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

©2026 Poal.co

882

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

Christianity is a commonality with conservatism, we need a clean break, any commonalities will inevitably drag us towards the center, with our numbers, we want to avoid losing people to the center.

Christians on here are halfway, who think the 1950s were based, segregation was still cohabitation, separation was what would have been the policy to support.

They think the middle ages were a golden age, they weren't, the level.of jewish corruption and subversion then was worse than it is today, both the kings and churches were heavily pozzed by kikes, it was only when both were too weak to stop the commoners that the common man would rise up against the jews.

Jesus is a marxist, this is of greater importance than the distraction of his ethnic lineage, his commandments are everything a subversive kike would promote, the only reason christendom could function at all is that most Christians were completely in the dark about exactly what it was that their lord and savior was promoting, this was the true reason people started freaking out when some Christian laypeople were beginning to read the Bible.

Most Christianity today would have been considered heretical in those times, not only do Christians commit the capital offense of studying the Bible, but they also celebrate heretical holidays like Christmas and Easter, in many ways the Christians of today are radical progressives that even Martin Luther would have despised and called to be executed for blasphemy (he literally would have, if his writing are amything to go by).

Christians on this site are turncoat. For decades they had been talking nonstop about how atheists are to blame for the evils of racism, antisemitism, and the nazis. Their favorite movie was tripe like "expelled", a kike documentary that puts the for the phony holocaust on atheism and evolution. The whole Christian movement of the 1920's to the 2010's was mired in jewish influence.

Even.now, their arguments for why we should be Christian are unchanged from those days when they were were bunch of nigger-loving judeophiles who loved nothing more than to castrate the ebullient natives.

I think they are disingenuous, they see conservatism as a sinking ship, and like rats they see our movement as the new thing to latch themselves to, they are doing damage to us by pulling us towards the center and being complete morons on matters like race, which are central to our cause.

They think they can fool us by saying "look at the white people on the left, they are all atheists", but we aren't the mainstream right, we are the third position, seeking to usurp the position of the mainsteam right, and we can point to the mainstream right and say "look at all the white and nonwhite people on the conservative side, they are all Christians!".

As we are third position politically, so too should we be so religiously, the problem with the Christians here is that they lump together the atheists of the left with those who are outside of that political circle.

This is a double standard, because Christianity is defined not just as factual claims, but also moral and political ones as well, while atheists are defined solely in factual terms.

If the other aspects were added to determining the groups, then the atheists on the left would be in wholly separate groups from those who are not leftists.

Neitzsche was a third positionist with regards to this, he rejected not only the Christians who defined the conservative right, but also those on the left, who he had identified on more than just whether they beleived in God.

In the category of the public men bound by a slave morality, he put the marxists in with with Christians due to how they were identical on everything EXCEPT the beleif in God, and he was right to do do.

Both demonize half of reality, they have this epic narrative of good vs evil, where they are these heroes fighting villains, and thus and this they become delusional with moral righteousness, disconnected from reality, and destructive to themselves and others by being stubborn and psychotic, easily manipulated conformists in suicidal cults attempting to minlessly achieve impossible feats that would only make things worse were they to be successful.

Atheist communism is indescribable from Christian feudalism for those living within, only God separates the two.

In the category of the subhuman, he put the amoral libertine who abandons all morals, meaning, and civilization for a path of self indulgence that ends up destroying themselves and those around them

This is what the Christians of the site try to scare you into their ideology with, and its complete trash philosophy, just because no objective morality or meaning exist doesn't mean the whole concept should be tossed out, these things are a part of human nature, and one must restrain oneself to be a man and not a beast, much good has come from restraint.

Stirner, de Sade, and other like them were pathetic wretches, a far cry from the liberated souls they admired in their stories and speeches.

Christians claim to morality is a joke, they try to pretend that it could be "objective" but even accepting all the factual premises of christianity makes the claim no closer to the truth than it otherwise would be.

The only edge their motality has over others is the promise and threat of reward of punishment from the divine, that's fucking it, but they neverbgo with thst angle, instead dedicating themselves to the retarded meaningless claims that their morality is "objective".

Look at it this way, even if God exists, your morality is site, because God has no God above him, he is an atheist, therefore his morality is just some guy's personal opinion, and what fight he have to it then? Just that he puts you in hell for not doing it, and metaphorically sucks you off if you do go with what he says.

At that point the christian morality is on the same level as that of the liberal, who also operates on a reward/punishment basis.

If it's a matter of just sucking up to the strongest guy in the room, who can hurt you the most or give you the most stuff, you might have a case with becoming illuminati, rather than fighting against them.