Moral Foundations of the Alt-Right

So I was exploring Jonathan Haidt's theory of Moral Foundations and came across an anomaly because my moral foundation score did not line up with any that he provided. I should say that I am a National Socialist 14/88. His theory is based on the idea that there are 6 moral foundations that underlie human behavior, namely harm, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and purity. Liberals primarily are focused on harm and fairness and liberty to a lesser extent, conservatives are focused on all six relatively equally, and libertarians/autists are concerned exclusively with liberty. Where does National Socialism fit in? I scored low on harm and fairness, high on loyalty, authority, and purity, and if the test provided a score for liberty I can assure you I would have chosen duty over it. See pic 1 for the scores from yourmorals.org. Now Haidt is a liberal who, upon realizing that conservatives had a worldview that was closer to human nature, became a centrist. He's still blue-pilled, as most of the guys doing psych research are (side note, I'm studying neuroscience which is why I'm interested in moral psychology).

There are people like on theindependentwhig.com/2015/03/09/this-explains-and-changes-everything/ who are able to see that conservatives are superior to liberals because they understand human nature better, but he's still unable to go from his position to ethnocentrism, calling them racists, evil, and such. He says that "many believe that liberals and conservatives are equally right/wrong and insightful/blind about human nature and each other, just in different ways. This idea is the fundamental assumption – the 'given' that 'everybody knows' – often unwritten or unspoken, upon which seemingly all political discussion rests. It’s the reason that so many people think compromise is an unalloyed good and the bridge across the political divide; since both sides get some things right and some things wrong, then the obvious solution to practically any partisan disagreement is for both sides to meet in the middle.

The belief represented by the above images and summarized in the above paragraph is wrong. And because it is wrong it is a roadblock that prevents a truer, deeper, understanding of the political divide, which in turn prevents us from seeing and implementing more effective ways to ameliorate problems associated with it."

It's as if liberals are deaf and blind, and conservatives can hear but not see. I believe National Socialism is a worldview that can see and hear, and thus it is the most fit to rule since it understands the most about human nature.

I edited an image in Haidt's book, pic 2, to accomodate the Alt-Right's beliefs
I agree, if you want to edit the provided images please go ahead, though I think this version is more normie-friendly. If I'm being a PR fag, go ahead and call me out on it.

THIS IS THE MAIN REASON FOR THIS POST

After you explain that the our system is the most moral ideology due to human nature, then you can tell them about National Socialism. Basically we're just Alt-Right+no/suppressed degeneracy+ethnocentrism. This is an easy way to explain what we believe, how what we believe differs from the competitors, and how our focus on survival and strength as based on Nietzsche is why our system is morally superior. If your civilization dies, it doesn't matter how much equality or care or fairness you had, your values are gone, that's why survival should be the top priority. Most of us already know most of this, but this should help academics and other rationals, especially scientists and engineers, to join our cause.

I lowered liberty, fairness, and care, as we focus more on duty for the first and the second two are reserved for the in-group. I ranked loyalty the highest, then authority, then sanctity, though they're all high. I'm not sure which should be the highest foundation or if it really matters. You guys can tell me what you think. As for our sacred value, I said it was survival and prosperity for our group. If you have a better sacred value please suggest it.

Continued…

Other urls found in this thread:

theindependentwhig.com/2012/11/15/toward-a-more-accurate-political-spectrum/
counter-currents.com/2016/07/the-alternative-right/
bookzz.org/md5/5FD9627AA27034295CF1D1B9C74CDCB9
archive.is/Vglfz
mega.nz/#F!B4dB2SzQ!h_pMC30v2a_y31iD0dy0sg
web.archive.org/web/20160130011321/http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1327&context=articles
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

An updated political spectrum I got from theindependentwhig.com/2012/11/15/toward-a-more-accurate-political-spectrum/ is in pic 3, though it's clear the author takes a preference toward the "Balanced" center. It's not perfect but I think he gets the general idea pretty right. If some artfag wants to make it look nice for propaganda purposes go ahead.

The moral value scores extended for what I expect National Socialism to be is in pic 4. Another major flaw with the way of representing this information is that I care very much about my in-group and want fairness amongst my in-group, but I'm okay with my in-group being unfair or harming other groups that are my enemies. Thus I would add ethnocentrism as another moral foundation.

I think it's important to get some of this information circulating into the heads of normalfags, and especially the thinkers that actually influence movements.

National socialism cannot be judged by standard modern moral framework. It is "beyond good and evil" so to speak. Pure politics.

then what value does it have?

If you wish to continue with the alt-right label you should consider expanding on your thoughts and submitting an article to this.
counter-currents.com/2016/07/the-alternative-right/
>If you wish to propose an article on these or other topics, please contact me at [email protected]/* */ There will be an honorarium of $100 for each accepted article. Articles should be no longer than 3,000 words. The deadline is September 1st, 2016.

He's referring to Nietzsche, acting in accordance with nature is not good or bad, it just is.

Thanks, I'll do that.

To answer your question, the value in it is that it is the worldview most aligned with biology. The ideology which best understands nature is best fit to lead the people.

Another reason I want to get this out is that
getting people like Haidt to seriously understand and publicize this work is one of the keys to our acceptance as an intellectual movement

This expands Haidt's theory to an additional aspect he does not consider because he is stuck within the liberal-conservative dialectic. Too often I hear about "stupid Trump supporters and racists". That needs to change, and it needs to change fast.

The theory maps over to r/K selection. Human psychological studies regarding r/K selection and subgroups of populations are scarce. The idea from anonymousconservative.com is that r's are liberals and K's are conservatives, but it would more accurately be that K's are National Socialists and conservatives are an intermediary. One of my goals will be to get more of these studies done in humans, because as a K-selected species, showing that an ideology is more K-selected and thus would fit better with our biological nature would BTFO leftists forever. All of the people working in these fields are leftists, so I think there's a lot of room for new ideas.

You are wrong with what you propose the moral foundations of NatSoc to be. Better stated, if you are right NatSoc is shit.

The question Haidt uses to check for the morals are based in liberalism.

Care/ Harm isn't as small as you make it out to be for NatSoc. Of course in times of war it goes down, it has to. But NatSoc was big on caring for animals and nature. Also Lebensborn, caring for single mothers and their children can be traced back to care/ harm.

Also fairness and oppression aren't small either. Just look up what NatSoc did to rapists in their own army.

I agree, I'm saying that they are small for outgroups, which the test does not distinguish between. Care/Harm would be high for your people, as would fairness and oppression, while they would be lower for other people.