The religious right is dead, long live the racist right

966

•

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.

[–] • 0 pt

Politics is a moment in the history of religion.

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.

Religious thinking is inherent to human psychology. It is inescapable, whether you replace "god" with the State, the scientific community's hierarchy, yourself, or anything else that people use to fill that void.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that Christianity is correct. It means that we'd be most successful in following the religion that best strengthens us and provides values that bring our communities unity and prosperity. Christianity has a pretty decent track record of this over a long history. Abandoning any concept of god has a history of creating arrogant fools who cannot conceive of anything greater than their own power of reason, who end up trying to control and shape everything in a reality vastly complex beyond their understanding. Extrapolating that perspective over an entire nation is one of the reasons communist economies always collapse.

Abandoning any concept of god has a tendency to produce moral relativism, since this tends to imply that there is no higher power than man, and man can justify a variety of moral views. Extrapolating this across a society leads to widespread lack of standards under the guise of "tolerance", since anyone may be morally correct in their own way. You are seeing the results of this now in the West, as degeneracy becomes rampant - always the inevitable conclusion.

Nietzsche, in my opinion, was an incredible mind, though not perfect in all things. His strong stance against Christianity, again in my opinion, seems like it had as much to do with a lifelong rebellion against an oppressive religious father as it did about the nature of Christianity itself. As far as atheism, Nietzsche certainly had one concept show itself to be true - "God is dead, and we have killed him" was presented as a mournful phrase. Christianity was already faltering in mainstream thought during his time, and he correctly realized that if we killed it entirely without replacing it with another worldview that served such a religious function, the entire social structure would be undermined to our detriment. Of course, Nietzsche did think he was finding a replacement worldview, with his talk of a Will to Power and the ubermensch and all of that.

The obvious conclusion of a world where such things are the highest ideals would be continuously warring states led by arrogant dictators with little to keep them in check, besides whatever corruption would be necessary to satisfy the armies they raise. It would essentially be the last few centuries of the Western Roman Empire all over again, probably with the same dramatic conclusion. I attribute the fact that such a great mind as Nietzsche's did not see this basic truth to the fact that he only started heavily leaning into his replacement ideology for Christianity toward the end of his life, when he was losing his mind to syphilis.

I agree with much of your proposed policies. But you would need to give people the values that justify them in a story that unites them. Without that, you are guaranteed to have conflict among drastically differing worldviews, and you will lose the support of the majority of people who require a story to explain morals because they won't think it through on their own. Such a narrative must have the people seeking something higher than themselves in which to have faith, seemingly just to stay mentally and socially healthy. Such a story, requiring this type of faith, is a religion for all intents and purposes. So, if you want to get rid of Christianity, you need to replace it with a better religion that is both acceptable to people and produces better social results. I've yet to see one. Common modern atheist worldviews do not even come close.

Politics is a moment in the history of religion. 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. Religious thinking is inherent to human psychology. It is inescapable, whether you replace "god" with the State, the scientific community's hierarchy, yourself, or anything else that people use to fill that void. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that Christianity is correct. It means that we'd be most successful in following the religion that best strengthens us and provides values that bring our communities unity and prosperity. Christianity has a pretty decent track record of this over a long history. Abandoning any concept of god has a history of creating arrogant fools who cannot conceive of anything greater than their own power of reason, who end up trying to control and shape everything in a reality vastly complex beyond their understanding. Extrapolating that perspective over an entire nation is one of the reasons communist economies always collapse. Abandoning any concept of god has a tendency to produce moral relativism, since this tends to imply that there is no higher power than man, and man can justify a variety of moral views. Extrapolating this across a society leads to widespread lack of standards under the guise of "tolerance", since anyone may be morally correct in their own way. You are seeing the results of this now in the West, as degeneracy becomes rampant - always the inevitable conclusion. Nietzsche, in my opinion, was an incredible mind, though not perfect in all things. His strong stance against Christianity, again in my opinion, seems like it had as much to do with a lifelong rebellion against an oppressive religious father as it did about the nature of Christianity itself. As far as atheism, Nietzsche certainly had one concept show itself to be true - "God is dead, and we have killed him" was presented as a mournful phrase. Christianity was already faltering in mainstream thought during his time, and he correctly realized that if we killed it entirely without replacing it with another worldview that served such a religious function, the entire social structure would be undermined to our detriment. Of course, Nietzsche did think he was finding a replacement worldview, with his talk of a Will to Power and the ubermensch and all of that. The obvious conclusion of a world where such things are the highest ideals would be continuously warring states led by arrogant dictators with little to keep them in check, besides whatever corruption would be necessary to satisfy the armies they raise. It would essentially be the last few centuries of the Western Roman Empire all over again, probably with the same dramatic conclusion. I attribute the fact that such a great mind as Nietzsche's did not see this basic truth to the fact that he only started heavily leaning into his replacement ideology for Christianity toward the end of his life, when he was losing his mind to syphilis. I agree with much of your proposed policies. But you would need to give people the values that justify them in a story that unites them. Without that, you are guaranteed to have conflict among drastically differing worldviews, and you will lose the support of the majority of people who require a story to explain morals because they won't think it through on their own. Such a narrative must have the people seeking something higher than themselves in which to have faith, seemingly just to stay mentally and socially healthy. Such a story, requiring this type of faith, is a religion for all intents and purposes. So, if you want to get rid of Christianity, you need to replace it with a better religion that is both acceptable to people and produces better social results. I've yet to see one. Common modern atheist worldviews do not even come close.

link

[–] [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.

>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.

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Religious thinking is inherent to human psychology. It is inescapable, whether you replace "god" with the State, the scientific community's hierarchy, yourself, or anything else that people use to fill that void.

People want direction, they want goals, they want an agenda, they want rules to follow, authorities to enforce them, and figures to trust to lead them in the right direction.

Such is the mind of a creature evolved to social organization, even niggers want to know who is the bossman in charge and how not to offend him.

I agree, we need to find something to fill that void, marxism benefits from atheism exactly because they are so quick with an easily accessible answer, and anyone looking for cognitive closure to fill out their identity will latch onto the first thing that presents itself, the jews went from promoting christianity and religious morality, to removing the religion, and immediately filling the void with communism, such is the essence of the "left boot/right boot" memepic.

So we need to get in there first, but what to fill the vacuum with? well, we already have an answer, we have our race, a cause backed by science, and we have a set of moral philosophy to compete with theirs, look at the libertarians, from which I lifted a part of their moral rules from, they are just as rabid as any commie, look at the objectivist cult of that kikess ayn rand, they have a sense of moral absolutism and certainty that their political ideology will lead to a utopia, just like the commies do for their new world, and the christians do for their kingdom of heaven come.

A cult is easy, it needs no supernatural claims, just a moral code for people to judge themselves (and each other) by, a goal for the people to pursue (for us that may be whites fulfilling the 14 words, and taking off to the stars, then on to conquering the whole of the universe, and beyond, in more than one sense), we need to get people emotionally invested, perhaps with enemies to fight (which already have a whole rogues gallery of), we need organization (which is going to be the hardest part), and more.

We already have what we need, all we got to do is beat the marxists to the punch, if we are the first people someone meets when leaving christianity, we can count on them to be /our/ recruit, not (((theirs))).

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that Christianity is correct. It means that we'd be most successful in following the religion that best strengthens us and provides values that bring our communities unity and prosperity. Christianity has a pretty decent track record of this over a long history.

Well, we've had Christianity for a long time, a lot of that time was spent with jews behind both church and king, there's other things to consider too, such as changing times and circumstances. For most of the middle ages, the average Christian knew jack about their religion, they were forbidden to read the holy books, and unable to do it even if they got around that prohibition, most Christians never knew what Jesus was really commanding them to do, and perhaps that was a good thing, but nowadays, people are able to go online and read the Bible for free. Even if they don't, they will encounter some people who will present the problem verses for them, the early internet scene of the 2000's was rife with this stuff "look what jesus wants you to do", when I saw what it was, commie shit, I was thrown for a loop at how the religious right was in less agreement with Jesus then the atheist left was. Furthermore, we got all these new discoveries, and the kikes had changed their strategy to industrialized communist atheism. There's a lot of reasons why we can't simply try to bring back the way things used to be, so much has changed that makes it difficult to do, and the question is now whether it's worth the effort to try.

Abandoning any concept of god has a history of creating arrogant fools who cannot conceive of anything greater than their own power of reason, who end up trying to control and shape everything in a reality vastly complex beyond their understanding. Extrapolating that perspective over an entire nation is one of the reasons communist economies always collapse.

The reason communist economies collapse is that they do so by design, these are never intended to bring about the paradise promised to the common revolutionary, the reason they collapse is that they are neo-feudalism, powerful jews wanting to make slaves of the goyim by promising them the moon and delivering them into hell on the back of those promises. When ukrainian farmers are starving to death, while the party eats themselves fat, this is the intended effect of the people who promoted the ideology in the first place. The party members don't like workers, they hate them, and the whole concept of communism is intended to swindle them out of everything and make slaves of them, this is not hell paved with good intentions, it's hell paved by bad intentions and a legion of dumb saps being taken for a ride. Communism's track record of failure is a feature, not a bug, the idea that this was not the goal is absurd.

Abandoning any concept of god has a tendency to produce moral relativism, since this tends to imply that there is no higher power than man, and man can justify a variety of moral views.

Christianity is moral relativism, in the 30 odd years of my life, I've seen christians take a 180 on so many subjects that I can't help but laugh when someone says "objective christian morality", it's just all different men's opinions with a dose of moral certainty, and as you said, that can exist in any morality, even without God there to infuse it in.

As for higher powers, we have them, Hamilton's laws of kin selection, game theory in evolutionary terms, nature itself and the evidence of White Man's superiority, that only our race holds the key to escaping the death of this planet (appealing since so many people are already fascinated by the idea of exploring space and time, living with all the interesting technologies that sci-fi can offer, the sense of wonder is the prime motivator here, just like with the excitement and anticipation of witnessing the glory of heaven after death). We have a thousand different ways to say that our morality is justified by something beyond just someone's opinion. Take a cursory look at the philosophy threads on neinchan and you will see it, it's a base well-covered..

Extrapolating this across a society leads to widespread lack of standards under the guise of "tolerance", since anyone may be morally correct in their own way. You are seeing the results of this now in the West, as degeneracy becomes rampant - always the inevitable conclusion.

There is no widespread acceptance of "tolerance", the left has rigorous moral standards, if they supported "tolerance" on the basis that you claim they do, they'd have no issue with racist or sexist speech, no issue with a lot of things.

The kind of people you describe would become egoists, not leftists, Max Stirner, not Karl Marx. their brand of degeneracy would be very compatible with the far right, as we could simply assert that our power makes us morally correct, and someone truly devoid of standards would accept that.

The left claims to be moral relativists, but in truth they are moral absolutists, they are unshakeable in their certainty that racism is wrong, and that it belongs in their "dustbin", these aren't moral relativists with no standards, these are moral crusaders with a vision that is very rigid as to what is acceptable and what is not.

They don't tolerate every opinion and lifestyle, they tolerate a very narrow category of both, don't be taken in by their sales campaign and false image of being these rebels who don't give a fuck, they give a lot of fucks, downright obsessive is what they are, they just have a moral code that, while strict, is very different than yours, and concerned with an entirely different set of "sins" and "crimes" to be vigilant for.

>Religious thinking is inherent to human psychology. It is inescapable, whether you replace "god" with the State, the scientific community's hierarchy, yourself, or anything else that people use to fill that void. People want direction, they want goals, they want an agenda, they want rules to follow, authorities to enforce them, and figures to trust to lead them in the right direction. Such is the mind of a creature evolved to social organization, even niggers want to know who is the bossman in charge and how not to offend him. I agree, we need to find something to fill that void, marxism benefits from atheism exactly because they are so quick with an easily accessible answer, and anyone looking for cognitive closure to fill out their identity will latch onto the first thing that presents itself, the jews went from promoting christianity and religious morality, to removing the religion, and immediately filling the void with communism, such is the essence of the "left boot/right boot" memepic. So we need to get in there first, but what to fill the vacuum with? well, we already have an answer, we have our race, a cause backed by science, and we have a set of moral philosophy to compete with theirs, look at the libertarians, from which I lifted a part of their moral rules from, they are just as rabid as any commie, look at the objectivist cult of that kikess ayn rand, they have a sense of moral absolutism and certainty that their political ideology will lead to a utopia, just like the commies do for their new world, and the christians do for their kingdom of heaven come. A cult is easy, it needs no supernatural claims, just a moral code for people to judge themselves (and each other) by, a goal for the people to pursue (for us that may be whites fulfilling the 14 words, and taking off to the stars, then on to conquering the whole of the universe, and beyond, in more than one sense), we need to get people emotionally invested, perhaps with enemies to fight (which already have a whole rogues gallery of), we need organization (which is going to be the hardest part), and more. We already have what we need, all we got to do is beat the marxists to the punch, if we are the first people someone meets when leaving christianity, we can count on them to be /our/ recruit, not (((theirs))). >Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that Christianity is correct. It means that we'd be most successful in following the religion that best strengthens us and provides values that bring our communities unity and prosperity. Christianity has a pretty decent track record of this over a long history. Well, we've had Christianity for a long time, a lot of that time was spent with jews behind both church and king, there's other things to consider too, such as changing times and circumstances. For most of the middle ages, the average Christian knew jack about their religion, they were forbidden to read the holy books, and unable to do it even if they got around that prohibition, most Christians never knew what Jesus was really commanding them to do, and perhaps that was a good thing, but nowadays, people are able to go online and read the Bible for free. Even if they don't, they will encounter some people who will present the problem verses for them, the early internet scene of the 2000's was rife with this stuff "look what jesus wants you to do", when I saw what it was, commie shit, I was thrown for a loop at how the religious right was in less agreement with Jesus then the atheist left was. Furthermore, we got all these new discoveries, and the kikes had changed their strategy to industrialized communist atheism. There's a lot of reasons why we can't simply try to bring back the way things used to be, so much has changed that makes it difficult to do, and the question is now whether it's worth the effort to try. >Abandoning any concept of god has a history of creating arrogant fools who cannot conceive of anything greater than their own power of reason, who end up trying to control and shape everything in a reality vastly complex beyond their understanding. Extrapolating that perspective over an entire nation is one of the reasons communist economies always collapse. The reason communist economies collapse is that they do so by design, these are never intended to bring about the paradise promised to the common revolutionary, the reason they collapse is that they are neo-feudalism, powerful jews wanting to make slaves of the goyim by promising them the moon and delivering them into hell on the back of those promises. When ukrainian farmers are starving to death, while the party eats themselves fat, this is the intended effect of the people who promoted the ideology in the first place. The party members don't like workers, they hate them, and the whole concept of communism is intended to swindle them out of everything and make slaves of them, this is not hell paved with good intentions, it's hell paved by bad intentions and a legion of dumb saps being taken for a ride. Communism's track record of failure is a feature, not a bug, the idea that this was not the goal is absurd. >Abandoning any concept of god has a tendency to produce moral relativism, since this tends to imply that there is no higher power than man, and man can justify a variety of moral views. Christianity is moral relativism, in the 30 odd years of my life, I've seen christians take a 180 on so many subjects that I can't help but laugh when someone says "objective christian morality", it's just all different men's opinions with a dose of moral certainty, and as you said, that can exist in any morality, even without God there to infuse it in. As for higher powers, we have them, Hamilton's laws of kin selection, game theory in evolutionary terms, nature itself and the evidence of White Man's superiority, that only our race holds the key to escaping the death of this planet (appealing since so many people are already fascinated by the idea of exploring space and time, living with all the interesting technologies that sci-fi can offer, the sense of wonder is the prime motivator here, just like with the excitement and anticipation of witnessing the glory of heaven after death). We have a thousand different ways to say that our morality is justified by something beyond just someone's opinion. Take a cursory look at the philosophy threads on neinchan and you will see it, it's a base well-covered.. >Extrapolating this across a society leads to widespread lack of standards under the guise of "tolerance", since anyone may be morally correct in their own way. You are seeing the results of this now in the West, as degeneracy becomes rampant - always the inevitable conclusion. There is no widespread acceptance of "tolerance", the left has rigorous moral standards, if they supported "tolerance" on the basis that you claim they do, they'd have no issue with racist or sexist speech, no issue with a lot of things. The kind of people you describe would become egoists, not leftists, Max Stirner, not Karl Marx. their brand of degeneracy would be very compatible with the far right, as we could simply assert that our power makes us morally correct, and someone truly devoid of standards would accept that. The left claims to be moral relativists, but in truth they are moral absolutists, they are unshakeable in their certainty that racism is wrong, and that it belongs in their "dustbin", these aren't moral relativists with no standards, these are moral crusaders with a vision that is very rigid as to what is acceptable and what is not. They don't tolerate every opinion and lifestyle, they tolerate a very narrow category of both, don't be taken in by their sales campaign and false image of being these rebels who don't give a fuck, they give a lot of fucks, downright obsessive is what they are, they just have a moral code that, while strict, is very different than yours, and concerned with an entirely different set of "sins" and "crimes" to be vigilant for.

parent
link

(post is archived)