HomeLandia


Viable Alternative to Christian Moral Order for Whites

1. First, there has been, is no, and will be no transcending of morals - there will always be some things that can be done, might be done and some things that are prohibited. People need at least a semblance of moral agreement. That for Whites is circumscribed by the 14 Words of David Lane and The Order. Consider the moral order as circumscribed by the 14 words; i.e. extended not as universals, but a moral system which, as far as we are concerned, is primarily relevant to indigenous European peoples - our duty to other peoples is to help them keep their population down and to keep them from destroying the environment.

Within the fourteen words, set the following criteria:

Combine the updated version of Kant's moral system (which we will articulate lastly),

2. Add a notion of pervasive ecology, which would include environment/habitat, culture and people in their qualitatively disbursed variety of functions, purposes and skills, as indigenous Europeans; the unit of survival, individual + group + habitat

3. Add "Aristotelian morality" - his observation that humans are distinguished as mammals, thus caring about relationships; that humans are biological creatures, thus dependent upon optimal levels of need satisfaction - maximal levels would be toxic as would be deprivation. But not only do people care about relationships, they can learn and think about thinking (thus, beware trickery).

4. Add some Epicureanism - that is, an aversion to superstition; a liberation from superstition, mere tradition, habit, religion and speculation; attention to the physical 'facts' of natural world, while placing pleasures within hierarchical priority, valuing pleasures which are beneficial to Whites the most.

5. Add hermeneutics' non-Cartesianism and its second liberation, from mere and arbitrary facticity, into the meaning of historical perspective, narrative coherence, management of contradiction and paradox; a continual movement from attention to the facts (the tighter the interaction, the more "factual") to broader frames of reference (the looser the interaction, the more negotiable between people), in continual vigilance on behalf of indigenous European peoples.

6. Add social constructionism's notion that nothing exists outside of interaction and that how facts count must be negotiated between people (in brief, a tree falling in the woods may make noise, but if no people are alive to witness the event, does it really matter? for all practical purposes, it does not make a noise), with joint negotiation of accountability and warrant, which facilitates not only agency, by the reference of rules set forth for one's self, but also the ability to value scientific and other facts inasmuch as they are beneficial to the 14 words.

7. Add a respect and honored place for sublimation, including Whites who are not beautiful, not tremendous sexual studs, as having a part as circuit breaks to the potential runaway of errant variables, to terms of the broader cultural patterns of Whites, in the creation of a more humane and sublime civilization - while there can be such a thing as too much compassion for marginal Whites (and might makes right does have a lot of truth to it), by and large, if individuals are that offensive, it will be difficult for them to mate; the emphasis rather, may be on seeing to it that our most beautiful, virile, strong and intelligent, are not obstructed in mating with appropriate White partners, that they do not fall prey to jealousy, out breeding or to justifiable retaliation against their own hubris. Every White, irrespective of ability and skill level, who has the ability (which will be most), who can adhere to the following, has value to Whites, viz.: separate, surround and for your last gesture in life, politely encourage non-Whites to go away.

- and you have the beginnings of what is probably a proper and appropriate moral order for Whites.

8. Finally, add an updated version of Kant's moral system, (personally, if I had know of it sooner, it would have saved me a lot of grief) - here, I have provided an updated version:

Kant's Moral System as Coherence, Accountability and Warrant

It is vogue nowadays to deride Immanuel Kant as the quintessential "universalizer", now that twentieth century science, mathematics and philosophy have sufficiently disproved what Kant considered to be "the imperative foundation of universal principles, always good for all people and all circumstances." The disproving of Kant's quest does not, however, eliminate the usefulness of his system as a practical topoi - or framework in simpler English. Here is a practical update of his framework, using the contemporary philosophical concerns of Coherence, Accountability and Warrant.

I. Principles versus Sensibilities: Principles are guidelines and ideal rules which persons maintain to give them character and coherence. Coherence is the first task of any individual in the world; it means to make sense of things in a consistent manner. In following up upon principles set forth, persons may be Accountable, viz. able to provide explanations of their actions for responsible, defensive reasons; and they may establish Warrant, the credibility for proactive endeavor. E.g. if someone's actions are misunderstood or worse, false and negative accusations are made against them, they can refer back to the principles which they are following and be sure of themselves. Kant calls this being sure of oneself, 'freedom'; as such, persons are freed from (Arbitrariness): the confusingness of natural flux; false and negative accusations; trivialities; and, of especial importance, freed from natural inclinations which may pull them in a negative direction. Finally, in that regard, as has been pointed out since Kant's time*, in referring back to these principles, one establishes their self agency, proving that they are the causal agents of their own actions. Now, if people get carried away with their principles (Speculation), to the point where they are not dealing with sensible reality, they can always refer back to sensible evidences. However, as it is easier to attend to sensible evidence than it is to abide by principles and to restore credibility in an un-kept principle, it is better to err in the direction of principles.

The most fundamental principle, "unanimity", means to think in agreement with oneself; e.g., if someone comes to a conflict, they should think first of why their actions and words might be correct, not why they might be wrong. Coherence and Accountability are begun in this principle straight away.

II. Common Morals, Popular Philosophy, Principled Philosophy

A) Common Morals: As a matter of practical convenience, people usually start out accepting implicitly, "first principles" (e.g., don't steal, don't lie, be monogamous), common moral ideas that it is worthwhile to be good, fair and decent. Then a myriad and pervasive influences divert them from first principles.

B) Popular Philosophy: It is ubiquitous. People will cite many excuses for deviating from common morals: 1. highly typical of these excuses is the statement, "everybody does it;" but the mere popularity of a notion, Kant would say, does not provide any sort of excuse to violate first principles (consensus can be wrong). Beyond mere conformity to popular consensus, however, there are more cynical and even less accountable deviations from first principles; 2.Perhaps most venal is the claim of 'scientific objectivity', which disingenuously denies accountability for the personal choices of its practitioners and their subjects; e.g., 'it's just human nature.' 3. People will cite religion, even, as in the statement, 'it's just god's will;" 4. Or people may claim that the complex relativity of their existential situation would not allow them to act in accordance with first principles, when, in fact, they could have; 5. Finally, there is the practice of didactically reversing a first principle (as in teaching through reverse psychology) under the rubric of "teaching", exemplified in the statement, "it was really for your own good".

In any case, their arguments for breaking with common morals are of two kinds: "that's just the [objective] way it is" or "that's just my/their [relative] circumstances." Inasmuch, for the brevity of their personal accountability ("that's just"..), they are not well warranted, and typically not, in their assertions.

C) Principled Philosophy: To correct the negative effects of popular consensus, Kant would proffer that we re-establish our first principles on a universal foundation. Accordingly, we must test our principles by asking the universal question of them, 'can this principle always be good for everyone?' In practice, that means, treating people as ends in themselves - in contrast to 'treating people as the mere means through which other things pass, as strict attendance to logics of nature, otherworldly ideas (Tillich, 1961) or technology would have it - Kant calls this, the most important principle, "good will". Without good will: intelligence, beauty and fortune only make a person more terrible.

Despite this fine reasoning, it is true enough that Kant has been solidly refuted in seeking universal foundations. Nevertheless, as a practical outline, it is both brilliant of itself and of practical use as criteria toward being Coherent, Accountable and establishing Warrant (all three necessary to establishing individuality and agency) in the confusing flux of contemporary society.

Part of what Kant tried and failed to do with his a-priori (universal foundations outside of nature) was to save the world from empiricism - refer back to 1 - 7.

Wolf Europe