If one race creates order and another breeds disorder, is neutrality really moral?

[imontheloose]

I don't think neutrality is moral when it allows disorder to thrive. If one people builds, sustains, and elevates, and another undermines, corrupts, and parasitises, then neutrality becomes complicity.

A state has a duty to protect its racial core. Tolerance of decay is not virtue, it's betrayal.

Just as a body rejects infection, so must a people reject alien elements that produce only degeneracy and collapse.

Spoiler

@Jason Voorhees @Gargantuan @wishIwasSalludon @Ultimate Subhuman™ @Daddy's Home

 

[Jason Voorhees]

The thing is these roles keep shifting from generation to generation. For example before blacks the Irish and Italians were considered to be nuisance. Before then gypsies now a days Albanians are also considered enemies of thr state these roles keep shifting

The UK has been full of native crime gangs for hundreds of years ever since it's society has been studied and recorde, has history of knife crime, gang warfare even before Victorian times.

Basically its the low class low status people that commit crimes regardless of where they are from. Crime syndicates existed, gangs existed, pimps existed, murderers existed. It is true that immigrants and ethnic usually take these roles from the natives when they arrive, because they are even more willing to resort to extreme violence to claim their spot.

 

[JeanneDArcAlter]

 

[Daddy's Home]

I believe that everything should be taken on an individual level, regardless of race

Obviously communities can form over time and make a bigger and more visible impact, but that's been happening throughout the entire history, and there have always been conquerors and those who have been conquered, in one form or another..

 

[imontheloose]

The thing is these roles keep shifting from generation to generation. For example before blacks the Irish and Italians were considered to be nuisance. Before then gypsies now a days Albanians are also considered enemies of thr state these roles keep shifting

The UK has been full of native crime gangs for hundreds of years ever since it's society has been studied and recorde, has history of knife crime, gang warfare even before Victorian times.

Basically its the low class low status people that commit crimes regardless of where they are from. Crime syndicates existed, gangs existed, pimps existed, murderers existed. It is true that immigrants and ethnic usually take these roles from the natives when they arrive, because they are even more willing to resort to extreme violence to claim their spot.

I think you're confusing circumstance with character. Yes, history shows every society has had crime. But not all crime looks the same, and not all groups react to hardship the same.

"low status" isn't enough... who turns poverty into loyalty, and who turns it into violence? Who, even when poor, still lives with honour? And who exploits disorder to build parasitic empires within our own cities?

I reject the idea that all groups are interchangeable. Race isn't just skin deep, it is spirit, instinct, will. If the same patterns of chaos follow certain people wherever they go, then we can't keep calling it a mere coincidence.

If a state refuses to protect its blood from decay, it doesn't deserve to endure.

 

[imontheloose]

View attachment 3707281

You mirin', son?

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

I don't think neutrality is moral

I don’t belive morality exists in the first place but that’s a whole different discussion

If one people builds, sustains, and elevates, and another undermines, corrupts, and parasitises, then neutrality becomes complicity.

I believe that society should be meritocratic, some groups behave worse than others

Things should be taken at an individual level, you shouldn’t be bailed out because you are or aren’t part of a certain group

 

[imontheloose]

I believe that everything should be taken on an individual level, regardless of race

Obviously communities can form over time and make a bigger and more visible impact, but that's been happening throughout the entire history, and there have always been conquerors and those who have been conquered, in one form or another..

I think judging every man as an individual is a lie that weakens nations. You may have noble men among all races, but the fate of a people isn't decided by exceptions. It is decided by the collective character. There have indeed always been conquerors and conquered, but those who survived did so because they defended their identity, not because they opened their gates in the name of fairness.

Individualism is what a people believes in when it has already forgotten who it is.

You may judge as an individual, but history judges as a race.

 

[JeanneDArcAlter]

You mirin', son?

 

[Jason Voorhees]

I think you're confusing circumstance with character. Yes, history shows every society has had crime. But not all crime looks the same, and not all groups react to hardship the same.

"low status" isn't enough... who turns poverty into loyalty, and who turns it into violence? Who, even when poor, still lives with honour? And who exploits disorder to build parasitic empires within our own cities?

I reject the idea that all groups are interchangeable. Race isn't just skin deep, it is spirit, instinct, will. If the same patterns of chaos follow certain people wherever they go, then we can't keep calling it a mere coincidence.

If a state refuses to protect its blood from decay, it doesn't deserve to endure.

I don't deny that certain groups are definitely more likely to commit crimes. In the current age there are white people living in rural West Virginia, Georgia, Mississipi and Arkansas that live in extreme poverty but despite their economic status they are still less likely to commit crimes compared to blacks of the same income bracket. It is true that certain ethnicities are more likely to resort to violence and turn to life for crime but income disparity and troubled childhood remain the best indicator of criminal tendencies. @wishIwasSalludon

 

[imontheloose]

I don’t belive morality exists in the first place but that’s a whole different discussion

I was thinking of making a discussion about this, but figured it wasn't provocative enough for clash, you reckon it's a good enough debate?

Nonetheless, I believe in moral objectivity, but not under theistic universalism, I totally reject that, rather tied to race, sacrifice, and national continuity. I was previously a moral subjectivist when I was younger, so I understand the point.

I believe that society should be meritocratic, some groups behave worse than others

Things should be taken at an individual level, you shouldn’t be bailed out because you are or aren’t part of a certain group

You admit some groups behave worse, but shouldn't we then act on that truth? If one group consistently weakens the social body through crime, parasitism, or cultural decay, how is it rational to ignore that just because a few individuals are exceptions?

Meritocracy is not enough to me. A nation isn't just a machine needed the best parts. It's an organism that must be protected from disease. One brilliant outsider doesn't justify keeping in a thousand who erode the foundation.

You say no one should be bailed out for group identity, and I agree, but nor should the people be sacrificed on the altar of individual fairness. A society should prioritise those who carry its blood, heritage, and future.

I don't judge by solely race, but race is the starting point because a nation that forgets to protect its own will be remembered only for how efficiently it disappeared.

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

If one group consistently weakens the social body through crime, parasitism, or cultural decay, how is it rational to ignore that just because a few individuals are exceptions?

Because a meritocratic society would only let the best people thrive

A black person who contributes to society would succeed and be able to proliferate in a meritocratic society

A black person who doesn’t contribute won’t be able to succeed and proliferate in a meritocratic society

Where as in a society you describe both black people are just fucked

In your society a white person who is a net negative to society will still be allowed to proliferate more than a black person who would be a net positive for society

So a meritocratic society is going to be more effective at removing people who can’t contribute because that’s what it’s about.

 

[imontheloose]

I don't deny that certain groups are definitely more likely to commit crimes. In the current age there are white people living in rural West Virginia, Georgia, Mississipi and Arkansas that live in extreme poverty but despite their economic status they are still less likely to commit crimes compared to blacks of the same income bracket. It is true that certain ethnicities are more likely to resort to violence and turn to life for crime but income disparity and troubled childhood remain the best indicator of criminal tendencies. @wishIwasSalludon

Speaking of it, there was actually some meta-analysis done somewhat recently which shown even when controlling for socioeconomic status as best as possible, blacks committed more crime than whites despite being in the same income bracket, as you point out. AFAIK, it even shown that rich black youth commit more crime than poor white youth.

Wealth should cure crime if it was the biggest indicator, yet even when wealth is given, there is still a almost innate disparity, and the pattern persists.

You can lift a group's income, but can't rewrite its blood. Culture is passed down through generations, in the body, in the instincts, in the will.

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

I totally reject that, rather tied to race, sacrifice, and national continuity.

Objective morality would mean that moral facts and duties exist beyond irrespective of observers

What your describing by definition can’t be objective because nations have different interests

You also arbitrarily decided that morality is tied to these things, why is this version of morality any more correct than the Kantian ethics?

Morality cannot be objective it’s literally impossible even if God exists

 

[imontheloose]

Because a meritocratic society would only let the best people thrive

A black person who contributes to society would succeed and be able to proliferate in a meritocratic society

A black person who doesn’t contribute won’t be able to succeed and proliferate in a meritocratic society

Where as in a society you describe both black people are just fucked

In your society a white person who is a net negative to society will still be allowed to proliferate more than a black person who would be a net positive for society

So a meritocratic society is going to be more effective at removing people who can’t contribute because that’s what it’s about.

I think a society that survives on contribution alone is more a company than a people. A people isn't a marketplace of talent, it is tied together by blood and not resumes. I think rewarding a stranger over its own kin is suicidal, not meritocratic.

We will likely have to agree-to-disagree here.

 

[imontheloose]

Objective morality would mean that moral facts and duties exist beyond irrespective of observers

What your describing by definition can’t be objective because difference nations have different interests

You also arbitrarily decided that morality is tied to these things, why is this version of morality any more correct than the Kantian ethics?

Morality cannot be objective it’s literally impossible even if God exists

That's the enlightenment assumption that objective morality must be abstract, universal, and independent of context to qualify as objective. Objective doesn't mean disconnected from reality, it means rooted in something unchanging, something real. Race is real, blood is real. Biological continuity is not a matter of opinion. A people either survives or dies. My morality is built on this reality, not on speculation.

Kant's ethics, for example, is objective only in form, it's a closed loop: follow a rule because it would be irrational not to. But irrational to whom? It assumes man is a purely rational agent, stripped of culture, instinct, hierarchy, or legacy. That man doesn't exist.

My ethics don't begin with the abstract man, rather the living organism of a people. What is good is what protects, strengthens, and advances that organism. The evil is what poisons/weakens it. You can measure this in fertility, cohesion, beauty, vitality, and will.

This is objective when you don't take the enlightenment assumption as your key and sole definition. It's based on life's irreducible structure. It's not equal for all because nature isn't equal. It's binding because a people who doesn't obey it, ceases to exist.

My ethics aren't based on faith, consensus, or logic, rather consequence. It is objective. Enforced by nature itself.

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

it means rooted in something unchanging, something real

thats not what objective means, something can be rooted in something real but still be subjective

for example black is my favorite color, black being my favorite color is rooted in my brain chemistry, experiences etc

all of which are as real as race, blood etc

but still what color is "the best" is entirely subjective

to fully illustrate my point let me give another example

you say what strenthens the organism is good, and thats good because its rooted in race, biology etc which are all real.

but why cant we just say its good to weaken the organism? this set of values would still be rooted in race, blood etc. So it seems youre arbitrarily choosing one or the other.

it's a closed loop: follow a rule because it would be irrational not to. But irrational to whom? It assumes man is a purely rational agent, stripped of culture, instinct, hierarchy, or legacy. That man doesn't exist.

thats not the only problem with kants ethics, hes assuming that rationality is inherently good, why do we ought to be rational?

Kants categorical imperative assumes all rational beings inherently have value which is a premise i reject, and even if they do why do we have to respect that value.

its arbitrary is what im saying.

 

[Snicket]

I don't think neutrality is moral when it allows disorder to thrive. If one people builds, sustains, and elevates, and another undermines, corrupts, and parasitises, then neutrality becomes complicity.

A state has a duty to protect its racial core. Tolerance of decay is not virtue, it's betrayal.

Just as a body rejects infection, so must a people reject alien elements that produce only degeneracy and collapse.

Spoiler

@Jason Voorhees @Gargantuan @wishIwasSalludon @Ultimate Subhuman™ @Daddy's Home

I swear every one of your philosophical threads is just an implicit endorsement of national socialism.

 

[imontheloose]

declogging the response.

Will respond later.

 

[imontheloose]

I swear every one of your philosophical threads is just an implicit endorsement of national socialism.

What’s wrong with that?

 

[Snicket]

What’s wrong with that?

Just an observation.
These aren’t moral questions but re-affirmation of a particular viewpoint.

 

[imontheloose]

Just an observation.
These aren’t moral questions but re-affirmation of a particular viewpoint.

I’m saying my point in the description so you guys can challenge it if you wish, the title is still something I would like people to answer, whether I agree or disagree.

 

[imontheloose]

declogging the response.

You're right to press the definition of "objective". If we mean by that a universal, mind-independent moral law, something that binds all rational beings, as Kant imagined, then no, I do not claim that. I concede your point without hesitation.

But let's be honest here: that standard of objectivity is itself a relic, a theological shadow wearing a rationalist mask. Nietzsche dismantled it over a century ago. Reason can't command. Logic can't love. "God is dead" wasn't a celebration, it was a warning: that with the death of metaphysical certainty, all inherited moral systems would collapse unless they were re-rooted in life itself.

I never claimed universality. I claimed necessity. What I affirm is not morality in the abstract, but morality as an orientation, a compass for people who choose not to die; my values aren't true because they exist in some Platonic heaven, they are true because they are civilisationally indispensable. They preserve identity, continuity, struggle, discipline, and meaning — not because they're abstractly noble, but because they are the preconditions for survival. You can say it's arbitrary, but there isn't a civilisation that endured without them.

"Why not choose to weaken the organism?" You can. That's the freedom Nietzsche spoke of, the freedom to decay and destroy yourself. But do not confuse that with liberation. It's simply collapse with better branding.

As for objectivity: you define it one way, I another. Your definition serves abstraction. Mine serves life. And it's important to note definitions are tools, not truths.

At the end of philosophy, there are only two questions: do you want your people to survive? And what are you willing to sacrifice to make sure they do? Perhaps in the end, we are working from premises too far apart to reconcile. Alas, we can accept disagreement as proof we live in a world where even moral ground must be chosen, not assumed.

 

[HimmyButlerV2]

I think judging every man as an individual is a lie that weakens nations. You may have noble men among all races, but the fate of a people isn't decided by exceptions.

Disagree with this

"exceptions" have driven humanity very far. It is an exceptional few that lead to huge advances in sciences, an exceptional few that are great leaders, an exceptional few that make history

I don't think neutrality is moral when it allows disorder to thrive. If one people builds, sustains, and elevates, and another undermines, corrupts, and parasitises, then neutrality becomes complicity.

If what you're saying is true, and we assume neutrality, then we would tend towards a white ethnostate/something similar anyway. Take IQ for example as an unbiased test, if you set a number at 100, and only build society with those who have an IQ above 100. Even if you don't consider race as an explicit factor, 90% of blacks would be eliminated.

I don't disagree with your premise. Ask anyone if they would rather live in a white neighborhood or a black neighborhood, most people would say the former.

But I say instead focus on good traits vs bad traits. You can argue that race is predictive of these traits and can be used as a guide, which is fair enough, but it is not be all end all. Nor should it be the core goal of anything else.

I don't think that denying that there are any differences between races is a neutral angle. It is outright delusional. But I disagree with holding race up as some core tenant to worship