Is being anti authority a virtue or sin?

[EastKekistan]

We have to discuss religion for you can't erase religious motivations from religion-induced social views without people getting utterly confused.

Nope. I really am a white picket fences and obedience type, and probably would be even if I were an atheist.
I just happen to also be a tradcatholic national conservative, but realistically I'd be a fascist of some description if I weren't religious, and still have a white picket fences and obedience syndrome.

*My hypothesis that WN, BN, feminism and MGTOW are all consequences of people becoming more knowledgeable gets another confirmation.*

[Thermodolia]

Well, I'm more likely to be right compared to you because sufficiently intelligent and knowledgeable people are extremely likely to behave sociopathically while hiding that they are.

What evidence do you have for that?

I think the evidence was pulled from their nether regions

[EastKekistan]

Well, I'm more likely to be right compared to you because sufficiently intelligent and knowledgeable people are extremely likely to behave sociopathically while hiding that they are.

What evidence do you have for that?

Take Wall Street as an example. Why is sociopathy overrepresented in it?

When people are sufficiently knowledgeable they get over propaganda societies try to brainwash them to believe, including morality which is merely a consensus that can be destroyed at any time.

[EastKekistan]

What evidence do you have for that?

I think the evidence was pulled from their nether regions

?

[Diopolis]

Nope. I really am a white picket fences and obedience type, and probably would be even if I were an atheist.
I just happen to also be a tradcatholic national conservative, but realistically I'd be a fascist of some description if I weren't religious, and still have a white picket fences and obedience syndrome.

*My hypothesis that WN, BN, feminism and MGTOW are all consequences of people becoming more knowledgeable gets another confirmation.*

What?

[United Muscovite Nations]

What evidence do you have for that?

Take Wall Street as an example. Why is sociopathy overrepresented in it?

When people are sufficiently knowledgeable they get over propaganda societies try to brainwash them to believe, including morality which is merely a consensus that can be destroyed at any time.

Are they really that sociopathic? There's not a lot of evidence that the ruling class is egoistic. This is just the fundamental attribution error, the tendency to believe that the wrong actions of others are due to fundamental aspects of their personality rather than due to the circumstances affecting them. There's a lot of evidence that ruling classes in the entire world adhere to ideology and act in accordance with ideology.

[EastKekistan]

*My hypothesis that WN, BN, feminism and MGTOW are all consequences of people becoming more knowledgeable gets another confirmation.*

What?

My worldview:

1. The universe is atheistic or deistic

2. Evolution selects for high social unity in humans

3. A sufficiently knowledgeable person knows that they can get away with violating social norms if they don't get caught

4. Due to 3, a sufficiently knowledgeable person is likely to be antisocial.

5. Due to 4, high social unity needs to be sustained by false beliefs as well as myths

6. Due to 2 and 5 evolution selects against a society having too much knowledge.

Both WN and BN in America are essentially defecting against the American society since at least 1700, that is, sociopathy on a racial level. Both modern feminism and MGTOW are basically defecting against the temperate family structure, that is, sociopathy within a family.

[United Muscovite Nations]

What?

My worldview:

1. The universe is atheistic or deistic

2. Evolution selects for high social unity in humans

3. A sufficiently knowledgeable person knows that they can get away with violating social norms if they don't get caught

4. Due to 3, a sufficiently knowledgeable person is likely to be antisocial.

5. Due to 4, high social unity needs to be sustained by false beliefs as well as myths

6. Due to 2 and 5 evolution selects against a society having too much knowledge.

Problem: a sufficiently knowledgeable person is also likely to know that them violating social norms, even if they're not caught, would result in the degradation of society, so they would be incentivized not to violate social norms, and even to enforce social norms.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

What?

My worldview:

1. The universe is atheistic or deistic

2. Evolution selects for high social unity in humans

3. A sufficiently knowledgeable person knows that they can get away with violating social norms if they don't get caught

4. Due to 3, a sufficiently knowledgeable person is likely to be antisocial.

5. Due to 4, high social unity needs to be sustained by false beliefs as well as myths

6. Due to 2 and 5 evolution selects against a society having too much knowledge.

1 is false. In a kufr sense, the universe doesn't have a religion. And evolution doesn't "select" anything as if it is a conscious being, it is a process that just happens.

[Diopolis]

What?

My worldview:

1. The universe is atheistic or deistic

2. Evolution selects for high social unity in humans

3. A sufficiently knowledgeable person knows that they can get away with violating social norms if they don't get caught

4. Due to 3, a sufficiently knowledgeable person is likely to be antisocial.

5. Due to 4, high social unity needs to be sustained by false beliefs as well as myths

6. Due to 2 and 5 evolution selects against a society having too much knowledge.

That's incredibly cynical, but I fail to see what it has to do with what you said, unless you meant that I'd be less religious if I were smarter(to which I can only say I have an IQ of 140- if that were how it worked, I'd be an atheist already) and thus be a white nationalist, but white nationalist fascism is actually the variety I'm least drawn to. I'd be more likely to be a Maurras-type ideologue or a Falangist.

[EastKekistan]

My worldview:

1. The universe is atheistic or deistic

2. Evolution selects for high social unity in humans

3. A sufficiently knowledgeable person knows that they can get away with violating social norms if they don't get caught

4. Due to 3, a sufficiently knowledgeable person is likely to be antisocial.

5. Due to 4, high social unity needs to be sustained by false beliefs as well as myths

6. Due to 2 and 5 evolution selects against a society having too much knowledge.

Problem: a sufficiently knowledgeable person is also likely to know that them violating social norms, even if they're not caught, would result in the degradation of society, so they would be incentivized not to violate social norms, and even to enforce social norms.

>Implying that sufficiently knowledgeable people actually necessarily give a shit about societies.

Since a large part of human pro-sociality is due to social indoctrination and more knowledgeable people are less likely to retain indoctrinated beliefs more knowledgeable are less likely to obey social norms when violation is profitable.

[Diopolis]

Problem: a sufficiently knowledgeable person is also likely to know that them violating social norms, even if they're not caught, would result in the degradation of society, so they would be incentivized not to violate social norms, and even to enforce social norms.

>Implying that sufficiently knowledgeable people actually necessarily give a shit about societies.

Since a large part of human pro-sociality is due to social indoctrination and more knowledgeable people are less likely to retain indoctrinated beliefs more knowledgeable are less likely to obey social norms when violation is profitable.

But a nice society is simply nicer to live in.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Problem: a sufficiently knowledgeable person is also likely to know that them violating social norms, even if they're not caught, would result in the degradation of society, so they would be incentivized not to violate social norms, and even to enforce social norms.

>Implying that sufficiently knowledgeable people actually necessarily give a shit about societies.

Since a large part of human pro-sociality is due to social indoctrination and more knowledgeable people are less likely to retain indoctrinated beliefs more knowledgeable are less likely to obey social norms when violation is profitable.

They live in a society, they have a good reason to care about it.

[Bluelight-R006]

My worldview:

1. The universe is atheistic or deistic

2. Evolution selects for high social unity in humans

3. A sufficiently knowledgeable person knows that they can get away with violating social norms if they don't get caught

4. Due to 3, a sufficiently knowledgeable person is likely to be antisocial.

5. Due to 4, high social unity needs to be sustained by false beliefs as well as myths

6. Due to 2 and 5 evolution selects against a society having too much knowledge.

1 is false. In a kufr sense, the universe doesn't have a religion. And evolution doesn't "select" anything as if it is a conscious being, it is a process that just happens.

We don’t know anything about the truth in the wide realm of possibilities.

That is kind of true of points 2 and 4, though. However, high social unity can bond atheists too? Therefore it need not people become religious to be involved in the future string of evolution. And it need not be so accurate, just basic truths? I wouldn’t say evolution selects a society against knowledge.

[EastKekistan]

My worldview:

1. The universe is atheistic or deistic

2. Evolution selects for high social unity in humans

3. A sufficiently knowledgeable person knows that they can get away with violating social norms if they don't get caught

4. Due to 3, a sufficiently knowledgeable person is likely to be antisocial.

5. Due to 4, high social unity needs to be sustained by false beliefs as well as myths

6. Due to 2 and 5 evolution selects against a society having too much knowledge.

That's incredibly cynical, but I fail to see what it has to do with what you said, unless you meant that I'd be less religious if I were smarter(to which I can only say I have an IQ of 140- if that were how it worked, I'd be an atheist already) and thus be a white nationalist, but white nationalist fascism is actually the variety I'm least drawn to. I'd be more likely to be a Maurras-type ideologue or a Falangist.

Not smarter but more knowledgeable, especially more knowledgeable about other religions.

Evolutionarily speaking religion, ideologies such as ethnonationalism, humanism and communism as well as nerdism serve the same purpose, namely making people knowledgeable in areas that help them contribute to a society yet ignorant in areas that help them defect against it for personal gain.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Also, you're making a serious error by assuming that all "sufficiently knowledgeable people" come to the same conclusions you do.

[EastKekistan]

>Implying that sufficiently knowledgeable people actually necessarily give a shit about societies.

Since a large part of human pro-sociality is due to social indoctrination and more knowledgeable people are less likely to retain indoctrinated beliefs more knowledgeable are less likely to obey social norms when violation is profitable.

But a nice society is simply nicer to live in.

Right but unless a society is very small one person defecting does not make much difference, that is, the litterer does not have to sit in trash.

[The Emerald Legion]

It's neither. Being against an Authority means nothing unless you know what you're FOR. Being a blind rebel who simply chafes at being told what to do is utterly useless.

Authority serves a purpose, but is a tool. Just as all organization is. If that tool is being used to ends you disagree with, then being able to recognize that and resist the authority is a virtue, but so is the ability to recognize when fealty to an authority is in line with your goals.

[EastKekistan]

Also, you're making a serious error by assuming that all "sufficiently knowledgeable people" come to the same conclusions you do.

I think they do. I'm a nerd hence I'm too honest to not proclaim it. Most people who know it pretend that they don't for personal gain which makes this knowledge rare.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Also, you're making a serious error by assuming that all "sufficiently knowledgeable people" come to the same conclusions you do.

I think they do. I'm a nerd hence I'm too honest to not proclaim it. Most people who know it pretend that they don't for personal gain which makes this knowledge rare.

This sounds arrogant as heck.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Also, you're making a serious error by assuming that all "sufficiently knowledgeable people" come to the same conclusions you do.

I think they do. I'm a nerd hence I'm too honest to not proclaim it. Most people who know it pretend that they don't for personal gain which makes this knowledge rare.

Yeah, that's a serious methodological error, on top of just being plain incorrect.

[EastKekistan]

It's neither. Being against an Authority means nothing unless you know what you're FOR. Being a blind rebel who simply chafes at being told what to do is utterly useless.

Authority serves a purpose, but is a tool. Just as all organization is. If that tool is being used to ends you disagree with, then being able to recognize that and resist the authority is a virtue, but so is the ability to recognize when fealty to an authority is in line with your goals.

Authority is of course a tool....for personal gain if you have it.

Rebellion is of course also a tool...for personal gain for a rebel is just a candidate authority.

[Diopolis]

But a nice society is simply nicer to live in.

Right but unless a society is very small one person defecting does not make much difference, that is, the litterer does not have to sit in trash.

To an extent. It's always a more cautious choice to simply play within the rules and follow the life choices set out for you.

[Bluelight-R006]

Also, you're making a serious error by assuming that all "sufficiently knowledgeable people" come to the same conclusions you do.

I think they do. I'm a nerd hence I'm too honest to not proclaim it. Most people who know it pretend that they don't for personal gain which makes this knowledge rare.

The Dunning-Kruger effect

Nah. However, many nerds research on different topics, and not be knowledgeable in every one of them. Not everyone thinks like you.

[EastKekistan]

Right but unless a society is very small one person defecting does not make much difference, that is, the litterer does not have to sit in trash.

To an extent. It's always a more cautious choice to simply play within the rules and follow the life choices set out for you.

Yes if you are weak. No wonder the greatest norm-breakers are found only among the elites and the underclass..and that in some societies such as China the elites often originate from norm-breaking lawless rebels who are complete assholes such as Zhu Yuanzhang and Mao Zedong.

Everyone but the top and the bottom live in an artificial Truman's World that has norms. The top is lawless for they can get away with it. The bottom is lawless for they have nothing to lose.

No wonder why it is extremely hard for almost-elites to become elites.