Nature, along with the conditions it finds itself in, incentivizes competition. The claim that “capitalism” is an alien system imposed on “nature” and “destroying” everything is rooted in a kind of optimistic nature-worship. In this framework, “nature” is assumed to be “good,” so anything “bad” must be external to it.
A common move within this perception is to align the “feminine” with “goddess” and “nature,” while projecting all deviation from “the good” onto “the masculine” and “capitalism.” Yet the feminine directly rewards the victors of aggressive competition with sexual access. This is not a side-effect but a complicit, instinctual endorsement of competitive systems—one that has existed for as long as the species has been dimorphic in its current form.
Because it arises unconsciously, there is little awareness that this endorsement props up the very system being condemned. What is even more ironic is the failure to recognize themselves as the subject of the competition, even as they attack the structures that competition inevitably produces. The inherent female instinctual reward system incentivizes resource apprehension and conquest by providing sexual fantasies and reproduction to those men who perform in this drama most effectively.
This is natural endorsement of competitive systems along with all of its side-effects and consequences. Females are the subjects of the competition at hand, and the competitive systems that arise are emergent properties of nature. NOTE: Moral judgment must be resisted here. An emergent property of nature simply is. It is neither “OK” nor “not OK” because it is natural. At most, it is widely experienced as annoying or dreadful. Demonizing it will not help you achieve anything.
What we label “capitalism” looks to me like nature’s will acquiring through competition and craft, then defending and monopolizing its advantage. Nature does not submit to moral systems, and whether the dominant structure is capitalist, communist, or something else is irrelevant. Power plays out as a clash of wills and the ability to enforce. If one lacks the capacity to exert real force on those wills, a life of activism becomes nothing more than a ritualistic religion or a thirst for staged drama.
For this reason, I don’t bother claiming allegiance to any “proposed system.” I see them all as surface expressions of the deeper contest—the will of nature colliding with itself in the void, each instance seeking to ensure its own continuation. I do not need to defend or rebuke the appearance of these systems by name. It is enough to recognize that nature—a persistent law of unknown origin—produces these results.
To argue that something is “from nature” or an “abomination to it” is simply to enter a religious debate, the same “in vs. out” (good vs. icky) framework that runs through every moral system. If something were truly “not from nature,” it would have to come from somewhere else. But no one can point to this “elsewhere.” Everything we see appears to arise from within this world.
Humanity is perplexed by its own shadow play precisely because it refuses to acknowledge this source. The dots remain unconnected, for to do so produces a negative emotion in the feminine. Illumination is thus thwarted. One of the unwritten rules of life is to spare the feminine from negative emotion. This has led us into an impossible situation: a collective madness with no resolution. They claim to “want to know why,” yet the instinct to appease the feminine forbids them from ever forming the idea—because to do so would be “offensive.”
Nature, and life itself, produce “immoral results.” If hatred must be assigned, it should not be wasted on “systems by name,” but directed at the essence of life itself that stands behind all of its results. If you follow the chain of what makes immoral results happen, it goes back to the foundations of existence. Therefore, honest rebuke and hatred should be directed here.
The true bind, the real crisis, is that life is inherently immoral (when logically followed through from moral claim to source)—and it generates these outcomes through its own inherent conditions. Some incorrectly respond by saying, "You are using nature as an excuse to justify the immoral." Not at all. The existence of nature does not make it "OK," it just makes it a prevailing result that comes from itself.
We are trapped in an unconscious feedback loop, where the very things we despise arise from satisfying nature’s demands—a mandated drama enforced by existence itself. Moral outrage, while emotionally compelling, is ineffective in changing these natural processes. Let’s clarify the root of optimism bias: Life and/or nature is inherently good and beautiful; therefore, if any emerging property produces icky or negative feelings, it is deemed not of nature—a deviation. Optimism bias is the inherent hypocrisy of nature and life itself. It is the appearance of the will of nature excusing the result of its own activities and inherent expressions. It is a denial mechanism created by the double-bind of consciousness of existence encountering moral systems. It is condemned by its own judgments for expressions it cannot avoid.