Thinking Racially: Natural, Moral, and Necessary
What can exist forever is infinitely more valuable than what exists for a short span. And what does not exist, and cannot exist, is worthless.
by David Sims
A RANDIAN libertarian said to me: “I don’t agree with [the idea] that the moral person puts the needs of the group above the needs of the individual. Is this your idea or did you get it from some branch of philosophy? My philosophical objection points to Objectivism where no group trumps its individuals.”
It’s entirely possible that someone before me has realized that what does not exist is worthless and that what can’t exist for long probably isn’t worth much — at least in comparison with what can endure, potentially, forever. I don’t claim priority for that realization. But I didn’t get it from anyone else, either.
I want you to keep in mind that I am not crafting a moral system. I am discovering one in the light of the workings of natural laws, with value being primarily indicated by survival, by continued existence as the reward of right action, with right action being determined by what best favors continued existence, or survival.
My point of view isn’t selfishly individualist. It is, rather, selfishly racial.
If you were asked to say whether someone owning an apple tree whether he’d suffer the greater loss by throwing away a perfectly edible apple or by destroying the tree on which the apple grew, you’d have no difficulty answering that the destruction of the tree would be the greater loss. Whereas throwing away the apple, however perfect it might be as an apple, is wasteful, it is not so wasteful as the destruction of the source of such perfect apples.
Instead of an apple, place the individual member of his race. And consider the race itself as the tree.
The individual is ephemeral; he can by no means endure for long. The race is (potentially) immortal. It may evolve into a new form after millions of years, but there is more to evolution than adaptation to the present environment. There can be, additionally, a progress to higher states of being, greater competence in a general sense, an elevation in the degree to which the members of the race are aware of reality and empowered to deal with it. The race is worth incomparably more than is the individual, just as the apple tree is worth a great deal more than any of its apples.
A proper moral system has in its hierarchy of values a recognition of that priority of worth.
You said: “The problem with placing the ‘actor’ as less important than the group is that to do so damns the group. This mentality is the basis for statist government forms which you see fail all the time for this very reason. Since it’s human nature to continue doing something that works — even past a point of diminishing returns, premises are always more important than actions. To place the individual below the group eventually creates progressive human sacrifice and eventual self-destruction of the group through deterioration of its elements.”
Your first sentence is straight out of Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness, and her reasoning there is wrong. Evolution itself, which is known to improve groups by natural selection — the continuous sacrifice of its weakest, poorest, least worthy members — is the obvious counter-argument. Some members of a group (a species, a race, occupants of an overcrowded lifeboat) are worth more than other members of the same group are worth, and a proper moral system, by putting the highest value on the survival of the group, apportions value among the group’s members according to their worth to the group. A part of that worth is eugenic. It would be morally bad for the group to do anything that would reduce its own prospects of survival, and accordingly it is good to reduce the birthrate of its own lesser members and also good to increase the birthrate of its more capable and behaviorally better members.
Failing to do this leads to the eventual self-destruction of the group. You can see this going on today with how the social welfare system is structured in a dysgenic way that favors breeding by the lowest of people, while inhibiting the breeding of the highest.
You said: “The tie between humans that forms a group is nothing but an abstract concept. It isn’t alive and it isn’t sacred. It is not more valuable than a human that is alive. At times, people realize that group formation is the best means to fight, but usually at the same time, they often find that what they are fighting for is not their own survival at all, but the survival of the nature of a collective. Thus is war — where pawns are sacrificed for government leaders and their own personal prejudices.”
No, indeed. The tie between humans is, in a fundamental sense, biological. It can be measured by tests of genetic similarity or distance. It can often be intuited upon inspection. Nobody is going around inventing the “family feeling,” though there are persons (most of them leftists) who falsely deny its existence and, through political action, attempt to prevent its rise.
The state ought to be what it seldom is: a mechanism by which a race, one race, is organized for the most effective expression of its powers in the world, consistent with its survival. We can, by observation, discover why states often go wrong: They are hijacked by elites, in some cases by alien elites, whose survival interests conflict with those of the people whom the state was ostensibly created to serve.
For example, both the United States government and the government of Canada primarily serve the interests of Zionism and the Jewish banking elite; these states do not primarily serve the interests of the people by whom they were created. Both of them have been hijacked.
The problem with traitor-states is that they are notoriously difficult to abolish. The reason for this difficulty is the selfishness of individuals, but for which the process would be a simple matter of a massive armed insurgency, a quick strike upon the elites resulting in a coup, and then a reorganization of the government. If it doesn’t work the first time, then rinse and repeat until it does. (The French got rid of the nobles in 1793, but thereafter they failed to get rid of the Marxists.) But when individuals are acting primarily based upon their own individual interest, they might be acting immorally, e.g., making a living by lending their strength to their own race’s oppressor. The paycheck is the usual bribe that suborns the treason by the group’s members. It is this self-abuse of the oppressed group’s strength that is the primary force that prevents the traitor-state’s overthrow.
You said: “In the rare event an individual sees his best hope is to join the group to fight a common foe, he is still thinking of himself as an individual and that is his primary motive. However what is wrong with society today is that populations are too large for the citizens to see any point of self-interest in making sacrifices. Thus not only is placing groups over individuals impractical, it is also impossible. A proper moral concept should never be impossible.”
But it isn’t impossible for an individual to place his group’s interests above his own. It can be done. This is what racists do. Do you actually believe that anyone selfishly accepts the stigma, the ostracism, the hardships, the risks, the physical hazards of being a rational racist in spite of the extremely strong manufactured animus against racist ideas? No, this isn’t a character flaw in persons “ruled by hatred.” Racism is moral courage and right moral perception. Racism will be a part of the morality of whatever survives the next thousand years. Groups that adopt any liberal (non-racist) moral system will become extinct, either by extermination or by self-destruction.
Another writer responded: “What you are describing is moral utilitarianism. However, Stefan [Molyneaux] makes the case that objective moral rules can be derived from logic and first principles. I’d suggest you read his book on the subject before just dismissing the idea that morality is objective. His book is called ‘Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics’ and is available for free on his website.”
No, my ideas are not the same as those found in Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism. Bentham’s concepts are individualist, not racial. He basically says that what a person should do is what maximizes his happiness, when all factors are counted in. That isn’t my basis.
I begin with the idea that moral goodness is always related to a living thing, never to a dead thing, and never to an inanimate object.
I continue with the idea that what does not exist is worthless, and that the means of producing goods is worth more than is any particular good. That is, the farm is worth more than a can of peas, an apple tree is worth more than an apple, a man’s race is worth more than is the man.
I continue with the idea that some members of a living set are worth more than other members of the same set.
From the first idea, I derive that all “proper” (definition here) moral systems put survival in first place in value. Nothing matters to the dead; hence, to the dead there is no such thing as value. Only to something alive may anything else be good. Since the value of all else is conditioned upon survival, survival is a value higher than is the value of anything else.
From the second idea, I derive that the most important thing to survive isn’t the individual, but rather what creates individuals. And the set of these creators is, in relation to human beings, their respective races.
From the third idea, I derive that some races are better than other races, and that some members of a particular race are better than other members of that same race.
From the perspective of the whole Life of Earth, it would be morally good if the best of the human races survives, since only they have the possibility of carrying the Life of Earth to other worlds, to the planets of other stars, and perhaps to other galaxies… someday.
From the perspective of the White race, it would be morally good to reverse multiculturalism completely, so that White people no longer had to live among persons of other races, and to foster the breeding of the ablest and best-behaved White people through a reworking of the social welfare system.
Another commenter said to me: “You’re confusing morality (as a system of principles) with evolutionary moral instincts. People have different moral instincts, so your argument is incoherent. Also, survival instincts are just evolutionary enslavement, and have no meaning: It is wrong to say, ‘Surviving is good and/or meaningful.'”
People have different conceptions about what prioritization of values is proper for morality. But Nature prefers one of them above all of the others, and it is that moral prioritization, and its consequent applications, that I am speaking of. That is, moral truth isn’t something that men can manipulate. It exists independently of our minds and is something to discover, rather than something to decide.
When debating moral ideas, people are either right or wrong, depending on whether Nature’s laws, as they apply to people, are in efficacious accord with those ideas.
Is this incoherent? Certainly not.
* * *