In one way I agree that morality is intrinsic and does not need to be dictated to the spiritually superior. However, 'common sense' is a misnomer because a majority of people are not equipped to recognise the common sense they are born with - yes, even white people and I'll refer to the example of the past few years again. It is 'commonly' 'sensed' but the term does not sum up what exactly it is that you're sensing - one can sense things which come from beyond the remit of immediate (or even long term) materialistic concerns, because morality comes with humanity as part of the package, but the manner we become alienated from proper moral behaviour is due to an alienation from this sense, a situation which a religious person might call 'falling from grace'. Once you boil it down to a simple calculation to reach an obvious outcome then once again you're in the materialistic mire.

Peace is not inherently good. There is peace arrived at through immoral means, such as mass killing - ever hear Tacitus', 'the Romans create a desert and call it peace'? - and peace which is fundamentally immoral, such as peace created through the suppression of action and thought, as in N. Korea.

Promiscuity is psychologically damaging because it impairs people's self-esteem, their ability to pair bond and their likelihood to be fruitful members of society, but to those for whom none of these things is considered inherently bad, then none of this even registers as damage. Nor is society itself even necessarily good. Some societies may need to crumble. The only unassailable thing you can say about promiscuity is that it is graceless.

If, for you, peaceful white societies are a moral priority which transcends mere preference then you have all sorts of troubling implications for your preferences. Modern society itself may have to go, in order to foster the peace which technology disrupts - we may have to go back to pre-industrial lifestyles enforced by the authoritarian suppression of a lot of white people. If fighting white erasure is an absolute, then incest is back on the table - whites can outbreed non-whites from within our own families. Who cares about genetic mutations? They will be the minority and we can abort or kill them, since neither of those things are inherently wrong either. And what about culling minorities? That could get started right now.

Fundamentally we know those things are wrong and any white society produced by these things will be a fruit of the poisoned tree. It would be lacking in things which are difficult to find in simple calculation, like beauty, justice, mercy, grace, nobility, courage and other essential parts of the human soul. Morality is part of the package of humanity and transcends calculation. Nihilists call this 'our fundamental irrationalism'. Religious people make sense of it through concepts of god and their spiritual canon, which they use to rehabilitate their communities to 'common sense'. The religious are more correct because it makes no sense to rebel against one's fundamental nature and larp as inanimate meat, sparked to life by neurochemistry.

For the materialist, if morality is built into the material - but not accounted for by genes and evolution, which it is not, but I didn't really get into that here - it is a losing argument to argue against god. To the religious, God is an inexplicable presence, intrinsic to our creation, which wants us to do good - to the non-religious who recognises their innate moral sense, it is the same thing. You can arrive at this interpretation either through enlightened self-reflection or through brute-forced spiritual didacticism (exotericism) - the latter being admittedly what much of religion appears to be in its social function, and it may need to be that in order to steer those who would act immorally without it.

In one way I agree that morality is intrinsic and does not need to be dictated to the spiritually superior. However, 'common sense' is a misnomer because a majority of people are not equipped to recognise the common sense they are born with - yes, even white people and I'll refer to the example of the past few years again. It is 'commonly' 'sensed' but the term does not sum up what exactly it is that you're sensing - one can sense things which come from beyond the remit of immediate (or even long term) materialistic concerns, because morality comes with humanity as part of the package, but the manner we become alienated from proper moral behaviour is due to an alienation from this sense, a situation which a religious person might call 'falling from grace'. Once you boil it down to a simple calculation to reach an obvious outcome then once again you're in the materialistic mire.

Peace is not inherently good. There is peace arrived at through immoral means, such as mass killing - ever hear Tacitus', 'the Romans create a desert and call it peace'? - and peace which is fundamentally immoral, such as peace created through the suppression of action and thought, as in N. Korea.

Promiscuity is psychologically damaging because it impairs people's self-esteem, their ability to pair bond and their likelihood to be fruitful members of society, but to those for whom none of these things is considered inherently bad, then none of this even registers as damage. Nor is society itself even necessarily good. Some societies may need to crumble. The only unassailable thing you can say about promiscuity is that it is graceless.

If, for you, peaceful white societies are a moral priority which transcends mere preference then you have all sorts of troubling implications for your preferences. Modern society itself may have to go, in order to foster the peace which technology disrupts - we may have to go back to pre-industrial lifestyles enforced by the authoritarian suppression of a lot of white people. If fighting white erasure is an absolute, then incest is back on the table - whites can outbreed non-whites from within our own families. Who cares about genetic mutations? They will be the minority and we can abort or kill them, since neither of those things are inherently wrong either. And what about culling minorities? That could get started right now.

Fundamentally we know those things are wrong and any white society produced by these things will be a fruit of the poisoned tree. It would be lacking in things which are difficult to find in simple calculation, like beauty, justice, mercy, grace, nobility, courage and other essential parts of the human soul. Morality is part of the package of humanity and transcends calculation. Nihilists call this 'our fundamental irrationalism'. Religious people make sense of it through concepts of god and their spiritual canon, which they use to rehabilitate their communities to 'common sense'. The religious are more correct because it makes no sense to rebel against one's fundamental nature and larp as inanimate meat, sparked to life by neurochemistry.

For the materialist, if morality is built into the material - but not accounted for by genes and evolution, which it is not, but I didn't really get into that here - it is a losing argument to argue against god. To the religious, God is an inexplicable presence, intrinsic to our creation, which wants us to do good - to the non-religious who recognises their innate moral sense, it is the same thing. You can arrive at this interpretation either through enlightened self-reflection or through brute-forced spiritual didacticism (exotericism) - the latter being admittedly what much of religion appears to be in its social function, and may need to be in order to steer those who would act immorally without it.

In one way I agree that morality is intrinsic and does not need to be dictated to the spiritually superior. However, 'common sense' is a misnomer because a majority of people are not equipped to recognise the common sense they are born with - yes, even white people and I'll refer to the example of the past few years again. It is 'commonly' 'sensed' but the term does not sum up what exactly it is that you're sensing - one can sense things which come from beyond the remit of immediate (or even long term) materialistic concerns, because morality comes with humanity as part of the package, but the manner we become alienated from proper moral behaviour is due to an alienation from this sense, a situation which a religious person might call 'falling from grace'. Once you boil it down to a simple calculation to reach an obvious outcome then once again you're in the materialistic mire.

Peace is not inherently good. There is peace arrived at through immoral means, such as mass killing - ever hear Tacitus', 'the Romans create a desert and call it peace'? - and peace which is fundamentally immoral, such as peace created through the suppression of action and thought, as in N. Korea.

Promiscuity is psychologically damaging because it impairs people's self-esteem, their ability to pair bond and their likelihood to be fruitful members of society, but to those for whom none of these things is considered inherently bad, then none of this even registers as damage. Nor is society itself even necessarily good. Some societies may need to crumble. The only unassailable thing you can say about promiscuity is that it is graceless.

If, for you, peaceful white societies are a moral priority which transcends mere preference then you have all sorts of troubling implications for your preferences. Modern society itself may have to go, in order to foster the peace which technology disrupts - we may have to go back to pre-industrial lifestyles enforced by the authoritarian suppression of a lot of white people. If fighting white erasure is an absolute, then incest is back on the table - whites can outbreed non-whites from within our own families. Who cares about genetic mutations? They will be the minority and we can abort or kill them, since neither of those things are inherently wrong either if we're acting in the service of lasting peace. And what about culling minorities? That could get started right now.

Fundamentally we know those things are wrong and any white society produced by these things will be a fruit of the poisoned tree. It would be lacking in things which are difficult to find in simple calculation, like beauty, justice, mercy, grace, nobility, courage and other essential parts of the human soul. Morality is part of the package of humanity and transcends calculation. Nihilists call this 'our fundamental irrationalism'. Religious people make sense of it through concepts of god and their spiritual canon, which they use to rehabilitate their communities to 'common sense'. The religious are more correct because it makes no sense to rebel against one's fundamental nature and larp as inanimate meat, sparked to life by neurochemistry.

For the materialist, if morality is built into the material - but not accounted for by genes and evolution, which it is not, but I didn't really get into that here - it is a losing argument to argue against god. To the religious, God is an inexplicable presence, intrinsic to our creation, which wants us to do good - to the non-religious who recognises their innate moral sense, it is the same thing. You can arrive at this interpretation either through enlightened self-reflection or through brute-forced spiritual didacticism (exotericism) - the latter being admittedly what much of religion appears to be in its social function, and may need to be in order to steer those who would act immorally without it.

In one way I agree that morality is intrinsic and does not need to be dictated to the spiritually superior. However, 'common sense' is a misnomer because a majority of people are not equipped to recognise the common sense they are born with - yes, even white people and I'll refer to the example of the past few years again. It is 'commonly' 'sensed' but the term does not sum up what exactly it is that you're sensing - one can sense things which come from beyond the remit of immediate (or even long term) materialistic concerns, because morality comes with humanity as part of the package, but the manner we become alienated from proper moral behaviour is due to an alienation from this sense, a situation which a religious person might call 'falling from grace'. Once you boil it down to a simple calculation to reach an obvious outcome then once again you're in the materialistic mire.

Peace is not inherently good. There is peace arrived at through immoral means, such as mass killing - ever hear Tacitus', 'the Romans create a desert and call it peace'? - and peace which is fundamentally immoral, such as peace created through the suppression of action and thought, as in N. Korea.

Promiscuity is psychologically damaging because it impairs people's self-esteem, their ability to pair bond and their likelihood to be fruitful members of society, but to those for whom none of these things is considered inherently bad, then none of this even registers as damage. Nor is society itself even necessarily good. Some societies may need to crumble. The only unassailable thing you can say about promiscuity is that it is graceless.

If, for you, peaceful white societies are a moral priority which transcends mere preference then you have all sorts of troubling implications for your preferences. Modern society itself may have to go, in order to foster the peace which technology disrupts - we may have to go back to pre-industrial lifestyles enforced by the authoritarian suppression of a lot of white people. If fighting white erasure is an absolute, then incest is back on the table - whites can outbreed non-whites from within our own families. Who cares about genetic mutations? They will be the minority and we can abort or kill the rest, since neither of those are inherently wrong either. And what about culling minorities? That could get started right now.

Fundamentally we know those things are wrong and any white society produced by these things will be a fruit of the poisoned tree. It would be lacking in things which are difficult to find in simple calculation, like beauty, justice, mercy, grace, nobility, courage and other essential parts of the human soul. Morality is part of the package of humanity and transcends calculation. Nihilists call this 'our fundamental irrationalism'. Religious people make sense of it through concepts of god and their spiritual canon, which they use to rehabilitate their communities to 'common sense'. The religious are more correct because it makes no sense to rebel against one's fundamental nature and larp as inanimate meat, sparked to life by neurochemistry.

For the materialist, if morality is built into the material - but not accounted for by genes and evolution, which it is not, but I didn't really get into that here - it is a losing argument to argue against god. To the religious, God is an inexplicable presence, intrinsic to our creation, which wants us to do good - to the non-religious who recognises their innate moral sense, it is the same thing. You can arrive at this interpretation either through enlightened self-reflection or through brute-forced spiritual didacticism (exotericism) - the latter being admittedly what much of religion appears to be in its social function, and may need to be in order to steer those who would act immorally without it.

In one way I agree that morality is intrinsic and does not need to be dictated to the spiritually superior. However, 'common sense' is a misnomer because a majority of people are not equipped to recognise the common sense they are born with - yes, even white people and I'll refer to the example of the past few years again. It is 'commonly' 'sensed' but the term does not sum up what exactly it is that you're sensing - one can sense things which come from beyond the remit of immediate (or even long term) materialistic concerns, because morality comes with humanity as part of the package, but the manner we become alienated from proper moral behaviour is due to an alienation from this sense, a situation which a religious person might call 'falling from grace'. Once you boil it down to a simple calculation to reach an obvious outcome then once again you're in the materialistic mire.

Peace is not inherently good. There is peace arrived at through immoral means, such as mass killing - ever hear Tacitus', 'the Romans create a desert and call it peace'? - and peace which is fundamentally immoral, such as peace created through the suppression of action and thought, as in N. Korea.

Promiscuity is psychologically damaging because it impairs people's self-esteem, their ability to pair bond and their likelihood to be fruitful members of society, but to those for whom none of these things is considered inherently bad, then none of this even registers as damage. Nor is society itself even necessarily good. Some societies may need to crumble. The only unassailable thing you can say about promiscuity is that it is graceless.

If, for you, peaceful white societies are a moral priority which transcends mere preference then you have all sorts of troubling implications for your preferences. Modern society itself may have to go, in order to foster the peace which technology disrupts - we may have to go back to pre-industrial lifestyles enforced by the authoritarian suppression of a lot of white people. If fighting white erasure is an absolute, then incest is back on the table - whites can outbreed non-whites from within our own families. Who cares about genetic mutations? They will be the minority and we can abort or kill the rest, since neither of those are inherently wrong either.

Fundamentally we know those things are wrong and any white society produced by these things will be a fruit of the poisoned tree. It would be lacking in things which are difficult to find in simple calculation, like beauty, justice, mercy, grace, nobility, courage and other essential parts of the human soul. Morality is part of the package of humanity and transcends calculation. Nihilists call this 'our fundamental irrationalism'. Religious people make sense of it through concepts of god and their spiritual canon, which they use to rehabilitate their communities to 'common sense'. The religious are more correct because it makes no sense to rebel against one's fundamental nature and larp as inanimate meat, sparked to life by neurochemistry.

For the materialist, if morality is built into the material - but not accounted for by genes and evolution, which it is not, but I didn't really get into that here - it is a losing argument to argue against god. To the religious, God is an inexplicable presence, intrinsic to our creation, which wants us to do good - to the non-religious who recognises their innate moral sense, it is the same thing. You can arrive at this interpretation either through enlightened self-reflection or through brute-forced spiritual didacticism (exotericism) - the latter being admittedly what much of religion appears to be in its social function, and may need to be in order to steer those who would act immorally without it.

In one way I agree that morality is intrinsic and does not need to be dictated to the spiritually superior. However, 'common sense' is a misnomer because a majority of people are not equipped with it - yes, even white people and I'll refer to the example of the past few years again. It is 'commonly' 'sensed' but the term does not sum up what exactly it is that you're sensing - one can sense things which come from beyond the remit of immediate (or even long term) materialistic concerns, because morality comes with humanity as part of the package, but the manner we become alienated from proper moral behaviour is due to an alienation from this sense, a situation which a religious person might call 'falling from grace'. Once you boil it down to a simple calculation to reach an obvious outcome then once again you're in the materialistic mire.

Peace is not inherently good. There is peace arrived at through immoral means, such as mass killing - ever hear Tacitus', 'the Romans create a desert and call it peace'? - and peace which is fundamentally immoral, such as peace created through the suppression of action and thought, as in N. Korea.

Promiscuity is psychologically damaging because it impairs people's self-esteem, their ability to pair bond and their likelihood to be fruitful members of society, but to those for whom none of these things is considered inherently bad, then none of this even registers as damage. Nor is society itself even necessarily good. Some societies may need to crumble. The only unassailable thing you can say about promiscuity is that it is graceless.

If, for you, peaceful white societies are a moral priority which transcends mere preference then you have all sorts of troubling implications for your preferences. Modern society itself may have to go, in order to foster the peace which technology disrupts - we may have to go back to pre-industrial lifestyles enforced by the authoritarian suppression of a lot of white people. If fighting white erasure is an absolute, then incest is back on the table - whites can outbreed non-whites from within our own families. Who cares about genetic mutations? They will be the minority and we can abort or kill the rest, since neither of those are inherently wrong either.

Fundamentally we know those things are wrong and any white society produced by these things will be a fruit of the poisoned tree. It would be lacking in things which are difficult to find in simple calculation, like beauty, justice, mercy, grace, nobility, courage and other essential parts of the human soul. Morality is part of the package of humanity and transcends calculation. Nihilists call this 'our fundamental irrationalism'. Religious people make sense of it through concepts of god and their spiritual canon, which they use to rehabilitate their communities to 'common sense'. The religious are more correct because it makes no sense to rebel against one's fundamental nature and larp as inanimate meat, sparked to life by neurochemistry.

For the materialist, if morality is built into the material - but not accounted for by genes and evolution, which it is not, but I didn't really get into that here - it is a losing argument to argue against god. To the religious, God is an inexplicable presence, intrinsic to our creation, which wants us to do good - to the non-religious who recognises their innate moral sense, it is the same thing. You can arrive at this interpretation either through enlightened self-reflection or through brute-forced spiritual didacticism (exotericism) - the latter being admittedly what much of religion appears to be in its social function, and may need to be in order to steer those who would act immorally without it.