I don't think I've ever read something so technically correct yet profoundly stupid in my life
To even interpret it most favorably concedes the premise that this animal's metabolism and muscle structure evolved over time to suit this chosen niche

>>24522361 (OP)
>it is not physically necessary for carnivores to eat animals.
Holy fucking mother of retard. Carnivores’ digestive system is designed to handle potential diseases from meat consumption by basically flushing the food through the tract as fast as possible. They literally cannot subsist on flora alone because they cannot digest enough nutrients from it. This moron conflates carnivores with omnivores.

Isn't this completely techically retarded though? If there are plenty of greens for an herbivore to eat, that means they will reproduce and then there is a competition, also predators that will notice the abundance of herbivores and start murdering them. Sounds pretty struggly to me, anon.

>>24522370
>If there are plenty of greens for an herbivore to eat, that means they will reproduce and then there is a competition

Animals only eat enough for their fill and don't take more. We just assume nature isn't balanced because humans can't be.

>>24522361 (OP)
>I don't think I've ever read something so technically correct yet profoundly stupid in my life
How is it correct exactly? Lions must eat meat to survive, i'm also not sure how saying the carnivores eating the herbivores is not a struggle is correct. The herbivores want to live as much as the carnivores want to eat just because the cycle of life is that way doesn't mean it isn't a struggle.
How in the world is this "technically correct".

>>24522405
You don't know anything about animals. Herbivores eat the choicest foods first, and there is hierarchy to this. It means some will be weak and some will be strong. Most male mammals are clearly shaped to fight eachother, not even to protect against or deter predation, if their behaviour didn't make it obvious. Ourselves included.

Many carnivores kill beyond their needs sometimes to come back later and maybe eat it, since you may as well if you can kill more, but mostly for sport, they enjoy it. They will also deny others food even though they won't eat it.

Also they can't just eat any plants and expect to be healthy and nourished. And many places in the world are very sparse in food. Such as anywhere with poor rainfall, never mind arid. Those are populated by animals.


That said, muh nature is hardcore bro le till the death of death is also wrong.

>>24522361 (OP)
Aside from the retarded brainfart on carnivores "decision" to eat meat, he also mischaracterizes capitalism by equating it with struggle to exist. Just as his characterization of nature, capitalism functions on a very sensitive and fragile balance of abundance.

>>24522770
You could interpret it(much like his point on 'Genius' that the political genius impacts the facts of his history through an unusually clear sense of mission) that the "soul" of the animal was to predate prior to any evolutionary process, and its metabolism and musculoskeletal system adapted to compensate. But in doing so you just have to swap "soul" for "niche" and you've conceded the Darwinist point right then and there.

>>24522361 (OP)
Tell me what book it is so I don't read it by accident.

Has he ever watched a nature documentary?

>>24523733
Yockey's Imperium. At best he will say things like this which are intended to be refutations but in no way incompatible with the premise(like his conception of "Genius" intends softly to be a rebuttal to Marxism)
or like in this excerpt he'll mince words to make it seem like their actual argument is something different and what the writer actually said is the refutation(something you'd realize was Marx's point[trusts and trade unions being nothing more than counterparts] by reading the WLC/VPP pamphlets like once, for example, is treated as something he never realized at all)

>>24523733
>>24523851
Wait, why is Yockey of all people arguing against the principle of struggle in nature? I don't know much about Yockey, but you would think somebody aligned with fascism would be leaning into struggle hard. Usually, such sentiments are left-wing.
>>24522405
I don't think this is always true for reasons pointed out in this thread, but there is something to be said about the general restraint found in nature relative to human excesses. However, success breeds growth, and growth breeds competition once the carrying capacity is reached. There will eventually be a sense of taking "more than their fill", in the sense that their fill will be overwhelming. Individual animals may have temperance, but their species as a whole will not.

I still like the left-wing talking points that try to push back on nature being brutal. aka the amount of time that animals spend lounging around, having fun, not doing anything directly related to survival, etc. Makes you think. There's something there, even if it cannot be taken to the extreme.

>>24522361 (OP)
He's right though that the theory of evolution is basically just the idea of the capitalist self regulating market transposed to the domain of biology. Just as the market supposedly regulates itself by ensuring a balance of opposing forces in the arena of entrepreneurual competition whereby those firms that make bad decisions are punished with bankruptcy and those that make good decisions are rewarded with profit and get to continue existing, so also does natural selection regulate the animal kingdom and produce efficient organisms adapted to their environment without the need for any intentional regulating force. "Natural selection" is nothing more than the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith. It's not a coincidence that these ideas came about in tandem in Britain when that country was undergoing the industrial revolution. As the rise of capitalism began in earnest the idea of nature as governed by God and society reflecting that natural hierarchy with king/lord/church/peasant was replaced by the idea of entrepreneurs "experimenting" in the market and a godless biological realm governed by natural selection and mutation (mutation is the biological equivalent of invention/venture in capitalism). All we did was create a new mythology to reflect and justify our social conditions just like humans have been doing from the beginning, and obviously our complex way of "evidencing" this mythology is just reflective of the advanced intellectual state of our culture, but it's no different than the medieval theologians' justification for their worldciew.

bump

Evolution is fake and gay. All good right-wing philosophy has to be grounded in either christianity or greek thought

>>24523906
This

>>24522361 (OP)
>only the carnivore is spiritually equipped for war
Has this faggot never seen herbivores fight for mates? Some of them even have horns or antlers specifically for the surpose. Reproduction is always a competitive business.

>>24522361 (OP)
>they could as well eat plants.
No, they couldnt.

>>24523906
Literal retardation. The phenomenon of heredity drives the process of adaptation. Are you going to deny that too?

>>24524702
>Are you going to deny that too?
Yes, Fichte and Lysenko had it right

>>24522361 (OP)
>technically correct
no

>>24523892
This cautiousness is not unique to Yockey; Evola expresses a similar concern in his 'The Culture of the Right'; an attempt to excise the spiritually sterile elements of science from its material success and might; it might be worthwhile to discuss Evola's 'La religione della scienza' in this vain, but frankly I'm not fluent in Italian, and would likely misinterpret his words.

>>24522361 (OP)
This seems like a straight up dumb guy who doesn't watch animals

>>24522361 (OP)
Lmao yeah just let me define struggle purely in terms of the spiritual real quick yeah uhh 95% of cheetah cubs don't make it to adulthood due to starvation or getting eaten by hyenas but they don't struggle to survive because because I defined struggle in a way that makes that not count ok also those starving cheetah cubs could just eat grass the little dumbasses lmao.

>>24527663
Projecting late 18th century England in the middle of the enclosures onto animals is just as fucktarded. I mean I could launch into a "genetics is the ideology of the animal world: accreted past struggles of little obvious use to the moment where its expressions encounter the relations of being adapted to a niche which never existed and certainly does not now." But anyone who has read D&G and understood them (the class may laugh) can reproduce this argument ab initio.

>>24527663
Much like the medieval christian, animal behaviour exists as an allegory for other, more intellectual things.

>>24522361 (OP)
I appreciate that the natural state is not struggle in the whole sense of the word and could be regarded as a stable and tranquil state even with violence and all kinds of literal actual struggle, but that has to be the wankiest way possible to make such a point

>>24522361 (OP)
>technically correct
...is it technically correct? I dont believe that it is.

>>24527727
>>24526561
I did concede that, yes, the ancestors of the modern lion might have chosen to predate in a manner that can be interpreted as a "soul" if you so choose, but considering that he went full "well why aren't the chimpanzees turning into humans" not even two paragraphs later I rescind that defense, Yockey doesn't deserve that benefit of the doubt.

>>24527741
Again he's fucking right lmao. If evolution were true you'd expect to find a continuum of transitional lifeforms. You'd see a variety of human-like but not fully human creatures that we could interbreed with, and these creatures themselves would be able to interbreed with creatures even more dissimilar from us which we in turn couldnt interbreed with. Youd have a continuum with loads od species in the middle, but we dont. You're just a dogmatist.

>>24528525
>transitional lifeforms
But that is everything.

>>24522361 (OP)
To be fair, it demonstrates his ability to look beyond the concept primitive Darwinism that every smart kid discovers in his teenage years and a lot of people get stuck with it for the rest of their lives.
The question of struggle for existence itself is metaphysical. All metaphysical questions can be reversed.
'The world is made of fire' - 'The world is made of water'
'God exists' - 'God doesn't exist'
'There is free will' - 'There is no free will'
'Life is struggle' - 'Life is harmony'
None of this actually means anything to humans since both statements are unprovable and can be argued for using inverse statements and it all boils down to personal feelings/beliefs. But I have to say, arguing against the concept of struggle of existence is probably a relatively unorthodox thing to do, especially for a guy like Yockey.

>>24528993
This

>best thread on /lit/ in years
>it's a Yockey thread
checks out

>>24526401
I can see how your father would want to deny the concept of heredity, but you have no excuse.

>>24528525
That's called a ring species, retard.

>>24528993
Really thought-provoking yet relatively concise post, I like it.
Now (I’d like to say), you’re ready for Heraclitus. The idea you took as an example, ‘The world is made of fire’ can indeed be attributed to Heraclitus, but your idea of the interdependence of opposites or opposing views is definitely on the wavelength of Heraclitus. And, furthermore, I’d say Heraclitus was sharp enough that he wasn’t taking ‘fire’ in the literal modern scientific sense we moderners would take it, but in a symbolic, metaphorical, or poetic way, but also genuinely tied to the concept, appearance, or experience of fire.

>>24522364
wrong