Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

737

Christianity is dying, and should die.

The new right should be atheist, this will not only distinguish us from the right of the past, but free us up to explore a new foundation for morality and social issues.

Religion was never be beneficial to us, no one really knew what the religious morality was, and our enemies were correct for once when they pointed out how it certainly wasn't based in the teachings of Jesus.

The new right should focus on race, particularly the distinction between gentiles and jews, so as to keep the movement white, the morality of the new right should incorporate elements of various ideologies.

Morality should have three components, like a game, it should have a goal, a set of rules, and a system of conflict resolution.

The goal is ratio utilitarianism, the ratio of all things perceived to be good over all things perceived to be bad, across those of moral value to the actor.

The good things being positive physical experiences, positive mental experiences, and scientifically justified beliefs. / The bad things being negative physical experiences, negative mental experiences, and beliefs that are counter to those which are scientifically justified.

This ratio must consider the total over the long term, rather than the specific and the immediate, less of the hedonism of a libertine, and more the hedonism of a stoic.

The rules are restrictions one must abide by in pursuit of the goal, and these can be best summarized by the non-aggression principle, the morality that everyone owns one's person (their physical body and the personal space around it), and also their property (which can be anything physical that they are permitted to own), any action one takes which directly affects either category of the things owned by someone else must be done with the consent of their owner, interactions must be voluntary. The only exception is when this rule must be violated in order to prevent it from immediately being violated, or to bring an end to a violation in progress (defense of the property of oneself and that of others).

The third component is one which most moral systems never even think to address, that not all people are of equal moral value, and that ones degree if moral obligation may vary depending upon the relationship between themselves and the other involved parties.

This element is important when the interests of two parties come into conflict, do you save thw line person on the right, or the one on the left?

One's moral obligations to others must be set in a hierarchy that gives greater priority of moral consideration to some over others on the basis of two factors.

The first is their genetic similarity to the actor, and the second is their generational difference to the actor.

One must prioritize those who are genetically similar over those who are not, and the number of genes/alleles in common must be the exact measure of one's moral obligation to another on this basis.

One must also prioritize those who are younger in generation to those who are older, and the difference in age must be the exact measure of one's moral obligation to another on this basis.

The two measurements combine with each other and the numbers of people involved, which can lead to all manner of combinations.

But it must be calculated such that it works like this: one's youngest direct descendant must come before oneself, who must come before one's identical twin, who must cone before one's oldest direct ancestor.

There must be circles drawn around oneself on the basis of genetic similarity, the circles extend outwards from oneself to eventually encompass all the life of Earth, and they must then each be divided into parts that separate their inhabitants by generation, such that we have the moral values of the individualsin each place, from there we can then determine the compartive level of moral obligation to different sets and combinations of individuals.

You don't actually need to do all this, most of the time it correlates to the instincts you have evolved to possess regarding moral loyalties to different people and creatures.

For a very extreme twist, one can exempt different people and beings from one's moral considerations, and also from one's society's legal considerations.

For example, declaring that the law should only protect those who meet all the criteria of being alive, conscious, human, white (jews aren't white), and male (are least one Y-chromosome), everyone and everything else is given the same legal consideration as an unliving and inanimate object.

Or one could create legal castes with those who meet all requirements at the top, and the rest consisting of those who meet varying levels of closeness to those requirements, both in the context of possessing some qualities but not others (white, but female), or in possessing qualities of differing levels of similarity to the ones listed (such as a 3/4 white being of higher status than those who are only 1/4 white).

Other things may be added or removed as this is considered.

As far as life purpose, it should be that the interests of white males is the most important thing, amd that the highest of these interests is their survival and propagation.

Also to be considered is the opposition to any who stand opposed to white males, including their eternal enemy in the jews who seek their subjugation, enslavement, or destruction.

The final thing on this subject of meaning is given by Frederick Neitzsche, who stood against both Christians and marxists, and offered a third way, just as Adolf Hitler offered a third path to capitalism and communism.

Christianity is dying, and should die. The new right should be atheist, this will not only distinguish us from the right of the past, but free us up to explore a new foundation for morality and social issues. Religion was never be beneficial to us, no one really knew what the religious morality was, and our enemies were correct for once when they pointed out how it certainly wasn't based in the teachings of Jesus. The new right should focus on race, particularly the distinction between gentiles and jews, so as to keep the movement white, the morality of the new right should incorporate elements of various ideologies. Morality should have three components, like a game, it should have a goal, a set of rules, and a system of conflict resolution. The goal is ratio utilitarianism, the ratio of all things perceived to be good over all things perceived to be bad, across those of moral value to the actor. The good things being positive physical experiences, positive mental experiences, and scientifically justified beliefs. / The bad things being negative physical experiences, negative mental experiences, and beliefs that are counter to those which are scientifically justified. This ratio must consider the total over the long term, rather than the specific and the immediate, less of the hedonism of a libertine, and more the hedonism of a stoic. The rules are restrictions one must abide by in pursuit of the goal, and these can be best summarized by the non-aggression principle, the morality that everyone owns one's person (their physical body and the personal space around it), and also their property (which can be anything physical that they are permitted to own), any action one takes which directly affects either category of the things owned by someone else must be done with the consent of their owner, interactions must be voluntary. The only exception is when this rule must be violated in order to prevent it from immediately being violated, or to bring an end to a violation in progress (defense of the property of oneself and that of others). The third component is one which most moral systems never even think to address, that not all people are of equal moral value, and that ones degree if moral obligation may vary depending upon the relationship between themselves and the other involved parties. This element is important when the interests of two parties come into conflict, do you save thw line person on the right, or the one on the left? One's moral obligations to others must be set in a hierarchy that gives greater priority of moral consideration to some over others on the basis of two factors. The first is their genetic similarity to the actor, and the second is their generational difference to the actor. One must prioritize those who are genetically similar over those who are not, and the number of genes/alleles in common must be the exact measure of one's moral obligation to another on this basis. One must also prioritize those who are younger in generation to those who are older, and the difference in age must be the exact measure of one's moral obligation to another on this basis. The two measurements combine with each other and the numbers of people involved, which can lead to all manner of combinations. But it must be calculated such that it works like this: one's youngest direct descendant must come before oneself, who must come before one's identical twin, who must cone before one's oldest direct ancestor. There must be circles drawn around oneself on the basis of genetic similarity, the circles extend outwards from oneself to eventually encompass all the life of Earth, and they must then each be divided into parts that separate their inhabitants by generation, such that we have the moral values of the individualsin each place, from there we can then determine the compartive level of moral obligation to different sets and combinations of individuals. You don't actually need to do all this, most of the time it correlates to the instincts you have evolved to possess regarding moral loyalties to different people and creatures. For a very extreme twist, one can exempt different people and beings from one's moral considerations, and also from one's society's legal considerations. For example, declaring that the law should only protect those who meet all the criteria of being alive, conscious, human, white (jews aren't white), and male (are least one Y-chromosome), everyone and everything else is given the same legal consideration as an unliving and inanimate object. Or one could create legal castes with those who meet all requirements at the top, and the rest consisting of those who meet varying levels of closeness to those requirements, both in the context of possessing some qualities but not others (white, but female), or in possessing qualities of differing levels of similarity to the ones listed (such as a 3/4 white being of higher status than those who are only 1/4 white). Other things may be added or removed as this is considered. As far as life purpose, it should be that the interests of white males is the most important thing, amd that the highest of these interests is their survival and propagation. Also to be considered is the opposition to any who stand opposed to white males, including their eternal enemy in the jews who seek their subjugation, enslavement, or destruction. The final thing on this subject of meaning is given by Frederick Neitzsche, who stood against both Christians and marxists, and offered a third way, just as Adolf Hitler offered a third path to capitalism and communism.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (7).
[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

You may not pray to a god, but everyone relies on faith in unknowns to complete their value system. You may not have a holy book or clergy, but everyone relies on authoritative texts and trusted authority figures to tell them truths about the nature of reality that they themselves have never experienced. You may think you rely on knowledge rather than faith, as most people believe of themselves, but you haven't even bothered to do the simple observations and calculations necessary to prove simple scientific facts, such as the Earth revolves around the sun. You are faithful, in a way not very distinct from the religious.

Science is not about never making assumptions or starting from zero on every possible subject, that would be so impractical as to be absurd, but about being willing to modify your beliefs on a scientific basis in response to the evidence before you, there is a difference between trust and faith, and between being willing to modify your assumptions and holding to some conclusion even when there is ample reason to re-evaluate your opinions. This difference is not in having good reasons for one's every belief, but in being willing to change one's mind for the right reasons.

True, I did not do the calculations to show the heliocentric model as being true, nor to establish that the earth is not a flat disc, but I trusted the people who claimed that these were well established by others, so that I would not have to figure everything our from scratch (a requirement for scientific knowlewdge to build upon itself). However, my level of confidence in these things as being true are proportionate to the level of justification I can bring to the ideas I believe in, I will never assert absolute certainty in anything beyond my own existence in some form, my level of certainty is on a continuum, with my existence on the side of absolute certainty, and everything else somewhere else on the scale.

When I encountered flat-earthers and geocentrists, i did not simply reject them as being wrong a priori, I heard their claims, looked to those who addressed them, and found the counter-arguments satisfactory, especially since they had the last word due not to censorship of flatties, but due to the flatties simply having nothing to say in return, and so burying their heads in sand. All this was trust vs trust, and makes clear another point, that evidence is not just direct observation, like certainty, it also lays upon a continuum, and some evidence is superior to others, but there is no reason to therefore conclude that only the very best form of evidence can be used, absolutism is impractical. now, if the debate has gone further, and there was more to support the flatties claims, one may move up to the next degree of evidence, since the argument could not be resolved at a lower level.

think of three roomates, one stores a cake slice from a wedding in the fridge, it disappears overnight, the roomate who owns the cake is furious, and demands to know where their cake went, one of the two other roomates says that the third roomate ate it, having seen the event take place, in such a situation, a scientifically minded wedding-attendant may base their assumptions on this level of evidence, but when the other roomate says that the other one was the one who ate it, the wedding-attendant may then move onto the next level of evidence to resolve the situation.

the point of all this is that your insistence on extremes is what makes your argument flawed, both in certainty and in evidence, there is a continuum, and they exist due to practicality, one does not have absolute certainty or nothing at all, and one does not have to rely on just the most accurate means of establishing belief to believe in anything at all, both of these approaches would get us nowhere.

faith is unwaverable, it is not tied to anything at all but inner certainty itself, the conclusion is a priori, and not subject to change, to pretend that is equivalent to making presumptions based on what is likely and modifying them later as new information comes in, is a false equivalency.