I was reading a discussion on some other forum (here in case you're interested) and it got me thinking, especially this post:

Владимир_Борисов, on 20 Jun 2012 - 04:10 AM, said:

That is because he is your son, men are naturally independent, aggressive and authoritarian; women are naturally submissive and fragile. Male authority, the authority of a husband and a father, the family structure, is designed to protect them. Without male guidance women naturally run themselves aground. And even if they are successful in some career, this is no measure of success for them, because the female pursuit is happiness and their natural aptitude is the care of the family; not success in careers. Men naturally pursue higher things and women naturally care for their men and children. These are complementing roles which produce a harmonious society.

If you can provide scientific evidence for these claims, I'm all ears.
And no, the fact that people in the past have believed it doesn't count as "scientific evidence," nor does any concept of "morality."

Otherwise, your notion that women are destined to serve is nothing but dogma.

They did not have to 'view' it, these things come naturally to people- they are derived from the culture, assumed, because they are a part of our biology.

They did "view" it, and they still do. You can't prove your point simply by declaring that what you believe in is "natural." Everyone says the same thing. But the reality is that our current knowledge in the sciences of psycology and natural selection indicate that our instincts are to preserve our own lives and our own bloodline; personal, not racial. Morality, justice, and even truth are secondary in our instinctive priorities.

As for promiscuity, whatever floats your boat. At the end of the day philosophy, even political philosophy, deals in producing a functional society and individual.

Wrong. Philosophy is not about setting up a society in a specific way, it's about finding the truth; even if the truth is inconvenient for your goals. In short, philosophy is about shaping your views around the facts, not the facts around your views.

If you would be satisfied and attracted to a promiscuous woman, that is your deal, but this is not inherently natural, and I'm going to say this is for both east and west here, weather you're Russian or black.

I never claimed to be attracted to promiscuous women, but if I was, I wouldn't be ashamed to say so.

Believe me, everything that is inherently natural doesn't need a complex, artificial totalitarian government to make it a reality. You ever hear of Maslow's heirarchy of needs?

http://en.wikipedia....rarchy_of_needs

The basic needs are those which ensure our own survival and the continuation of our own bloodline. What is best for our nation and "race" are secondary priorities, biologically speaking. Now before you say I'm a "hedonist," I have to say that all leaders and military personell must have good ethics, self-control, and organized cooperation. But a system will fail if it depends on an entire country to do so.

Natural selection does not respond to truth or morality, but to satisfaction. Thus, gender roles and morality in general have always been what was most economically efficient for their time period for the people who had the more societal power (almost always men). That doesn't mean anything they did was "moral."

Doesn't matter, all of us have morals in how we deal with our own people, and those morals will state that your actions are degenerate.

So you're saying that deep down, everybody agrees with you?

Well, I can't say I expected much logic from someone claiming to be an "Aryan God-man" from the "Holy North" with a "Divine Destinty" to preserve the "sanctity of the Aryan bloodline," which I assume implies killing niggers and impregnating tons of white women (how noble). But you still managed to surprise me there. 😆

These morals come out of biological necessity to preserve the race, they are again, a cultural reflection.

http://thelemontwist.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/800px-maslows_hierarchy_of_needssvg.png

I don't see "preserving the race" anywhere on there. So unless you can show me your psycology degree, I don't see why I should buy into anything you have to say about "human nature" on account of your "destiny."

Moral people will shun you because they expect these to be abided, in order to preserve the harmonious society and continued augmentation of the race. They would be right from any perspective.

I don't care what your so-called "moral people" think, because people who share your concept of morality are a dying breed. It never ceases to amaze me how some people can cling to a dying system of beliefs with no efficiency in today's society, having faith that "destiny" will magically make everyone come to share your views despite that there isn't the slightest hint that a reactionary revolution will ever happen in a Western Country.

Anyway I'm sure if I asked an Islamic fundamentalist about morality, they'd tell me pretty much the same thing you just did, except from a Muslim point of view. Why are your views any more valid than theirs? And before you answer, I'm sure that you'll give me the same answer that they would, except for their Muslim point of view. Which is probably something along the lines of "BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME, YOU'RE A TRAITOR!!! AND A DEGENERATE!!! AND A COMMUNIST!!! AND A COWARD!!! "

This seems to me ideological word-play more than anything. Leftist ideologies have the habit of riding the science bandwagon when it suits them. When it doesn't suit them, they just move the goal posts and try to remake science in their image.

Even more hypocritical I find is this moralist tone while denying healthier morality. In this scheme of things, everything which happened in the past relating to history and morals is a manifestation of patriarchy, therefore evil and immoral, while newer views of a feminist and race-blind flavor are emancipatory, therefore morally sound. What happens if morals will reverse again? Does humanity really depend on the happiness of degenerates, parasites, or the distance between the woman and the kitchen?

Maslow's pyramid is the central piece of theory in this exposition, but so much for that.