Objective Morality Wins All Wars

— There’s No Other Possible Way

Do You Truly Know What Morality Is?

Reactions to yesterday’s post with amazing photographic proof of my evolution in strength, business, and whirlwind sexual activity have given rise to the need for a primer on morality. So here goes. I shall now blow your mind and provide the most powerful life-changing principle you could possibly ever encounter.

Most people think they understand what morality is, but in reality, they’re missing the mark. When asked, they’ll offer a simple definition: “Well, it’s the difference between good and evil,” which is only partially accurate. They may also claim that morality is what God decrees, what Jesus, Jehovah, Buddha, or Confucius taught, or what’s inscribed in holy texts like the Bible, the Quran, the Vedas, or the Bhagavad-Gita, among other ancient writings.

However, a genuine comprehension of morality begins with the recognition that all these narratives and texts—or the interpretations offered by various authorities, both religious and secular, including gurus, teachers, and so on—are not actually providing the source of morality itself. Instead, they’re offering interpretations, translations, explanations, reconstructions, or simply a set of laws and edicts.

Many people don’t look beyond what the legislature dictates. They equate what is moral with what is legal, and what is immoral with what is illegal. This perspective is profoundly shallow.

The principle that I am going to reveal to you in this post is simple; yet, it’s difficult to grasp because it challenges the very foundations of society and civilization. It stands in opposition to all institutional authority on the planet—be it the church, the state, non-governmental bureaucracies, the courts, the legislatures, the executives, or even the dictators. There’s a good reason for the moralistic propaganda, and once you understand the principle, you’ll have an epiphany. You’ll realize why things are the way they are.

What I’m referring to is the crux of the matter…as in T-H-E. There is nothing more fundamental for humans than this principle. It’s imperative to understand that the very concept of morality often rests in the hands of those who exert authority over us, be it through influence, a carrot and stick approach, or control over our daily bread and circuses—the ones who produce the television shows we watch, the movies we see, the art and photographs we admire. Morality is implicit in everything because it’s part of who we are as human beings; it’s what differentiates us from other animals. Morality is the central theme of this blog and the basis of all of The 114 No Pill Advantages—or, as you might say, the 114 No-Fake-Moral-Narrative Advantages.

I will discuss the two fundamental sides of moral civilization, which will illuminate the two-sides antagonism we see everywhere. Then, I’ll move on to a unifying principle of morality, defined. The significance of this principle lies in its unifying nature; once known and understood, it becomes something upon which everyone can agree. This is precisely why it must not be known or understood by the vast majority—or, shall we say, the voters.

We’ll then examine how this principle plays out in politics and social antagonism, both generally and with some specific examples. The power of this principle is immense, and understanding it is crucial for a deeper comprehension of the forces that shape our lives and our world.

Finally, how can this new principal knowledge of principle help you in practical terms? This in an art. It’s also a discipline and once you begin using its power, you’ll quickly see just how easy it is to go off track by emotionally reacting in moralist ways to things, rather than in the light of objective morality.

You will be hard-pressed to find anything like this anywhere on the Internet. Sure, you can find pieces of it in various niches and specialties, but I don’t do specialization; I do generalization. I generalize and synthesize so that what I say, and what you learn from me, can be widely applied to whatever it is you’re doing—be it your goals, aspirations, dreams, or the commitments you have. But I’ll also say this: you’re free to relax and not worry about it. This isn’t a matter of life or death.

In fact, one of the things I’m going to show you is how objective morality isn’t really absolute—which may sound like a contradiction, but it’s not. What I’m talking about is a better morality. More so than simply moral versus immoral, humanity is, by nature, a moral species with moral agency and the socio-political antagonism is not about making you immoral…it’s about stripping you of your natural agency to determine what’s god or bad; right or wrong; just or unjust; fair or unfair; produced or destroyed; and on and on.

If it were not so—that we’re moral being and agents—given our capacity to choose our own path, we could not exist.

What I can promise and guarantee to you is this: once you understand and integrate this, and practice thinking about everything in society and how this applies, it will change your life. Let me tell you how that happened for me. At the age of 30, I found myself sitting on my couch in Toulon, France, and I began reading lots of classics in philosophy and history. As I read, something began connecting the dots. I noticed that, in large part, these intellectuals operate on a different understanding of morality than that possessed by the typical member of society at large.

The Two Sides of Moral Civilization

For the sake of our bare survival and our prosperity as well, it is essential to understand that there are fundamentally only two types of people. The first type consists of those who, on balance, produce more than they consume. These individuals are the creators, the providers of value. Without them, mankind could not survive, because nature does not offer enough readily available resources—be it food, water, or shelter—to support everyone, especially in densely populated urban areas. It falls upon the humans who create, produce, and market essential goods and services to enable our collective survival and flourishing.

However, there is a natural consequence to this dynamic. Those who produce value become, in effect, an exploitable resource. Imagine stumbling across a cache of fruit trees in nature; soon enough, you would find a crowd of fruit-eaters gathering. Similarly, in human society, those who produce inevitably attract those who are net consumers, exploiters, or even destroyers. These individuals or groups leech off the resources created by others, either through direct confrontation—’stick ’em up’ style—or more commonly, as we witness in society, through subtler means such as manipulation, narrative control, cheerleading, dogpiling, or whatever is necessary to weave illusions.

One such illusion is the Robin Hood-esque narrative that suggests not only is it acceptable to plunder the fruits of another’s labor, but that it is morally righteous to do so. This twisted morality turns thieves into paragons of virtue. In exchange for your soul and undying loyalty, they offer you a hollow status as an epitome of virtue. This is the price one pays to be anointed with a veneer of virtuousness that is, in reality, wholly unearned.

In the ongoing debate about the dynamics of human civilization, we often see a divide between two distinct groups: the producers and the consumers. The former are typically viewed as individualists, while the latter, which includes exploiters or destroyers, tend to be labeled as collectivists. However, the situation is more complex than it first appears. Collectivism, in its various forms, has had mixed success. Some iterations function better than others, with the least effective versions generally falling out of favor. Hardline totalitarian communism, as practiced in the former Soviet Union and in pre-modern China, serves as a prime example. These systems collapsed because they destroyed more than they could create; they obliterated incentives, devalued work, and fostered unsustainable parasitic classes.

On the other hand, Western Europe is often cited as a model of successful collectivism. The region boasts a decent standard of living with moderate prosperity, and most people manage to survive comfortably. Asia presents a different version of collectivism, one that lacks the emphasis on individualism found in Western Christianity and Judaism. Philosophies like Buddhism encourage a lighter form of collectivism that prioritizes communal harmony over individual aspirations. In these societies, the desires of the individual to excel or stand out are often suppressed in favor of the group’s well-being. There are no guiding principles to prevent individuals from being sacrificed for the greater good if it’s deemed necessary.

This contrasts sharply with the West, where the birth of individual rights marked a revolution of sorts. While neither Judaism nor Christianity explicitly promotes individualism, they do permit it. Enlightenment philosophy, on the other hand, explicitly celebrates individualism and the resulting concepts such as entrepreneurship, capitalism, privacy, ownership, self-determination, and freedoms of assembly and speech. These principles grant individuals the right to excel and innovate, which explains why most historical inventions originate from societies that embrace these values.

However, collectivist societies, particularly in Asia, have shown a remarkable ability to become efficient components within a larger system. Their prowess in mathematics, science, and engineering makes them exceptional at adopting and improving upon Western inventions. The Japanese, for example, have a well-earned reputation for enhancing technologies pioneered in the West.

To summarize, it’s not that individualism is inherently superior and collectivism is without merit. It’s that the spectrum between the two is vast. Predominantly individualistic societies, like America, contain many elements of collectivism. Ironically, America has slowly morphed into a reflection of Western Europe, a shift from its former status as a beacon of aspiration. Conversely, collectivist societies like China have incorporated aspects of individualism, leading to significant economic progress that echoes the early Industrial Revolution.

The crux of the matter lies in the implementation of these ideologies. Both individualism and collectivism have been compromised to such an extent that they have become diluted. Paradoxically, as certain collectivist societies in Asia, Southeast Asia, and even Russia adopt more individualistic traits, the entire landscape becomes convoluted. We find ourselves in a peculiar situation where collectivist societies may exhibit more individualistic tendencies than those considered bastions of individualism, due to their heavy embrace of collectivist principles. What a fucking pickle we’re in.

A Unifying Principle of Morality Defined

There are two reasons why revealing the honest truths about what’s objectively moral can cause a stir, especially when it’s up to the authorities. Generally speaking, morality and immorality tends to be defined exclusively by what’s inscribed in law. This makes morality both subjective and, quite frankly, up for sale. Many people, particularly secularists, humanists, atheists, agnostics, and the political left, have bought into the notion of subjective morality, but here’s where they falter.

Let me break it down for you. Morality is that which is objectively good for the human organism, and immorality is that which is objectively bad. Unlike other animals, we humans have the capacity to choose one over the other. We can knowingly walk a self-destructive path, up to and including suicide. The problem is that this concept is often muddied by indoctrination and false notions of morality.

As I mentioned earlier, it doesn’t matter if you’re talking about an imagined God or an iron-fist dictator; the point is that ‘morality’ is being determined by external agents rather than oneself. The correct way to assess morality is through your own senses. You’ve got five of them to perceive and integrate everything around you, helping you determine what’s good for you versus what’s bad. There’s only one principle to keep in mind: extend the same freedom to everyone else. It’s a sort of Golden Rule ideal—treat others as you’d have them treat you. Don’t tread on them, initiate force, coercion, deception, or fraud because you wouldn’t want them to do the same to you.

However, we can never fully know what’s good or bad for us. We like to think in absolutes, which makes us susceptible to religious edicts, proclamations from gurus, preachers, teachers, and law books that provide pat answers to inherently uncertain situations. In the fat main of the distribution of human action, sure, we have a clear understanding of many things that are beneficial or harmful. It’s at the fringes and in the dichotomy between collectivism and individualism where moral systems diverge.

Let’s consider selfishness versus selflessness. Under the guise of selflessness, you have people virtue signaling and claiming to be altruistic, when in reality they’re parasitic. Selfishness, on the other hand, can be both good and bad. Take, for example, the man who risks or sacrifices his life for his family or friends out of selfishness because he can’t bear the thought of living without them. Or, take the inventor who conceives of something nobody ever thought of before, and driven by selfish personal gain in a society that permits it and allows him to reap the rewards, he creates something that completely alters the frame of human existence forevermore. Those are examples of good and genuinely virtuous selfishness. But then there’s the kind of selfishness that exploits others, that lives at their expense, taking advantage of societal goodwill—this is the bad kind.

The most heinous selfish individuals are often lauded as paragons of virtuous selflessness. That’s the twisted state we find ourselves in. As society progresses and prosperity becomes more attainable, the forces of collective parasitism only intensify, stifling those who create value. Consequently, there are fewer and fewer value producers. Moreover, we’ve been witnessing a trend towards fascism, where the state and production agents partner up. But these agents are no longer individuals; they’re massive corporations. And participation in this system doesn’t require selling one’s soul or being loyal to a cause; it simply requires logging into your brokerage account. That’s the grim reality we’re facing.

How Does It Play Out In Politics and Social Antagonism

The way politics and social antagonism unfurl is exactly as you might expect once you assimilate all of the context provided earlier. First and foremost, the moral net production of values for oneself, for others, and for society at large is imperative. It has always been so; otherwise, we wouldn’t exist. We are here because, throughout history, there has been more net value production than destruction.

This was all achieved through human will; nature simply exists. Nature is concerned with one thing: the reproductive propagation of the species, by any means necessary. Nature is amoral, which can be misconstrued as immoral since it can lead members of a species to engage in self-destructive acts for the sake of propagation. Take, for example, the male black widow spider, which mates with the female only to be consumed by her afterwards. If we draw parallels to human behavior, in the absence of civilization and in small tribes of Homo sapiens, we might view certain actions, especially by young males, as immoral due to their destructive nature. However, in the grand scheme, such behaviors serve to propagate the species through sexual reproduction.

When you put all of this together, you begin to see why governance, big corporations, media, art, and the societal fabric as a whole lean leftward, while conservatives often represent the counterbalancing “red pill” within the system. Without a conservative counterbalance, we risk sliding into totalitarian communism, as history has shown with the Soviet Union and pre-modern China, where net value destruction led to massive die-offs and starvation.

It’s not surprising that some conservative politicians are seen as sellouts; it’s not that they favor the leftist, collectivist, parasitic approach over the individualistic, self-sufficient, entrepreneurial value production. Rather, they recognize that society is predominantly run by the left, and they must navigate within this framework to preserve enough value production to prevent a descent into the devastation of extreme collectivism.

In this sense, we’re probably safe…so far. The West has enough safeguards, and the lessons from communist history are stark enough that we’re unlikely to go that far. The green movement may be the closest we’ve come to flirting with net value destruction that could lead to widespread loss of life, but even then, there are limits, and the pendulum eventually swings back. We’re seeing this in parts of Western Europe, where there’s a strong push toward collectivism, and in America, where many wander like zombies, utterly oblivious to the country’s decline into political collectivism and the weaponization of law enforcement. A recent report indicates that certain federal entities have been pressuring banks to flag transactions associated with keywords like “MAGA,” “Trump,” “patriot,” “God,” and “guns.” This suggests that even the left recognizes its parasitism has reached unsustainable levels, yet rather than retracting, they double down.

Eventually, there’s nowhere left to go because once you pass the tipping point and no longer have net value production, only net value destruction or consumption remains. Reality is the final judge of this. To avert disaster, we need more morality, more moral agency, and more moral action. By this, I mean engaging in activities that are objectively beneficial for individuals, others, and society at large. This includes being true and honest with oneself, not succumbing to propaganda, lies, or narratives that invert reality, portraying the most heinous, destructive, and murderous as our supposed saviors.

How The Art and Discipline of Objective Morality Can Supercharge Your Life

When we speak of objective morality, we refer to what is objectively good for the human organism versus what is objectively bad. This encompasses not only the individual but also extends to others such as friends, family, and the broader community, as well as society at large. The artful aspect lies in recognizing and discerning what is genuinely objectively moral, which requires perspective, maturity, experience, and nuance. This is to ensure we are not merely pursuing our own desires or preferences. This is where discipline comes into play.

Our world is saturated with indoctrination from various authorities on what they claim morality to be, and what it supposedly takes to coexist peacefully in society. There is a constant pressure to conform, and those who dare to chart their own path are often shamed, shunned, and derided. It’s crucial to be vigilant because some people, either explicitly or through sheer experience, have learned to manipulate others. They exploit indoctrinated notions of authority-based morality and virtue to serve their own ends or advance their causes.

To practice objective morality, one must begin by recognizing and rejecting manipulations that are already well-understood, albeit in different contexts. Take, for example, the moral system of the religious right versus that of secular collectivism. People understand how manipulation operates within these frameworks. To shift your standard from, say, religious right morality—with its ‘imaginary friend’ ethics and ‘ancient book of fairytales’—to objective morality is to use it proactively, which then requires discipline. It’s often easier to ‘go along to get along,’ but standing out as an individual often means not fitting into what’s typically seen as admirable, attractive, or popular.

Skillful development can result in standing out in different ways, such as being the ‘bad boy’ or the ‘rebel without a cause.’ Such personas can be cultivated deliberately; for instance, audacity can be adopted for its own sake. This plays out in many areas, including human sexuality and the intricate dynamics of relationships between men and women—a deep and endless topic requiring serious consideration.

Considering the traditional roles of men as inventors, creators, providers, and protectors, it is vital for them to embody objective moral agency. Women, on the other hand, are often seen as less beholden to these standards and can afford to navigate life more leisurely, capitalizing on societal virtues for their benefit or even using them against men. As for myself, I’ve grown accustomed to these dynamics and no longer find them surprising. However, this is a vast topic, and while it warrants attention, the focus should primarily remain on understanding and practicing objective morality.

Observe and reflect, but do it through the lens of objective morality. Question yourself: Is this objectively moral? Is it merely an authority’s sense of morality, a dictated ethos, or the law? The conflation of law and morality is a common misconception—just because something is legal does not make it inherently moral. That is perhaps the easiest fallacy to dismantle for those who mistake the utterance of ‘it’s the law’ for a profound truth that holds throughout the ages.

In conclusion, the pursuit of objective morality is a complex and challenging journey, but an essential one for those who wish to live authentically and resist the pressures of conformity.

Since Covid killed my Cabo San Lucas vacation-rental business in 2021, this is my day job. I can't do it without you. Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. Two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance this work I do, and if you like what I do, please chip in. No grandiose pitches.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.