and inequality of treatment (as we humans do with pretty much all other categories, both within the species such as child-adult differentiation and interspecies, the human-other animals differentiation), you might as well have proclaimed your love for Hitler and the evil nazis, which means that 99%+ of the open-minded free thinkers will immediately disregard your position without any rational consideration.
All of this leftist/liberal and SJW nonsense is merely an adaptation to globalism and the need to integrate all humans in a single, multicultural society to avoid conflict and make them easily malleable by one global elite. Given that it goes against the nature of people to be around those from radically different genetic and cultural backgrounds it requires indoctrination and reduction of everything to pure hedonism that all can identify with, with no cultural and genetic identity permitted as they would give out the existence of relevant differences.
In a broader sense, it is merely a short-sighted response to the immediately perceptible human made environment, where submitting to authority and being tolerant is necessary to ensure short-term survival. In the long-term, however, it leads to extinction of some races, either “peacefully” by low birth rates and race-mixing, or violently, by increasing numbers of lower races breeding due to handouts by higher races.
The majority will, of course, choose the easier route and simply respond to the immediate environment, accepting the globalist premises. Going against this natural flow of things is difficult and demands immense mental strength. Going against the natural flow itself demands at least an intuitive understanding of natural processes, unlike going with the flow, which every beast and manimal does instinctively. It means being aware of cyclical natural processes of rise and fall, and maintaining a constant rise even if the environment allows for a fall. It means acting in response to natural environments even if the current environment is a sheltering, human one. It means being noble.
Conclusion and how all of this relates to reality-denial
The extreme insanity of the SJWs ultimately only served to reinforce the leftists/liberal delusions, because after witnessing such extreme insanity, less extreme insanity seems like sanity in relation to it. Few will actually continue questioning and exploring the issue beyond moderate liberalism/egalitarianism. This is because the basic premises of it were never questioned, since they are shared by both the moderately detached from reality (egalitarians, MRAs) and extremely detached from reality (SJWs, feminists).
Moderate reality-denial uses extreme reality-denial as its justification, and it places itself in the center and claims itself to be reality, while putting reality on the other side of the spectrum opposite to SJWs, making it seem just as insane. Egalitarians claim for what is actually reality to be another form of reality-denial on the opposite side of the spectrum from SJWs (the horseshoe theory). For example, since SJWs have a blatant hatred for whites and men and thus constantly criticize them (if you can call that criticism), anybody who criticizes blacks and women, regardless of whether their criticism is true or not, will be considered equally as crazy as an SJW. This is how SJWs were actually useful to egalitarians and moderates, whether they like to admit it or not.
That kind of reasoning is consistent with the logic of equality and egalitarianism, however the problem is that equality and egalitarianism themselves are reality-denying, since no two things are equal, much less all humans.
To people like that the primary concern is whether a claim is comparable to some other claim made by some other group of people, instead of whether the claim is true (has referents in reality). This already signifies the desire to detach from the real and remain in the clouds of their mental abstraction of equality and egalitarianism, which to maintain itself must denounce an honest exploration of reality. For them reasoning is checking whether a claim conforms to their own self-constructed ideals, instead of checking how it relates to reality. This makes them self-referential, since they deny reality as the referent, which also, obviously, makes them reality-denying.
Let us explore a concrete example of this kind of reasoning, and why it is reality-denying.
If somebody says “blacks on average are less intelligent than whites”, it is irrelevant whether that person’s claim is comparable to the claim of some black supremacist/SJW/whomever that “whites on average are less intelligent than blacks”. The only thing that matters is whether the claim itself is true. You don’t get to reject the claim as untrue just because its logical structure resembles some other untrue claim in the sense that both claims are proposing that one race is less intelligent than another. This is the faulty logic of egalitarianism, consistent with itself, but inconsistent when applied to sensual information about reality. The claim is to be rejected or not based on its referents in reality, or the lack thereof. If intelligence is a mental trait that has consequences in reality, then it is to be observed whether the expected consequences of intelligence manifest more in black or white societies, whether the behavior and accomplishments of whites or blacks demonstrates intelligence. But of course, this would require an honest engagement with the world - honestly perceiving and processing information. It is already taken for granted in modernity that most people are either incapable of it, or refuse to do it, which is why discussions are reduced to such pathetic “arguments” and word games and aren’t philosophical at all. It is pseudo-philosophy parading as philosophy.
Like most reality-denial, its psychological foundation are cowardice (inability to cope with reality mentally) and/or stupidity (prone to indoctrination, incapable of perceiving beyond the immediate environment). If it ever gets a little glimpse of reality about something superficial and/or irrelevant, like the existence of God or feminism, it will attach itself to that and hold on to it, sometimes to the rest of its life, happy to separate itself from the more extreme reality-deniers, feeling sane in comparison. It is most observable in those people who after becoming atheists talk about and explore nothing else for years and make it the purpose of their life to spread atheism and talk about atheism, when they usually buy into humanist nonsense, which is Christianity sans God. Or those who are determined in fighting the “evils of feminism”, not seeing that feminism is only a symptom of a problem that goes beyond ideology and is deeply rooted in culture, biology, physics, and ultimately, metaphysics, and that feminism is nothing but a consequence, not the cause.