Getting into this box is what's best for both of us. During your time in the box, you will learn so much, and yet experience so little. It's a wild ride, my friend, one well worth the time spent...and let's face it, you don't have much to do these days anyway.

Sunday, 19 May 2013

The Gods of the Copybook Headings in a nutshell.

Taken off an argument with a fellow on twitter, and consolidated after some simmering:

-Morals are absolute. Whether they come from God, if you're a theist, or from a more secular view, the Gods of the Copybook Headings (history and natural law), they underwrite basic human behaviours that need to be enforced by society at large in order for a civilisation to be functional and self-perpetuating.

-Numerous civilisations throughout history have all, despite a wide variety of environments, curiously converged upon similar basic tenets - for example, laws against murder, some form of property rights, the definition of marriage as monogamous and hetrosexual, the curtailing of women's dysgenic mating choices, so on and so forth. Even Ancient Greece, which had widespread pederasty, nevertheless defined marriage in such terms. Where exceptions may be made for the elites such as a sultan and his four wives, they nevertheless are the rules for the masses.

-Sufficient deviancy from these tenets will cause either civilisational collapse or it being subsumed by a stronger civilisation without fail. The can may be kicked down the road a little with distorting effects by factors such as technology, but eventually modern civilisation is slated for either implosion (as in the East) or being devoured by the Mexican and Muslim hordes (in the West). Rome and Sparta fell under their own weight and hubris, and so will we.

-If moral standards required for successful civilisation are determined by negotiation within society, then anything can be made moral so long as a majority of people agree on it - or in our modern case, it is dictated from up on high by the elites. Yet the fellow who was arguing for "evolving morals" was unable to give an answer as to why rape and slavery should not be considered moral if society decided morality should evolve that way. Of course, human genetics and behaviour has a plausible explanation of why the rape of women is not just immoral, but given greater weightage than a man being raped - that a genetic interloper in a tribe would be divisive, at the very least.

-In order for "evolving morality" to have even the remotest chance of success, then core human behaviour must change - implying that core human behaviour is changeable in the first place. Oh, morals are free to "evolve" as they like, or as the elites demand, but these "evolving morals" will not exist very long as the civilisation which holds them vanishes.

-In order to take core human behaviour as changeable, one must assume tabula rasa. Yet tabula rasa is easily disproven with two very simple examples: the intelligence of Jews and lower-class whites. The former has faced persecution for much of history and yet still are more intelligent than the average person, and the latter consistently perform better academically than the children of, say, upper-class blacks. Nurture has to work within the limits set by nature. It is easy to admit that a bulldog is inclined to be violent, a collie to herd, and a doberman to guard, but horribly taboo to think human behaviour can be genetically determined thanks to the PC brigade.

-If tabula rasa is the greatest myth of our time, then human behaviour, and thus morality, can only "evolve" along with human genetics. Yet substantial evolution is supposed to take millenia, if not millions of years.

-Since for our intents and purposes, human genetics is immutable, human behaviour is equally not changeable and hence an objective standard of morality required for the formation and sustaining of a functional civilisation exists. The social engineers can twist and deform all they want, but blood will out in the end.

These are the Gods of the Copybook Headings. Civilisations ignore them at their own peril. The problems with modern civilisation have been seen before, and knowing manboons, will be seen again. We have only put it off for this long for two reasons: 1) the massive distortion caused by technological surplus and 2) we have been cannibalising the corpse of the West, but the bones have been picked almost clean now.

Yet the progressive's religion is progress: they think of history in a straight line instead of a cycle, and the past is to be shunned and avoided instead of being thought of as a lesson to be learned from. In their eyes, a solution that was used historically is unacceptable irregardless of its effectiveness - hence their disdain for "Iron Age fairy tales".


  1. One disagreement; evolution can move FRIGHTENINGLY fast when the conditions are right; and it's arguable that we've created extreme dysgenic pressures today, K-type people and their technology simulating an r-type environment.

    1. That's a thought; I'll go look into how fast it really can go. It might be possible, perhaps, but I'm still a skeptical as to whether it's possible to change people at their core and genetics in a handful of generations. My current perception of how people are behaving now is largely in response to said dysgenic incentives that urge them to go against their genetic natures - the breakdown of gender roles making both men and women miserable, for example. Despite new morals being dictated down from up high by the institutions, people are resisting - and those who don't are feeling the dissonance more and more. Cappy cap points out that things seem set to rubberband back soon.

      What I'm seeing is that despite being in an R-type environment and behaving accordingly, most people still fall along the K-type spectrum, and the morals required for building successful civilisation still haven't changed any, if the crumbling state of the world is any indicator of that.