What does that term mean? I guess it's not fair of me to ask without sharing my own understanding of it: In my opinion, I think the objective moral standard is that which we can find in evolution, those who fulfill it get to live in those they leave behind and those who come after, and those who do not fulfill it are punished by being the end of their line. The objective moral commandment is "thou shalt ensure the propagation of the copies of thy genes by the best means that are known by thee & at thine disposal". My practical understand of this as a general rule, is that I see moral behavior as a game, which I define here as "a goal to be pursued within a framework of restriction one may not violate in pursuit of the previously mentioned goal". Proscriptive commandments, limited by Prohibitive commandments. The proscriptive ("goal") aspect is ratio utilitarianism - all things that are positively perceived, like pleasure and happiness, placed in a ratio over all things that are negatively perceived, like suffering and sorrow, but with my addition of "scientifically justified beliefs" to the top half of the ratio, and "scientifically unjustified beliefs" at the bottom half. It should also take into account the long-term consequences and not just concern itself with the immediate, as a negative utilitarian might point out, the great momentary pleasure of the eating of a lotus leaf may be made insignificant when the far grater negative consequences of addiction and withdrawal are sure to follow after. It might feel good to chug sugary soda and munch on deep-fried potato chips, but obesity and digestive/reproductive/psychological problems are sure to follow, and the often under-estimated degree of living hell this is easily outweighs (lol) the short term pleasure from consuming a diet of junk. The prohibitive ("rules") aspect is the Non-Aggression Principle - Simply put, it's a system of respecting the concepts of ownership and consent, everyone owns their person, which includes their bubble of personal space around themselves, and their property, which can include almost anything with few exceptions, that are typically cited as things like non-physical "property" ("Intellectual Property") and other people (some variants are only considering a particular category of people - "Living White Male Gentile Humans" - as being protected from ownership by law, or to be protected by law in any capacity). Any interaction with anything that is owned is prohibited unless it is consented to by the owner, this can involve things like consent on conditions ("you give me something I value more than what I have, and I'll give you something you value more than what you have" - the essence of barter), or the fact that consent that can be withdrawn, and the interaction has to be ended, as continuing it would be a violation of the NAP ("get off my property" being a classic example). This is the reason why laws like "do not kill" and "do not steal" work so well. The NAP doesn't applying to all being as people who can own things, some things are only worthy of being considered on the "property" side of things, for example, the farmer is a "person" but the cow is not, she is only worthy of moral consideration as his "property". There is the third element, which most moral systems fail to even acknowledge, and in my opinion this is the part that separates a Fascist morality from other moral systems. That part is the acknowledgement that not all entities are morally equivalent, and that there exists a moral hierarchy that sets some above other in terms of moral priority. This is where Evolution comes in, as it forms the basis of a two-factor scaling of the extent of one's moral obligations to others, the two factors are genetic similarity (how many genes they and you share in common), and youth (those who are younger must ave moral priority over those who are older), it's the idea of a bunch of circles drawn around oneself, first around you and those who share 100% of your genetics, then around those who share 50% of your genetics, and so on, then you can arrange those inside these circles according to age, and establish their priority within those circles on that basis, younger over older. You can even put more importance on age than genetic similarity, making it so that the equation you use would place your grandchildren over your children in terms of the your priority of moral duties towards them. You cannot love anything without hating that which threatens it, and unconditional love for everything is practically just another term for an attitude of complete and indiscriminate apathy. It is hate that gives substance to love, it is hate that bring love it's significance, without a component of hate for your love's anathema, your love for anything may well as not exist, one who loves truth must hate lies, one who loves their children must hate those who seek to cause them harm, one who loves their people must hate those who despise them. When we are forbidden to hate, we are forbidden to love as well. You are your genes, they are what make you, you. It is not your components that make you unique, but the way they are put together, your genetics are the blueprints for that, and as such, they are your essence. Well, your essence is not just your own, but the composition of the essences of many others, you are literally made out of your ancestors, some part of the things that make them themselves, are literally what makes you yourself. Any attack on your ancestors or their people is also an attack on you, and should be responded to as such, in the appropriate manner, it is not an overreaction to lay the beat down on one who insults the honor of your forefathers, in a more honorable society, nothing would be seen as being more appropriate, alas, we do not live in a society that values honor (though it used to). You have every right to feel one with them, to take pride in their achievements, and shame in their failings, and to be concerned with which are which, as our (((history classes))) are most successful in convincing our children that the victories of their ancestors are to be seen as a source of shame and guilt, that they should mourn the successes of their people, and bemoan the evidence of their superiority. Even the dissident right has fallen into this trap, and tries to downplay or deny, rather than tackling the core assumption of the attacks, that these are to be seen by Whites as tragedies to be regretted and atoned for, rather than as epic tales of glorious feats to be honored and emulated. Last thing I'd like to mention is traditionalism, as an atheist, I see valuing traditions as being quite scientific and practical, a tradition is any meme that has withstood many competitors and emerged from it as the one with more positive consequences and less negative ones. Scientifically speaking, traditions have been vindicated through the falsification process, so it is a practical act to assume them the position of incumbency, and to challenge any alternatives to prove their superiority to the existing order of things, rather than just blindly adopting and tolerating novelty for novelty sake (which is what "progressivism" essentially is). Traditions usually emerge from practicality, not impractical thinking, but the optimal path, determined by experimentation, they are often the solutions to problems we have forgotten about, and when we blindly remove the traditions, the problem that they were created to address return and rear their ugly heads, it is only from a position of comfort and ignorance that one could be so reckless as to just abandon or attack traditions so recklessly. Discrimination against the other is good, because it closes the pool and allows your ideas to be made into reality far more easily, the more other groups you discriminate against, the stronger your ideas become as a result of the pool of competing ideas becoming smaller, even those who oppose discrimination should engage in it, because it is the only means of getting to the point where they can acquire the power necessary to enforce their anti-discriminatory, and give it substance.