Imperative to replace Golden Rule of Altruism w Silver Rule of Reciprocity for European Moral Order
The Sermon on The Mount Ensconces The Golden Rule of Altruism
Majorityrights prefers to deal with verifiable reality as opposed to speculative theory and faith based systems of rules as we look after the interests of our people. We are looking after genetic groupings and genetic interests as key criteria, even if these are not the only important verifiable criteria to keep track of our peoplehood and that of others. Rationale and rule structures are another criteria for that purpose.
While existence is of course equiprimordial to genetic interests, to secure it for any span and legacy requires rationale and varying degrees of sophistication to negotiate complex rule structures of interaction. “Rules” (1) are the term of common currency that we will use for the logics of meaning and action that people use to negotiate interaction and these complex, protracted exchanges beyond episode, close personal relationships in yield to maturity of their full social system; and its relation to other social systems.
It is even more difficult to understand European peoples allowing, even welcoming foreign incursions into The U.K., Sweden, France and Germany - it is difficult to fathom the mindset of a Merkel, who would destroy our European peoples in service to non-Europeans. But there is one rule, convoluted rule, that they have in common and makes their position intelligible to us despite their apparent irrationality.
This post will prepare a discussion of the work of Jan Tullberg - viz., the difference between the golden rule of benevolence as opposed to the silver rule of reciprocity - as it applies to assist in the reconstruction of a necessary consensus of moral rules among European peoples and for coordinating our relations to others.
There is a consensus among advocates of European peoples that in essence we seek to secure the existence of our people. There is much dispute over how that is to be done…
One significant camp believes that the fight for existence is all important and any traditions and customs of morals must yield to whatever is necessary for our people’s survival. They believe that they are merely describing what “is” when they observe nature and see creatures struggling for resources against others and that it is quite the same for human nature. The determining factor in what creature survives and thrives is not who is the nicest and most moral to others, but who is the strongest, most intelligent, most cunning, resilient, those mighty enough to be independent of morality and social restraints against their self interests: might makes right. They do have a moral rule structure of sorts: anybody who tries to impose a moral rule structure is immoral - defending the dangerously weak and resentful.
While nature is ruthlessly objective and indifferent as to who is mighty and who is right to survive and thrive, that doesn’t necessarily mean that we should strive to be purely objective and indifferent. Nature and what is mighty by itself doesn’t care about us or the relationships that we care about. Moreover, the world of competition that this school of thought sees as pervasive is not altogether descriptive of the reality, particularly not on the more human levels of interaction; cooperation descriptively abounds on all levels of reality as well. Nevertheless, we ought to take into account what works factually, not only who we would like to win and how we might like cooperation to be. Might makes right does resonate of reality against much of our default wishful thinking.
There is a lot of truth to might makes right. And it is more than worthwhile, it is necessary even, to circle back as frequently as need be when things are not going right for your genetic interests to examine what is the case - what are “the mighty doing ‘right” that gives them might where we are losing out? A little of Nietzsche’s cynicism in asking the “who?” question was, and remains, necessary in order to throw off the yoke of petty moralism that can keep our hands tied behind our backs before our enemies and despite great possibilities otherwise. Taking that too far, however, and not understanding our nature and differences as humans can, lets be honest, will be, disastrous. Greg Johnson has noted that in the first epistle of The Republic, Plato refutes “might is right” by the observation that coalitions of “weaker” people can overcome the mighty individual(s).
Inter-group interaction is more complex and less objective than might makes right for most peoples. They are cooperating among themselves and sometimes against us. More in regard to relative interests, I like to point out the fact that our mighty and excellent qualities are not necessarily manifest in an episode, but through protracted patterns; thus, the assessment of who is “mighty” on an episodic basis and by a naive observer - as is wont to happen in the disorder of modernity for its rupturing of patterns though prohibitions of speculative protective social classification - is prone to render us unjustly the loser; losing-out along an under-supported developmental process. There are subtle factors in Neo-Aristotleanism which indicate that for our human nature, “might is right” is perhaps even more insufficient a rule system than it is for others. The assessment of proper European biology in particular must take into account the optimality and sublimation that is part and parcel of our k selective ways and its description, but also something to be protected in “oughtness” - as a matter of what distinguishes our kind of humanity and its excellence.
Indeed we are biological creatures evolved for optimal not maximal need satisfaction; mammals, evolved to care about relationships; second order cybernetic systems who can reflect on long term consequences of actions, can consider alternatives and learn new responses; coherence, accountability, warrant and agency are part and parcel of our human condition, as it is, inextricably enmeshed in praxis - social and other interaction - where there are reflexive effects; and to try to ignore or reduce this, our human complexity, to try to closely assimilate the less reflexive survival drives of non-human creatures, or perhaps even try to assimilate the non-biological world of forces and impacts, is to reduce our chances for survival against forces of competing people, systems and reality. The unit of survival is beyond organism plus group, as Darwin conceived it, and more like human group ecology plus pervasive ecology.
This neo-Aristotlean calibration which establishes necessary feedback to put circuit breakers on Nietzschean toxicity and the systemic runaway that we are currently in the throes of as a people is probably lacking critically in Hitler’s world view, the “might is righters” and the scientistically Dawinistic.
It is a consequent of The Enlightenment project for objectivity; and though the necessary Post Modern turn was underway particularly after World War I, it did not take hold enough to stave off a second world war so catastrophic for our people. And since World War II our people have remained bamboozled by the YKW who have some of their people espousing a modernist “objectivist” view where it suits them to avoid accountability; though more typically in recent decades, they’ve espoused a pseudo-post modernist view, “represented” by anti-White groups in coalitions wielding absurd propositions. Because the YKW have so effectively misrepresented the post modern turn, social constructionism and hermeneutics - its simple, salutary effect of negotiating the good and bad aspects of both tradition and modernity - most of our people are unclear about the necessity of the post modern turn, its difference, and they default into modernist ways or neo-traditionalism.
The majority of our people probably remain modernists, which suits the YKW just fine because our quest for objectivity is, well, blind or partly blind to our relative interests; an objectivist logic of meaning and action is short on accountability to our people as our people. The YKW will promote this in a morality of liberalism while the naive and disingenuous will go along with it.
Others can’t be satisfied to shrug-off the personal abuse they’ve experienced or the destruction with impunity of the ways and people that they hold dear; they often attribute this to a lack of “morals”, a social consensus by necessity, that corresponded to traditions and times when people were more loyal and conscientious. Other than the liberal Enlightenment values that pervade the society they find so repugnant, the only major moral consensus known for centuries by our people has been Christianity. For many Whites, that remains synonymous with morality and the moral order. They fight like mad to re-invoke it, and they are correct that a moral order is imperative. They are not correct that is is the only moral order nor the best suited to our interests.
Nevertheless, to them, typically, you are talking about Christianity or the other self defeating terms of Enlightened modernity - which they might call “secular humanism” - if you are talking about our people’s “morals” or lack thereof.
We’ve discussed how the YKW play the Enlightenment against us, by making us and only us play by its rules - distorting it beyond its rule structure and reason, to the point of absurdity; to where “Modernity’s objectivism” does not name the thing being named, which is more aptly called something like “anti-White”; and they play “Post Modernity” against us by distorting it beyond its rule structure and reason as well, to where everything is “cultural” and “valid” and neither does it name the thing that post modernity is supposed to name - a means to recognize the limits of modernity and objectivism, to reconstruct our people and ways where fine; and to coordinate with others without the narcissism of modernity - but no, YKW “post modernity” designates hideous architecture at best, more often a dada theater of the absurd, a freak show putting our resources at risk to arbitrary experimentation as surely as modernity did - for us, it is really just more modernity. In either case, “modernity” or pseudo, YKW “post modernity”, it is promoted by the YKW so long as it is against us and in their interests. The masters of discourse have controlled the frame and these distortions destructive to our EGI through academia, media and other power points.
But they have also held sway in “our traditional morality”. We have in prior essays discussed how the YKW control, and have historically controlled ((((the popular media for Goyem in days-gone-by))) the discourse to our detriment through Christianity.
Our people are more likely to have survived in spite of Christianity’s (((nonsense and “logics”))), if you can call it logic, than because of it. Despite the absurdity evident to anyone with common sense, fear, promises of a better world after, tradition, custom and habit, along with intimidating exclusion of contending moral orders, has instilled close associations for many between the term Christianity and the term “morals” - it has been THE MORAL ORDER for Europeans; even unconsciously and memetically to non-believers; steered by the YKW into its Noahide logics irrespective; while its fantastic and ubiquitous churches have been the only known meeting place for a consensus on our moral order: tax free corrals for the sheeple to be indoctrinated into surrendering their resources..
That’s a big problem…
Even if practiced ironically and selectively enough by some to allow them to look after their own and European people’s interests, the logics of the text by itself are against that and will lead many who take the text seriously to rupture - either by their own reading or by the misleading of others - whatever moral order achieved to serve European interests despite the Bible’s (((logics of meaning and action))).
The disillusionment that will come of Christianity for anyone who cares about European people then tends to provoke reactionary anti-moral thinking. But there is a problem even for these anti-moral reactionaries: There is no escaping moral rules. It is a universal truth that between people there will always be some things that are prohibited, some things which are obligatory and some things which are legitimate but optional; you will be confronted and stopped by the logical forces of others within your group or without if you do not take sufficient account of these rules by consensus.
It is imperative that we consciously determine our moral order, such that it conforms to our EGI or else our moral order will, by default, be determined by those who don’t care about us, or those who are downright enemies. In fact, that has been the case with regard to objectivism and the Abrahamic religions.
I won’t discuss European pagan religions here. They must have had some things right and they must have had some things wrong given the state of knowledge at the times. Furthermore, they tended to be tribal, not racial. Therefore, we are talking about the necessity of creating a new moral order by consensus for Europeans at any rate.
Still, there is this memetic embedding of Christian rules even for those who wish to step out of Christianity and out of its moral order altogether. Christianity has had such a long history as the foundation of our moral order that its rule structures are taken for granted and embedded even in secular institutions and practices. If we are to cure ourselves of its convoluted rule structures which misguide our people, we must go deep to its vital artery, expose it ever on a permanent alter for people to pass by and reject, every day if need be - so that it becomes deeply, habitually known by broad consensus, and felt to be wrong.
I am talking about the Golden Rule. I have mentioned that we needed to replace the Golden Rule with The Silver Rule in the past. But I have gone into nothing like the kind of detail that Professor Jan Tullberg has.
His examination of The Golden Rule of Benevolence versus the Silver Rule of Reciprocity provides a vital step of analysis to purge this poison to our would-be moral order. The excising of this mind cancer tumor is crucial to our people’s ability to coordinate with the rest of the world effectively and to our ultimate survival.
Again, when we are talking about building a consensus for a moral order, we are talking about negotiating rules of prohibition, obligation and legitimacy. We are not talking about “memes”, we are not talking about “thou shalt not kill even where your people’s life depends upon it”, we are not talking about being soft, nice and especially, we are not talking now about altruism to the point of obsequiousness.
We are talking about rules and the most important rule of all, the rule to address first, is The Golden Rule of altruism as it is ensconced in The Sermon on The Mount; and our necessary consensus for The Silver Rule to replace it.
We Europeans are susceptible to the (((Golden Rule))) ruse, especially our Northern adaptations, because we are evolved more to fight the rigors of Augustinian devils - i.e., natural elements and cycles; as opposed to the cunning and rule changing treachery of Manichean devils for which Middle Eastern people are adapted of necessity for resource abundance and inter-tribal warfare.
We want to enjoy our lives and to do what we are good at - fighting Augustinian devils; that is characteristic of our European nature; we don’t want our lives entangled in battles with low I.Q. or worse, high I.Q. Middle Easterners. And we are correct to want to fight Augustinian devils, for those are the ultimate devils which will determine our survival, even if we can survive enemy peoples.
Nevertheless, we must survive other peoples and that means dealing with them. The Golden Rule is the opposite of a model for our survival as distinct in relation to other peoples. I submit that the Golden Rule is not moral at all. It has rather the hallmarks of an egregious (((Middle Eastern))) trick. The Silver Rule, on the other hand, is moral, it provides the currency and sets in motion the rule structure by which we can negotiate fair moral relations among our European peoples and with other peoples.
What follows is a letter in appeal to Professor Jan Tullberg for help and an interview…
I am writing you on behalf of Majorityrights, a site dedicated to the genetic interests and human ecologies of European peoples.
We are very interested in your article - The Golden Rule of Benevolence versus the Silver Rule of Reciprocity - and would like to excerpt parts of it on our website, Majorityrights.
Would you consider talking with us? Even if to be critical of our approach (not that you necessarily would or should be)? Working toward a consensus regarding a moral order for European peoples which overcomes the obsequiousness of what has held the position of our moral order - viz. Christianity - is imperative to the defense of our peoples, acutely now, in evidence by the migration crisis.
I have long maintained the position that our moral order is troubled and in need of re-ordering - including the fact that it is crucial that we do away with the The Golden Rule and replace it with The Silver Rule. But I merely scratched the surface of that and that is a part of why your work is so interesting to me and so relevant to our project at Majorityrights in defense of European peoples.
We have two questions for you in that regard -
1) Could you possibly offer some advice, perhaps participate as we work around your article?
These are urgent matters and we sincerely hope for your affirmative response to our request,
Daniel Sienkiewicz, Majorityrights
Here is a close approximation of the somewhat protracted addendum that I had penned, but did not include in the email to Prof. Tullberg:
In regard to your article The Golden Rule of Benevolence versus the Silver Rule of Reciprocity as it pertains to our website, Majorityrights.
MR is highly appropriate to present this material of yours, as it has always been dedicated to the rational interests of European peoples and the correction of theoretical errors which run counter to those interests - but this is especially appropriate now - you must be aware as to the urgency for which a European public concerned for their interests need to understand this material.
European peoples have had difficulty with the basic assertion of the existential reality of their identity, the legitimacy of their interests as distinguished from forces indifferent and dissolutive: whether a result of flighty and scientistic objectivism; subjective participation in international capital; or as distinguished from people indifferent to their systemic existence; even as distinguished from those antagonistic to their existence - who would seek to deny the reality of their discreet existence in order to weaken their collective identity and defense.
I naturally believe that we do exist as a people, that we do have legitimate interests in our evolution, human ecology and habitat, but I’ve experienced difficulty in organizing and gaining adherence to such fundamental defense for absence of and disruption of a coherent moral order to which our people might subscribe and expect accountability (to and from) - a rule structure which would observe that there are outsiders, not merely entitled to interact and participate on the same level taken for granted by those sharing our particular moral order.
I have either been confronted with that difficulty or sundry forms of right-wing anti-social snobbery - typically, arguments of the “naturalistic” kind; that nature determines these things and discussion of social terms is nonsense.
Despite that, in attempting to construct frameworks to deal with the problem of this disorder I have, like yourself, seen a great deal of explanatory and diagnostic power in ordinary language - it is a helpful starting point to detect patterns of shared discursive currency as they are taken for granted but serve through time to reveal and parse what moral ordering that we have remaining - open ended, subject to dissolution though it is, as you know.
While there are patterns in our ordinary language, they are confused in important regards. “The Left” is understood beneath ordinary language as unionized defense of peoples - except when applied to European peoples: for them it means the liberal opening of borders - only others, apparently, are allowed to unionize, and European peoples accept this. In contradiction to the fundamental meaning of leftism (unionized interest), European “leftists” are liberal, altruistically concerned for others; and the term left and liberal is used interchangeably when applied to them though it is really a contradiction of terms.
Objections to this paradoxic terminology and systemically self destructive performance requirements are met with charges of “racism, sexism and other ism’s” from those antagonistic to Whites - these charges have been overwhelming in decades following WWII - while all resistance is called “right-wing.” Since all social unionization has been closed-off as “left” or “racist”, people with implicit concern for European defense have had a tendency to go where their historical successes and comforts have lain, further to what is called “the far right”, in exaggerated forms of scientitic Cartesianism, or into the “morality” of Christianity, or some other sort of obsequious secular liberalism - but further from rationally accountable social organization and “unionization” of themselves.
Where I have tried to encourage our people to organize as a unionized “White Left”, in our interests, our people, in their individualistic and conditioned ways, have resisted, remain reactionary and try to conceive of me as doing the enemies bidding; perhaps this serves to preserve their position presiding over pet right wing projects, coordinating only feebly though they might through these “naturalistic” and essentially anti-social rule structures.
However, we cannot place hope that the arbitrary fallout of natural flux will judge in favor of our people’s just survival, let alone can we place faith in “divine providence” to rule as such, but we must instead take initiative to defend ourselves consciously, rationally, in a way that can be understood by the critical masses necessary to participate in our coherent defense: that requires the promulgation of a shared rule structure. Where people are not scared-off from social participation by the non-accountability of right-wing strictures, universalistic philosophies and Christianity in particular have been a bane of such organization.
Like yourself, I have seen the inculcation of the Golden Rule as a central problem against our defense; and that it is imperative to replace it with The Silver Rule. However, I had been thinking of The Silver rule in terms of “not doing unto others” - which you describe as merely a lower grade Golden Rule, while observing that the Silver Rule is rather a crucial matter of reciprocity - the importance of which the Golden Rule denies. In fact, I have merely scratched the surface of the issue and went into nothing remotely like the depth and elaboration that you have in parsing these rules and illustrating the importance of the distinction as you have in your article.
Our peoples are in trouble for not being able to defend themselves as a biosystemic entity, for their evolved proclivity to objective struggle against nature as opposed to ethnocentric rivalries (with others peoples, who ARE geared to ethnocentric rivalries); for the naive susceptibility to the golden rule for those who would surrender their side perhaps to mimick a signal of innocence and the purity of objectivist values - which they might hope to find codified in religion; or in rational blindness to self interest for those who prefer to place faith in the hope that more impartial scientific pursuit will yield sufficient results.
But again, we are not only subject to dissolution as a result of our own blindness or self and kin negligence. We are subject to antagonism and rhetorical assault by those who do act in their ethnocentric interests. On the highest level of abstraction in antagonism to our organization as a people, we are under rhetorical attack under the rubric of anti-racism by the so called “left”; and if we react negatively against that charge, as “right wingers”, in response to the denunciation of our asserted self interests, then, indeed, ordinary language sorts out the rightist tendencies to further pursue the abstract, “factual” and the scientistically, quantitatively measurable - “Non-equality” - some people are just better according to a singular universal criteria; that’s the way it is, no arguments need apply; arguments and considering different ways of life and priorities are for ((them))) anyway. Or they seek concepts beyond social negotiation and rhetorical trammel in the realm of faith…but anti social, and likely to end in reciprocally escalating conflict either way - science or religion: not based with an eye toward praxis - people in interaction and accountable to one another as the prime determination and consideration.
The lack of accountability to social organization that results is a great deal more like liberalism and universalism - more like the golden rule - than it is like a unionization of interests.
While it is taken as a response to the left, it is indeed a reaction to other “lefts”, their unions of self interest. This has been a maneuvering of those who fear “White” collective organization - and those who fear such unionization meet any such motion to White organization with a myriad of tactics to counter and subvert it.
One of those tactics I have touched upon: they have represented leftist coalitions as strictly being the way of those who are antagonistic or conflictual of European people, and that makes it additionally difficult to persuade European people who are by nature against, or who have been conditioned against, collectivism of the the left - particularly as these unions have been made didactic in one form or another, ranging from the Soviet Union, to PC and social justice warriors, to National Socialism, organization in racial defense amounts to what has been through ordinary language called Marxist or racist.
However, long standing promulgation of the terms that European people who defend themselves as European people are to be identified as “right wing” and even “far right wing” is only a preliminary difficulty in getting them to organize their defense.
Where the quest for “innocence” in objectivity or even the esteem of bringing forth its technological fruits do not predominate in their psyche to incite a selfless ego naive and ripe for exploitation, where these quests for innocence or moral superiority do not translate to self sacrifice and destruction of what systemic happenstance of European human ecology that remains, then the hold over of Christianity - especially the golden rule - does.
While I have long held that the instilling of The Golden rule in European peoples is one of our largest problems and that we desperately need to dislodge it and replace it with the Silver rule, I have gone into nothing like the kind of detail with which you handle the matter in this wonderful essay of yours.
While you have applied this examination mostly to the context of business ethics, we are interested in looking at your study from the context of defending European peoples, who are, as I’m sure you are aware, under an existential threat that can no longer sustain the Golden Rule if we are to survive as a distinct genetic species, a human ecological system among human and other ecological systems.
Nevertheless, merely attempting to “throw moral rules out the window” will not do. It is not possible, for one thing. There is no such thing as living without at least a semblance of moral order - rules: there will always be some things we can do, some things that are legitimate and some things that are prohibited in any human interaction. Far better that the rules be consciously and broadly understood by all parties concerned. But it is our more fundamental problem still that Europeans barely have a moral order or coherent rules to discard - hence the desperate masses are shown again the “only” way that they know and cling to traditional “morals” - we know what that means - what semblance of moral order that we have is likely to be Kant at best, but most likely Christianity, and continually revisited by the golden rule which wreaks its havoc. Europeans desperately need morals understood as rules - non-obsequious rules, based in the kind of reciprocity and justice that you advise in rationality and accountability.
I have been trying to promote the necessity of a shared moral order as a means to protect the human ecologies of genetic Europeans. Professor Tullberg, you are consummately suited to help take this to the level of scholarship, serious analysis and the prescription necessary in this dark hour.
Thus, I ask of you for the purpose of our defense as European peoples
- can you offer us some feedback at Majorityrights in regard to this article of yours?
- will you talk to us? Even if to be critical of our approach?
- Will you help us to save Swedish people, Sweden, Europe and European peoples?
(1) Rules are a highly serviceable as they are abstract and fluid cross-contextually, whereas “memes”, as I understand them, can get us bogged down in concreteness too quickly.
Post a comment: