The Theory of Materialistic Morality and a Case for Morally Justifiable Racism

Here's a little write-up I put together for you all. I think Holla Forums has been lacking in philosophical and intellectual discussion for a while, so I decided to finally put this theory I've been toying with into a (relatively) concise set of words. I hope this helps provide a new perspective or perhaps build on knowledge you already have. Critique and argument is, as always, welcome.

The Theory of Materialistic Morality and a Case for Morally Justifiable Racism

All living things are the product of evolution, including humans. If there is one universally definable purpose of all living things, at least from a purely materialistic and evolutionary perspective, that fundamental purpose is reproduction and survival. If all all living things are a product of evolution, then we can deduce that the behavioural tendencies of all living things must also be determined by evolution. Therefore all behavioural tendencies, which are a product of evolution, must serve the fundamental evolutionary purpose of reproduction and survival.

The definition of morality is “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.” If human behavioural tendencies are the product of the fundamental evolutionary purpose of reproduction and survival, then morality, which distinguishes between “good” and “bad” behaviour, must also be a product of evolution, and serve to define behaviour that either aids in this fundamental evolutionary purpose (good), or opposes this fundamental evolutionary purpose (bad). For example, stealing and murder are considered across ethnic and racial groups to be morally “wrong” acts, since they reduce trust and cohesion within a population, which weakens it internally, thus threatening its ability to propatavistock and survive. A socially weak and untrustworthy population would be unable to effectively prepare against external human threats such as attacks from other tribes/out-groups, or natural threats such as an unusually harsh winter or limited access to food. We can thus logically conclude that evolution has favoured behaviour that ensures maximum cohesiveness and co-operation within an in-group, which has over-time morphed into a set of moral values.

Human evolution has resulted in biological divergence, which in turn has resulted in the existence of different subspecies of humans (distinct human races). Human populations from these different subspecies are naturally tribal in nature, meaning they are inherently exclusionary to those not belonging to their own biological & ethnological in-group. In this way, human morality can be considered both “subjective” and “objective” at the same time. It is “subjective” in that morally good acts are not universally applicable across all racial and ethnic populations, but instead only apply to one population at a time, and it is “objective” in that it has been deduced from evolution and can be materially defined (that is to say it can be defined within the parameters of the material world without relying on metaphysical concepts or ideas). For example, in a conflict between population group “A” and population group “B”, a morally “good” act from the perspective of population group “A” could involve the wholesale extermination of population group “B”, since doing so would ensure their survival, even though the act of murder is considered morally wrong within the context of each society respectively. This theory accurately explains why different human groups have warred with and committed genocide against each other for thousands of years despite “murder” universally being considered morally wrong and punishable in every society.

Other urls found in this thread:

orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Subconscious bias in favour of ones own racial and ethnic in-group and against racial and ethnic out-groups has been scientifically proven, even in babies who have not been exposed to any form of socialization. Because of this, we can conclude that this bias must therefore be a product of evolution. If this racial and ethnic bias is the product of evolution, and all evolutionary behaviour serves the fundamental purpose of reproduction and survival, then racial and ethnic bias must also serve this fundamental purpose. Furthermore, if racial and ethnic bias is an evolutionarily-determined behaviour, and if we accept that all morally-good behaviour can be defined as behaviour that aides in the fundamental evolutionary purpose of reproduction and survival, then racial and ethnic bias MUST be classified as morally good, as it could not have arisen in the first place if it did not help propatavistock or ensure the survival of a particular racial and ethnological in-group. From this we can conclude that, racism, which is defined as “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race”, is not only not morally incorrect, it is morally good, since it objectively serves the purpose of ensuring the survival and propagation of ones own racial and ethnic in-group.

In conclusion, human behaviour is determined by the evolutionary purpose of reproduction and survival, and since morality is considered to be a preferable set of values and principles of conduct and behaviour, we can conclude that morality is derived from evolution as a survival strategy, existing to regulate the behaviour within human populations as a means of maximizing the chances of each particular in-groups’ survival and reproduction, which includes racial bias and discrimination.

Materialism is Marxian in nature. Transcendental idealism is where it's at, lad.
Raise Thule

Dialectical materialism does not define all materialism and in fact can be entirely refuted within a materialistic context. I'd appreciate a more coherent rebuttal of my argument if you disagree with it. To clarify, I am a National Socialist and support White racial interests, which is fundamentally opposed to marxist beliefs.

Not OP, but there's something important to add that's heavily linked to race: culture.

If something as firm as biology can change over thousands of years, then something as malleable as a culture surely evolve as well. If parasites exist in the animal kingdom, then how can there not be parasites in human society?

The jewish diaspora have lived for centuries without a homeland. Many other cultures have been ousted from their homes as well, and what were their fates? They would go into other lands and assimilate to the local culture, or settle a new homeland. However, the jews did neither, and miraculously survived the centuries as jews because their religious beliefs inclined them to adopt a certain mindset that differentiated them from the goyim. The jews have spent centuries living among other cultures as an alien body, and through social darwinism have evolved into a culture that is frighteningly effective at infiltrating other cultures, making themselves useful, slowly growing in influence, and eventually gaining power within it. From these positions of power, they subvert the system to favor other jews, and in this way, completely colonize other cultures and install themselves as a privileged class.

Therefore, one of the most important parts of racism is the recognition of foreign cultures inside the nation's body, like white blood cells, it bars outsiders from positions of authority over the natural inhabitants.

Eh, 3/10 nice effort. No valuable arguments. Welcome and keep thinking about it.

Good addition. Human societies act similarly to organisms of their own in that they compete with each other for territory, resources, and dominance, so it is only natural (as you said) that there should be parasites that feed off of these quasi-organisms.


Nice work providing absolutely nothing of value you fucking jerk-off. Go back to cuckchan if you're here just to shitpost.
I've been on 8/pol/ since the first exodus, which is far longer Than I can guarantee you've been hanging around here, you 4cuck migrant.

If it's constructive criticism you seek, I think you could stand to work on the verbosity of your writing. It seems to me that you wouldn't have much at all were you to eliminate all the fluff, aside from a few platitudes that are already for the most part accepted here.
To an extent your diatribe about subjective and objective morality reminds me of a passage of Mein Kampf wherein Hitler names the Aryan predilection for objective moral standards in the face of Jews and others looking out for themselves as one of our principle Achilles Heels.

I do not claim to be impeccable myself, but I think you might particularly benefit from reading the following Orwell essay on the degeneration of the English language in academic writing, "Politics and the English Language"

orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/

This is the exact sentence in which you lost the entirety of the normalfag population. They've been trained for so long to rebel against this thought that the merest hinting at it will trigger the amygdala to shut it down and reject further reasoned thinking. I think if you modified the wording to only hint at it, you would have a higher chance of them continuing to give your small essay any consideration.

As it stands, it's all well and good for people who aren't useful idiots or who already realize all of this, but if you want it to spread any further, then you might have to revise the more "inflammatory" statements, such as this one.

Although Orwell specifically calls out "Achilles' Heel" as a worn out metaphor, I, for one, find it still compelling. Only plebs without even a basic introduction to Ancient Greek literature would use it without understanding the connotations.

This is fair. I also felt that my writeup was somewhat wordy. Perhaps it got that way because I'm too focused on being excessively precise that I repeated myself too much.

Not true at all. My writeup starts with the initial claim that humans are the product of evolution and then continues by arguing that human morality is derived from evolution as a survival strategy designed to ensure the propagation of a particular in-group. The logical conclusion of this progression of thought is that natural human behaviour such as racism is morally good and necessary since it must serve a purpose in the human evolutionary process.
The purpose of my writeup was to provide a purely materialistic argument in favour of objective morality and moral racism without appealing to metaphysical concepts or ideas. I feel that I did this successfully


If the normalfags have already rejected truth, then what good is an argument going to do to change their opinions? The search for knowledge no longer matters to them. My essay is not meant to be a piece of propaganda.
I merely stated a biological fact. If they reject this, then I can provide evidence to support it. If they reject the evidence, then chances are they weren't going to be convinced anyway. It's really that simple.

I'll flip the question. If the Natsocs and other assorted nerds at Holla Forums have already accepted the truth, then what good is the argument at all? You're preaching to the choir at that point.

I'm not saying this from a grounds of 'muh pr' or propaganda. It is my understanding that the basic tenant of the argument is meant to persuade. Everyone here surely already agrees with the piece, so what then what purpose remains? intellectual masturbation and echo chambering? If your effort is to persuade others to this line of thinking, which it appears to be, then you need to reduce "controversial" statements contained within that distract from the main argument.

A statement of fact - that race exists - is not really a controversial statement at all. If the normalfags take issue with this but are willing to hear your side of the argument, then you may prove to them with evidence that race does in fact exist. If they outright refuse this evidence, then they weren't going to be convince of your argument anyway.

The point is, my argument cannot be written in a way that excludes race since race is a biological fact as determined by evolution. To remove the racial element would be to reject one of the central themes of the entire argument - that racism is an evolutionary survival trategy

This process diverts from your intended argument, which is that racism is inherently morally good. Needing to necessarily distract from that to prove a tangentially related argument is not good. It dilutes persuasiveness.

I never argued to remove it. I just suggested you might obfuscate it a bit. Ease them into it, or imply, rather than stating it outright. I can see it's a reliant premise interwoven throughout the essay as logical building blocks, so it'd require a bit of rewording, but I think the fundamental argument would be more solid and approachable were you to do so. That's all I'm getting at, really.

Race-ism doesn't exist you psuedo-intellectual retard. How many times must you be told?

It's a Soviet thought crimes used by Trotsky to arrest people.

Anti-Racists don't even believe race exists. So they're calling your nonesense words. Like if I believed niggers were actually Orcs. Then they would call me an Species-ist and I should be one because niggers aren't Orcs. See there is no logic to it.

species
I shouldn't
be one

From an evolutionary standpoint, morality serves to regulate the actions of the individual as a part of a community (or in-group). Evolutionarily, one is first concerned with the survival of one’s own children, but the strength of the community must also be considered and maintained because individually divided one’s offspring will fall when a more cohesive enemy out-group inevitably comes to the scene. This regulation of the polarity between individualism versus the security of the in-group collective is, in my view, the primary function of morality. In basic game theory terms, an in-group could be perhaps even be defined as a community of persistent cooperators in the face of out-group persistent betrayers. Race plays into this because within cosmopolitan societies, peoples are more likely to start betraying one another and forming new in-groups along racial lines in times of stress (see: prison); hence the need for racially coherent in-groups from the beginning, as racially incoherent in-groups are doomed to collapse when crisis inevitably arrives in due time.

I would posit that morality is indeed derived from evolution as a survival strategy, but rather as a means to ensure cooperation within the in-group. It is simply a function of the human propensity to self-sort along national lines in times of crisis that in-group monoculture is decidedly more stable and therefore expressed as preferable in most moral systems unperturbed by Jewish influence.

To the degree that recognition of race is good, I do not think it is based on its ‘serving a purpose in the human evolutionary process.’ More precisely, I would assert that recognition of race and sorting along such lines is good because it fosters cooperation and trust within the community, providing societal stability, which in evolutionary terms safeguards the children of any individual member of the community at the hands of enemy out-groups.

This is essentially the crux of my argument. I thought I made this clear in one of my examples.
Morality is an evolutionary survival strategy that works to ensure the propagation of a particular in-group by maintaining co-operation within that in-group, thus ensuring it remains strong, cohesive, and able to fend off external threats (be they human or natural.)

I disagree. Race-recognition and racial discrimination serve a purpose in the human evolutionary process because they identify racial/ethnic out-groups, which are naturally a threat to the safety of your particular racial/ethnic in-group. If a society were to be race-blind, they would end up welcoming in hostile foreign elements that would ultimately work against the long-term interests of the original in-group.

Racism is evolutionarily fitness-positive. Its a fact. That's why it exists in the first place.
It is thus, by definition, morally justified.

Both the concept of race and "unconscious bias" are Marxist weasel concepts designed to give their ideological footsoldiers something to tilt against. Both are oversimplistic and unscientific renderings of rather complicated biological processes. I agree that OP does his argument a disservice by using their terminology.

This is good, it can be used on the rationalist elements (center leaning atheists, libertarians, etc) who haven't yet made the leap, or haven't already drank the marxist koolaid

You're right about the target audience of my post. It's mainly directed towards atheistic types, libertarians, and non-religious civic-nationalists who would not be accepting of an appeal to metaphysical concepts. It's also a refutation of moral relativism.

Also, I appreciate the screencap, mate.

It doesn't refute subjectivism exactly, because it still depends on how far the person draws the circle. What if I was an Ayn Rand type of egotist? What if I chose to see all of humanity as my 'brothers' and my in group? Is there an empirical measure for the approprite level of in-group?
Where is the definition for 'racism' in your text? The fact that you have made the act of murder conditionally acceptable on such uncertain grounds puts real doubt on your thesis. Are you talking about self defense? Is the initiation of force justified in certain cases?

Also, can someone give me the exact definition of 'subspecies' and see if the different races are appropritely defined as such?

The purpose of my post was to point out that, although I mostly agree with what you are saying, there are methodological issues in how you structure your argument.


Logically speaking, this is not a very good syllogism.


In structuring an argument like this, one typically ought to lay out a few presuppositions, and then form a conclusion from the combination of the presuppositions that remains coherent within that frame. Your argument, on the other hand, appears to lay out a new presupposition in each clause and then doesn’t appear to coherently synthesize the various clauses into an all-encompassing conclusion.

 

That’s my best shot at parsing out your argument into a functioning syllogism. As you can see, the conclusion only really combines Propositions 3 and 4, and you really didn’t do a great job delving into the why or how of either of those propositions; instead focusing for most of the text on fluff that isn’t a central part of the argument. I also don’t agree with Proposition 4. The evolutionary process is an ‘is,’ not an ‘ought.’ In this area of life, the ultimate moral good of every individual is to be fruitful and multiply, not to partake in actions with a role in the evolutionary process. This is complicated to a degree by the need to be fruitful within the bounds of what one can support, as well as doing so without upsetting the stability of society for the sake of in-group collective security; however, that doesn’t change that the evolutionary process is not the primary moral good. Of course the evolutionary process is related to self-preservation and the preservation of one’s line, but the evolutionary process is a derivative phenomenon and not an ontic – I think by basing your argument on such, you are, logically speaking, putting the cart before the horse.

first day here?

A subspecies is a taxonomic rank below species – the only recognized rank in the zoological code,[5] and one of three main ranks below species in the botanical code.[4] When geographically separate populations of a species exhibit recognizable phenotypic differences, biologists may identify these as separate subspecies; a subspecies is a recognized local variant of a species.[6] Botanists and mycologists have the choice of ranks lower than subspecies, such as variety (varietas) or form (forma), to recognize smaller differences between populations.[4]

In biological terms, rather than in relation to nomenclature, a polytypic species has two or more subspecies, races, or more generally speaking, populations that need a separate description.[7] These are separate groups that are clearly distinct from one another and do not generally interbreed (although there may be a relatively narrow hybridization zone), but which may interbreed if given the chance to do so. These subspecies, races, or populations, can be named as subspecies by zoologists, or in more varied ways by botanists and microbiologists.
theres wiki for you