Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

915

Between Ethics and Intent

We can think of morality, and principles as systems that suggest universal values. But as we can see with our own eyes, values have not been universal in human history, but have changed greatly over ten thousand years, some for the better and some for the worse.

Modernity suggests that morality is collective and more, that it is imposed externally. That the individual is mere substrate for the collective body, like a cell.

But I propose that the great basis of ethics is NOT universal law, in the degree it is an abstraction. Rather that the foundation of a truly human ethics is one of intent, arising from our observations of nature. We see the lack of this all around us today: the ability to defend ones community, as in numerous towns and cities last year, destroyed by riots, stripped by external authorities, the subversion of courts, the destruction of family and traditions, all reinforced by law, by the modern collective idea of "morality".

And observing these things, regardless of the propaganda, we can see the intent and outcomes of tradition, family, community, self defense, are all GOOD forces. This holds true across a great multitude of cultures going back thousands of years even. We can see these things are good without any grasp of a greater or universal morality.

It is to say intent, and the free movement of the individual to express their liberties, be it physical movement, or association, or community defense, or expression, or the exercise of religion, all these things are birth rights, that intent supersedes the rule of might and collective will, ethically speaking, so that it, as a form of psychological force in humanity, reasserts itself continually throughout history, simply by virtue of the truth of our nature contained in it.

It can only be concluded that if all systems of rules devolve to anarchy or debauched oligarchy, then the only truly moral act according to the conscience and then conscience alone, and not according to others rules or the moors of the time, is to act according to ones conscience and outside any rules contrary to it. And that the cost of not doing this has throughout history asserted itself as none other than slavery and tyranny sooner or later.

To act therefore is not merely a challenge to the current beliefs of a nation, but by the very intent contained in said acts, propose a future set of beliefs.

To act outside any rules, is to live by a future morality: a set of rules that don't yet exist, but that one day might, by virtue of living them.

This comports with the idea that if nature imposes no greater moral obligation upon us than the success of future generations, it therefore follows that 'right by conquest' is no great evil, nor ultima ratio regum a crime. In fact if we look closer, we see that ultima ratio regum is actually a short hand for "the last resort of kings and common men."

This is not to suggest or support violence, rather that we should look at the social mores of our time (if not laws) and say "how were they made and how should we go about making our own and replacing the existing ones?" Because it is not the rules in particular that matter, once you look closely at the difference between morality and intent, but rather the beliefs of the whole of society.

And a truly free people, we must and can only conclude, ought to want and believe utterly and completely that they should live by as few laws and rules as may be possible within a well ordered society.

Between Ethics and Intent We can think of morality, and principles as systems that suggest universal values. But as we can see with our own eyes, values have not been universal in human history, but have changed greatly over ten thousand years, some for the better and some for the worse. Modernity suggests that morality is collective and more, that it is imposed externally. That the individual is mere substrate for the collective body, like a cell. But I propose that the great basis of ethics is NOT universal law, in the degree it is an abstraction. Rather that the foundation of a truly human ethics is one of *intent*, arising from our observations of nature. We see the lack of this all around us today: the ability to defend ones community, as in numerous towns and cities last year, destroyed by riots, stripped by external authorities, the subversion of courts, the destruction of family and traditions, all reinforced by law, by the modern collective idea of "morality". And observing these things, regardless of the propaganda, we can see the *intent* and *outcomes* of tradition, family, community, self defense, are all GOOD forces. This holds true across a great *multitude* of cultures going back thousands of years even. We can see these things are good without any grasp of a greater or universal morality. It is to say *intent*, and the free movement of the individual to express their liberties, be it physical movement, or association, or community defense, or expression, or the exercise of religion, all these things are birth rights, that intent *supersedes* the rule of might and collective will, ethically speaking, so that it, as a form of psychological force in humanity, reasserts itself continually throughout history, simply by virtue of the truth of our nature contained in it. It can only be concluded that if all systems of rules devolve to anarchy or debauched oligarchy, then the only truly moral act according to the conscience and then conscience alone, and not according to others rules or the moors of the time, is to act *according* to ones conscience and outside any rules contrary to it. And that the cost of not doing this has throughout history asserted itself as none other than slavery and tyranny sooner or later. To act therefore is not merely a challenge to the current beliefs of a nation, but by the very *intent* contained in said acts, *propose* a future set of beliefs. To act outside any rules, is to live by a future morality: a set of rules that don't yet exist, but that one day might, by virtue of living them. This comports with the idea that if nature imposes no greater moral obligation upon us than the success of future generations, it therefore follows that 'right by conquest' is no great evil, nor ultima ratio regum a crime. In fact if we look closer, we see that ultima ratio regum is actually a short hand for "the last resort of kings *and common men*." This is not to suggest or support violence, rather that we should look at the social mores of our time (if not laws) and say "how were they made and how should we go about making our own and replacing the existing ones?" Because it is not the rules in particular that matter, once you look closely at the difference between morality and intent, but rather the beliefs of the whole of society. And a truly free people, we must and can *only* conclude, *ought* to *want* and *believe utterly and completely* that they should live by as few laws and rules as may be possible within a well ordered society.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (20).
[–] • 1 pt

This reads like the papers of the founding fathers in discussion of the creation of America.

Is it yours or a compilation?

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Well thank you Abnormal.

Came to me in the shower.

Edit: was thinking about how anything anyone does or persues, regardless of the movement, strategy, or approach, is hampered by the imposition of morality defined by opposition, and interpreted to our detriment in such a way as to exclude intent. Thats the effect of demonization and labelling: nothing one side does can ever be good, because bad faith is always assumed.

And the heart of that goes again, therefore, to intent. And if you look at it from the other side, the idea exposes what any monomaniacal dictatorship might do if it was slowly replacing/suppressing certain demographics like whites or westerners in general: create rules that suppress them. So that ultimately the only rules to play by is "fire for fire." at the ethical level. What I mean to say is they create rules to destroy us regardless of their own intent, deny it, and then use the interpretation of those rules to suppress us regardless of ours.

Why shouldn't we play by the same strategy or metarules?

And I'm trying to explain the ethics of it, that in a naturalist sense that the rules dont really exist at all, whatever they may be, whoever may have made them. That the only real obligation, according to nature, is a better future for the next generation, than the present which currently exists, and that ultimately thats the only truly moral obligation and justification we need to have.

The examination of existing law, rules, and social mores from the question of "what do I think is the intent?" strips away any pretense of prior moral constraints. Like 'the light of reason', rationality arises from asking the right questions, and exposes bad governments and rotten cultures for what they are simply by the questioning. Because false things cant stand up to the pressure of sufficient questioning, let alone survive the truth.

Modernity has suppressed the ability to discern truth, blasted us with 'noise' from all angles, muddled all questions, and nearly obliterated any understanding of reasoning or history.

What they have failed to do is eliminate the power of questions to destroy that which is false.

To do that they have to silence outright those who ask questions. And there is no assumption in an honest question, no mere assertion so it cant be labelled with any other slander except "verboten".

Which makes the suppression obvious on its face.

Which makes the intent of the laws and rules and censorship and political-police system glaringly obvious on its face.

Question everything.

Figure out how to ask damaging questions, the most damaging questions you can. Thats all you have to do. Force the state and its brainwashed supporters to justify itself. (remember crowder?)

The state can't justify itself. It has no credibility behind its policies or actions. It has none.

And eventually if you do this enough, the state will simply resort to out-in-the-open violence and naked suppression because those are very nearly the only cards western and globalist governments have left.

And then they've lost the support of the middle and the game is over.

[–] • 0 pt

Well put sir.
My first thoughts lead to the discussion of quality with Persig, my second went to an article I read from the starting point of disagreement, violence is the gold standard.

You make excellent points, the rules are a funny one. Perhaps simply referring to animal farm by Orwell gives us the roadmap back on the meaning of words and rules.

More than that though, is how rules are assigned and interpreted differently. Women view rules different from men, blacks different from whites, children different from adults.

The memes you see about second amendment rights, where removal only affects law abiding citizens, and criminals continue to abuse them is an easy point here.

Rules differ, taxes differ, punishment differs... an even and tangible and rigid Set of rules to be followed by all is a culture and genetic specific thing. Ever seen a howling mob flow Into a store while taking selfies and cheering and looting, to exit and run away or taunt the cops by twerking on the cop car, in Norway? No. Japan? No.

The concept of equality disturbs me here. Let’s question it.

Questioning everything is how the world developed and advanced, and now it seems intent on full speed ahead while throwing rocks into the motor.

Perhaps it was Putin who described a meeting with a president as trying to play chess with a pigeon, who just shits on the board and struts away.

Trying to ask questions just then lead to an honest debate about the answers, and I don’t see that able to happen anymore. Not on the public larger scale, or even many companies small boardroom meetings.

I’ve seen the warhead questions that should have sunk presidents, ignored. Watched the bankers destroy the world economy and saw no arrests. For trillions... the culture now seems so intent on reverse Darwinism I don’t think there is a way out, short of a tropical island of enough of the worlds smartest that will quietly wait its destruction and then rebuild.

I would love to be wrong here.

The middle is weary of it all, everyday more and more to bear. The desensitized masses simply continue to allow the ground to tilt away, as long as it’s at a slow enough rate. No shot heard round the world, no final straw, no IM MAD AS HELL AND IM NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE.

The drugs in the water and the frequencies in the air and the contamination of the food has done its part as well. How fit for a fight and listening to reason is that middle? Or are they weary, scared, sick, delusional, hungry and fearful. While trying to squeeze in some of modern life’s comforts to forget it all for just one more day.

The cultural revolution has been very effective, and while resistance is building, the forces they must one day stare down for that power over who is in control grow stronger and more expansive.

I very much enjoy you sharing your thoughts, few here are willing to do so anymore or with such a penchant for it.