Well, I don’t see anything particularly immoral about most affirmative action as presently practiced, though I do think it is unwise and that the advanced liberal world view which is motivating it is horrifically wrongheaded and tyrannical. But is AA immoral per se? I don’t think so…. Zippy
I do not care for the absolute moralist. Affirmative action is immoral simply because it puts my kin and clan at a disadvantage. Whatever negatively impacts one’s blood and soil is inherently immoral. I oppose anything that negatively effects the strength, prosperity and sovereignty of Southern Whites, especially Southern White men because the sovereignty, prosperity and continuation of our people, traditions and culture rest on masculine shoulders. Even more so those things depend on the strong backs and calloused hands of our yeomanry
Affirmative action hurts White men on the margins. It has no ill effect or practically no ill effect for a White guy with an IQ 20 points above median from an UMC or better background. Those sorts can afford the extra competition because it in fact does not create extra competition for them. The closer a White man gets to median, median IQ (100) median family income (65kish) the more negative impact affirmative action has. And let’s face it there are more of us White guys on the margin of medians and below then above.
Charity is a good, right and just but should start at home and spread from there. Christ takes to tasks those who do not 1st and foremost support their families and race is your extended family. I am more closely related to any random White guy on the planet then any negro down the street. If I understand the science correctly, I am as closely related to any random White dude as I will be to my great grandchildren (Might be great great grandkids. Bear with me please as I am one of those median IQ White guys and not particularly well schooled or a wordsmith of any sorts).
So I should tend to my parents and siblings before my cousins, my 1st cousins before my third cousins and so on and so on. What about the Good Samaritan? Good question. He tends to an injured man on the side of the road, but does not set up a system that puts his own kin at at a long term disadvantage AND Samaritans and jews shared a common genetic, Semites of different versions. Big difference then how progressive Whites side with non Whites over their own semi-distant kin and blood.
It is an ugly reality of the world that there is a finite amount of resource to be had. Aiding out groups to have a larger share of those resources vs your in group is atrocious and a crime against our humanity. Whether we like it or not we are always in a demographic war with the various out groups in the world. Some times its a shooting war, some times it is not, but healthy people and healthy societies are always and automatically trying to garner a larger share of those resources to increase their own numbers and extend their peoples control over said resources. This, too, is just, natural and right
Whites who support affirmative action are traitors to their kin, and evil. It makes sense for negros to support affirmative action, as they are making the decision to help themselves and their kin over Whites. Logical and moral for negros to do so. It is evil for women to support affirmative action of women over men as it negatively impacts their family, sons, fathers, brothers, etc, to benefit women of some other family.
One of the reasons I find myself distancing myself from other Christians is their lust to hamstring their own people to aide those who are not kin. Sometimes that lust is something like affirmative action, some times its supporting charity groups that work mostly with negros, sometimes its having services in Spanish, ie welcoming a foreign invader who are greatly increasing the difficulties poor Whites face. To my mind such men are not Christian at all; they are progressives and not men of God ( though we are all sinners of some sorts)
Loyalty is 1st and foremost due to your smallest group. In the Army this means your fire-team over your squad, your squad over your platoon, your platoon over your company, your company over your battalion etc etc.
Why is this? The smallest unit you are part of is the most vital to your survival, the one you share the most hardships, forging the tightest bounds. Some guy in your platoon gets rained on the same time you do, but he is 50 yards down the line. It’s dark and you cannot see 50 yards away in the dark and the rain. The guy in your fire team is 5 yards away. You dig that foxhole in the rain with a guy in your fire-team, not some guy in battalion head quarters. You defend that foxhole with that same guy in your fire-team. If he dies, you die. Its a man in your fire team who covers you when changing mags in a fire fight, not some dude 100 yards away in another platoon, and damn sure not some random dude in the same division who might be hundred of miles away, not getting shot at or rained on. You might hate that fucker in the other fire team, but he is in your squad and more important to you and yours then the guy everyone loves in the other company a mile away. It is right and natural to support the people in your smallest unit over those of the larger.
There is very little absolute morality in the world
In my old line of work, it was my job to lay in hiding and shoot men from far away, in the back if possible. Killing them without the chance of defending themselves. To the other side, this is a great evil and an act of cowardice. To my side? I was celebrated for my ability to do this. ( I was and am particularly good at doing this to other guys like me which brought me additional status among my peers)
In the Old Testament, the Lord God Almighty had no problems ordering the ancient Israelites to commit genocide. Caleb and Joshua are celebrated by God for their actions in genocidal battles against His enemies. Sometimes every man, woman, child and animal were killed, some times just the men and women were taken as wives ( ie raped on their wedding night), kids made into hewers of wood and carries of water and their former owner’s wealth transferred to Gods people.
Yes there are some absolute wrongs and rights, but fewer then effeminate men would have us believe. Weak men always want to define masculinity and our Masculine God downward. Muscular Christianity is militant and warlike when required, merciful and charitable when possible but at all times charity and mercy must 1st be extended to our kin and kith before outsiders. Charity to out groups must never come at the expense of our in group, ie family.
For the effeminate, progressive and women…. yea I know, same same, this is not a call for an endless shooting war. It is recognition that all of life is strife and conflict, that people and groups of people are different with different genetic and cultural imperatives. Avoiding this reality is for the weak and foolish. Men should be neither. Christian men are commanded to be wise and strong . It’s a tough gig.
Personal soap box, I think it is impossible for weak men to understand the Almighty. They simply lack the frame.