Matthew Ed Moran

Your story about your mother mocking you, bullying you, throwing water in your face at your age of six: that is deeply sadistic. That is a smile in the face of bone grinding pain. That is an abomination of a mother, and an abomination of a family that you were born into. That is hell, and it was hell because they wanted it to be hell. They liked it that way. I want you to understand how ruthlessly sadistic these people are, because once you understand that, I think you will agree that this rage you have was absolutely necessary to defend yourself from a situation in which you were held captive by sadistic, brain-rotten, lunatics. I know it is so easy to blame yourself for being put in this situation, because that is exactly what your parents made you do, but I really had a distaste seeing you label yourself a narcissist and yourself as generally manipulative, without putting the the blame on everyone else around you for essentially asking you to be this way. This is what these people in your life want from you. They would rather have you bottle it up and then explode, because that is normal to them. That is sane to them. That makes them feel better about their own deprivations which they've been too inept, too cowardly, too morally frail to even stare in the face. If you are assertive, they will either bow or they will try and sabotage you - it's win-lose. What do you think they will do? So as long as you're around them, you're going to be in-taking the exhaustive fumes of moral deprivation, of a lack of self control, of sadism and narcissism and the depths of denial - this is all deeply terrifying. It is deeply terrifying to be around people like that. So if your expectation is to not feel rage or anger around this, then you are explicitly denying the only reason why you are not exactly like them, in my completely amateur opinion. I really appreciate you reaching out and bringing up such an important topic in your life. I am so sorry about the abuse you have shared. If your counselor is good at what she does, make the most of her! If something is wrong with the relationship in therapy, bring it up! This stuff is too important to be left only to a forum.

r-fest

Yea, I hear you. Did the black guy with aggression have a single mother? It's not just IQ that is the problem with the black community. As Rose said blacks made considerable gains in the past. But right now there seems to be a glob of the black community which is extraordinary traumatized and the trauma calls all the other blacks to support or excuse the ones they think are being "victimized" perhaps, from an evolutionary biology standpoint. But the truth is they are sucking at the government teet especially dry compared to other communities, and they don't want to stop or realize it's ruining their communities yet. I'm not looking for this to change until the welfare state takes a considerable hit or outright collapses. Of course it is a tragedy since their IQ does disadvantage them, but it's still very rare for higher IQ blacks (100 and up) to call out black single mothers, which are the main cause of their problems. It is like heresy to do such a thing for most black people I've met or noticed, which I am guessing means their mothers hit them a lot. My main point is you can still definitely hold black people accountable, at least in some regard for their actions. But hold them accountable from a safe distance. Before any solutions can be implemented by black people (peaceful, nuclear family), they need to realize what is wrong first. There are probably a few black guys like you in the fray though, and honestly I think it's awesome that the show was able to connect with you and other blacks who are more intelligent and curious You are the one living in the black community so we will defer to you if you think there are any significant holes in what we are saying

I think there is a lot to be said about aligning your expectations of how you think you should feel according to what is realistic consider the abuse you've endured and the amount of time you have spent doing self work to understand it. If you are attempting to solve a problem without dealing with the root cause of childhood trauma and the patterns they developed, then this is going to lead to frustration. Usually consistent frustration is really just ruthless self attack, and what can help alleviate this is to not expect as much from yourself if you are not achieving your expectations of how you want to feel. Many times just accepting something you are doing which you are at least partially upset with yourself about (like spending so much time on PC) and instead just spend time on PC and notice when you stop enjoying it. If you never stop enjoying it, welcome to nirvana! If you do at some point, and you will if you try and test the limits of how much fulfillment you can get from using the PC, then at least you can acknowledge that emotion of frustration. Maybe it will come in so hot and heavy that you will realize the frustration started much earlier, and that your body has developed incredibly effective ways of hiding your frustration from you until it hits some sort of breaking point. At that point I would only hope you would try to see the severity of what is in front of you, and keep it in your mind that you now know you have this pattern of hiding frustration until it is no longer tolerable. What do decide to do from there is up to you Neeel, but if your desire is to become more self knowledgeable than therapy is probably a necessity in some degree since the pattern has been going on for so long. I'm really sorry you had these terrible feelings and I wish you better, if you don't mind me saying.

Thank you. I didn't even write it that consciously (I got stuck on a few parts which is always an interesting sign) but I felt this desire to want to put a part of my spirit into this thread, if that makes any sense to you. I grew up in an r selected environment, so I am somewhat battling my epigenetics when I try and sympathize with Ks. But I grew up with many K traits in spite of my environment, and those are values that I have always cherished in myself and are the reason I have personality at all. I see people around me who are kind of in a living hell that they don't even notice, and that is chilling to me. Having witnessed far more than my fair share of an r environment, I feel a strong preference and a stirring courage that wants to stand up for K values to please at least try and put an end to this madness of single motherhood welfare recipient monster child breeeding hypocrites So thank you for your post and the seriousness for which you take this issue, it was a very compelling and well argued post.

"Its not impossible to figure this stuff out, If enough people wanted the numbers of police officers or government officials by race those numbers could easily be collected." You asked which race is committing the most acts of evil, not which race makes up the majority of police officers. If you had data on the racial breakdown of the police, this would not tell you how many acts of evil each race is committing as a part of the police. Police deal with many valid complaints. You're free to care about this, but I don't so I will respectfully not return to this part of the conversation. I already know the government is immoral, and I already know whites on average are the largest victims in the USA of this immorality, so I don't see any reason why the racial breakdown of the police would be important to me, unless white officers/governments were specifically targeting blacks. Interracial disputes I think are much more important, especially when one race is excused from their wrongdoing against another race, which is the definition of a genocide. "I want to express my doubts in a public forum, is that so weird?" No, it's annoying from my perspective. It'd be different if you had a criticism of how the private crime statistics are counted. If your criticism is that private crime statistics don't include public crime statistics, then it is a bit sleazy to say you're looking for the "real" crime statistics and then only show examples of public crime. Maybe it was an honest mistake. "I will try clear it up for you, If one race does commit more crime than another I find that very interesting and want to know why." So I take it you have not seen the Bomb In The Brain series? Maybe start there if you missed it, it's definitely a fascinating topic and I agree with your curiosity about it! But it has been dealt with in many discussions of child abuse and its link to both the state and private crime. "The vast majority of violent offences are committed by government employees mostly by police." So more violent offences are committed by government employees than by parents who abuse their children? I'm not sure that's true. I also am not sure police are murdering more than private citizens are. My guess is they are not. So I have put my finger to the pulse of my concern with this thread, and I asked myself why would I care about the racial breakdown of public crime? Why would I care about the racial breakdown of private crime? I would care about these things in only two ways. In the first place, I would care if there was a prevalence of crime which wasn't directly linked to child abuse. If whites and blacks were abused the same, yet blacks committed more crimes than whites, then I would find that interesting and important for the future of a free society. What I care even more about than that thought, is if the private crime were interracial, and if one race were specifically committing crimes against another race at a very high rate. It would be even more important to me if these crimes were being excused against one race, and being inflated about another. For instance, white people are often blamed for black deaths, poverty, workplace performance (or lack of), and yet the truth is that not only are white people not responsible for these things, but they are actually being victimized by other races in the form of black-on-white murders, muslim refugee rapes, illegal immigration job market flooding, welfare payments to all other races. This stuff is not talked about, and that really fucking terrifies me. I don't want to see a genocide against white people in europe and America, but it's clear the start of this has already passed. White people are being institutionally silenced about these horrible acts, by the media, by governments, by other races. So I'm not interested in what race makes up the proportion of the government. Not compared to other things, since I already know the state is evil and have arguments for it. What I think needs focus now is the genocide against white people, it is really a dire subject for me. If you want to question "do black people really commit more crime," maybe a more useful way to ask it would be to add the phrase "against whites." Then we'd actually be talking about something I can definitely see as relevant. But if there is relevance to the topic you brought up, I'm missing it and that may be my fault, but of course you're free to be curious about whatever you like. Edit: Sorry if I implied that if I don't think something is relevant, that you should therefore take that as a criticism of your post. I will leave my post as is to see if you can get any value from it, but obviously I want to focus on facts and objectivity and not my subjective opinions wherever it is possible, so I regret and apologize anywhere I might not be doing that in favor of sharing my subjective feelings/opinions about what you wrote.

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear in my first post, and if it has led to more confusion than an accurate portrayal of my concern with this thread. My concern with this thread is that it is attempting to divert attention away from important moral concerns, by creating a false dichotomy which attempts to muddy a clear moral issue with something that is not related at all. The clear moral issue is that private blacks are committing crimes at a rate far higher than other private citizens, and that they are committing violent crimes against other races at a disproportionate degree. Plainly, black people are on average murdering white people a lot more than white people are murdering black people. This is not a moral issue per se, it is a race issue. If you are confused why FDR is trying to bring truth and valid perspective to issues of race, it is because the media and social mainstream have concocted a false narrative about the nature of race in society. The common narrative is that there is a staggering moral concern which has its roots in a racist history of slavery and oppression of whites against blacks, and that this concern was not only valid when slavery existed, but it is still valid today. Whites are oppressing, harming, and institutionally being racist against blacks; This is the mainstream narrative, and it is a specifically racial narrative. Is this your understanding of the present situation, or am I supposed to somehow believe that your post is completely unaware of this and completely misunderstanding what the truth about crime and other presentations are aimed at? Because if your post is about something completely different, than what I am wondering is why do you even care? You are asking about statistics of all the evil committed in the world by race. Besides seeming like a useless endeavor, it is also probably an impossible endeavor. Which leads me to ask, do you know what we are about here at FDR? We tend to take moral considerations pretty seriously, and so we are empirical and invest time in what we can change to make society more moral. Usually it is not FDR-like to focus on things which aren't empirical or aren't even clear as to why they are important. Now to the issue: the mainstream narrative, which is specifically racial, is completely false and destructive. It is also not indiscriminately destructive, but it is specifically targeted destruction against white, western society. White western society is by far the closest any society has become to being free market, philosophical, and moral. Are you beginning to anticipate the danger now? So what is up with your question? Why is it important, how is it practical, and are you aware of what FDR is trying to accomplish with its videos which are about race?

"If morality is either unknown or not real, it's a pointless sentiment. And that's exactly what nihilists argue." Saying something is unknown or not real is not an argument. If you say you prefer truth, then your preference for truth is not completely arbitrary and random, but it is a universal preference. That's what a preference for truth is. Otherwise it's not a preference for truth, but for some particular preference which just happens to align with the truth. Like, if a police officer pulls you over and you only will tell the truth about your speed if it was not over the limit, then that is not a preference for truth, but it might be the case that you will tell the truth anyway if your speed was under the limit. A preference for truth says that, in all cases when the truth can be ascertained, it is preferable to falsehood, regardless of the consequences. This is the very premise of any debate. If you disagree and want to treat truth as a particular, arbitrary preference based on your subjective utility, then you're just not understanding or acknowledging what a preference for truth is. It is futile to argue for a contradiction in favor of the truth and then claim that your statements should be treated as if you are searching for the truth. If you are not searching for the truth when you say morality is not objective then no one should take you seriously. This isn't against you, it's just against the statements you're making. If it's correct that you are not understanding or acknowledging what truth is (a universal preference for consistency and empirical evidence), and you continue to argue as if you do, then it sets a confusing/contradictory example for others and it's worth pointing out.

My reaction to your post was that I need to be even better at confronting anti-white sentiment. I need to practice my arguments even more. I need to connect emotionally with the urgency of the topic at hand, but I need also not to become an ineffectual wrecking ball of frustration when I confront anti-white sentiment. As a white, western-value loving man, I feel very angry about how my fellow people who might otherwise be very similar to me, once again have been hammered down upon by the fist of propaganda. It is true, that even libertarians fall for this propaganda in droves, and this makes me feel regret. It makes me realize that libertarians may not be my ally as I thought they were. It makes me scared of the regret I will have in the future if I do not bring an important and powerful message where it needs to be, to depths uncharted beyond libertarianism, where I may have to encounter people who right now I'm not fully comfortable talking to. I am talking about religious people, I am talking about parents who spank, I am talking about pro-government conservatives. I am scared to have to reach my hand out to new people, offering them my empathy because I think they deserve it compared to others, where I may be rejected or where I may feel ashamed of foregoing a topic like peaceful parenting. In situations it might mean I can spread vital information about a more urgent concern, which is the hollowing state of western society itself. As soon as I thought I knew what was most important for me to know about and act on, I found a new more terrible concern. First I was horrified by what the Federal Reserve does to the middle class. Then I was petrified of the invisible underworld of child abuse which reigns horror every day. Now, a new plight may be more urgent than any before, and I have not even considered myself prepared to speak out about the first two. One thing in life that has become apparent to me is that life doesn't give a fuck about your comfort. It doesn't waste time for you, it will move on whether you are prepared or not. I am terribly afraid of a life of regret, and so with life outpacing my ideals once again, I feel a new level of bravery I must reach to keep pace. I feel if I site idle any longer, the rubble of societal change will loosen, and an avalanche will be unleashed with me sitting in its wake. Then what? Then I am nothing but another pitiless victim of history, tumbling with blood, bodies, rubble, and broken dreams, where I could have anticipated the change and given others the chance to anticipate it, before it smothers the best of us. I don't know what the future of western society is, but I know it will not wait for me to get ready for it. It will come like a bat out of hell, whether I am ready or not, so I better be ready to face it. The fight before me is for something even greater, which has allowed me all that I cherish today. That thing is nothing other than western society itself, and it is in danger right this very moment. So I will act as if it is.

I'm not sure it's a moral decision either way. If you knew your partner was at risk of giving birth to such a child, then I think it would be your responsibility not to get your partner pregnant. So the moral issue is over and dealt with, now your choices are no longer free because either way you should technically not have impregnated her. I would say my preference would be to abort the child, but I don't think giving birth to the sick child is any better or worse from a moral standpoint.

And there is some deadly irony there, since his first response to me mentioning the possibility that people outside this forum haven't heard of, read, or spent a lot of time studying UPB was "well there is no UPB council to determine who understands it and who doesn't." Which now that I think of it shows he's probably lying deep down about his processing of UPB. He finds solace in the fact that there is no council to charge him with not understanding UPB, since then he can just deny, deny, deny like he's been doing in this forum since he got here and I guess that works when there isn't some bigger troll to put him down (like his parents or the state).

You must not know where you are Did you get lost finding this site? If you don't want me to bring up your possible parents that is fine, it doesn't matter to me. I thought you brought them up first when decided to treat morality as an intellectual discussion, and find ways to completely avoid what is being said, only to reform the statements so you can say you don't have to be moral. If you don't want me to bring them up: fine. But maybe I didn't bring them up... maybe you did...

That's true. If someone accepts that morality is a true concept, which means they accept that it is true that some actions are universally preferable to others, wouldn't they be completely contradicting themselves to act as if they can then deny what they are saying they recognize is true. It's literally like saying, "so what science is true, that doesn't mean we have to do science when it's better not to." But the whole point of science is it's always what you should do when you want to be correct and consistent. If you want to be incorrect and inconsistent than I guess you can do whatever you want. Personally in my own life once I learned a valid way of defining morality, it's not like I then double-backed and acted as if there was some other condition morality had to fill other than being correct. I think I see your point now, but let me know if you have anything to add please.

Thanks, Rosen! It's helpful to have people who are interested and nuanced in areas I may be completely ignorant of Do you have a source for your second claim? I would love to read anything about that, but if it was on the wiki page I must have missed it. Your last point makes sense to me. So it would not make sense to say the distribution of wealth (hey, now I'm using the word) is a bell curve. Thank you for that correction.

Sorry I couldn't quite understand that. Are you now asking what the distribution of capital will be like? As in, you're refining what it is you were asking initially? If that's what you were asking, well, free market economics says that a situation with completely free entry (as in, no aggressive monopolies in the market) will tend to have decentralized profits compared to a situation with a government, which would artificially concentrate capital in the hands of people who are not producing wealth for others. I think in general the trend would absolutely be towards an equalization of capital once government is gone, but the distribution will always be a bell curve. As long as differences in intelligence remain to any significant degree, there will be significant capital tied up in the hands of the highest IQ people on the market.

In a certain fundamental sense there is no such thing as a distribution of wealth. There is a distribution of material goods, but this is different from wealth because of the diminishing value of marginal utility (not all goods are equally valuable from a personal, subjective viewpoint) Some people are extremely wealthy because they own capital, but since they don't consume but a fraction of their capital, their wealth is essentially tied up in producing value for other people. Just think about it, if you were a billionaire, no matter how much you wanted to consume personally, at some point your material wealth would be insignificant towards providing value to you when you consume it. The 400th jet you want to buy isn't going to give you as much marginal value as the first meal you are able to purchase. So, you invest your capital into the future where it has a higher marginal return; and at the same time it will only give you a nice return if it is producing wealth for other people, for whom it is more marginally beneficial to consume. I think I got that right, but it's a bit of a complicated topic. The primary point I think is forgotten by most, is that rich people are actually providing us much more benefit than we are providing them if they are investing their capital to meet our personal desires to consume. Once we can satisfactorily consume, we too can become capitalists to create wealth for others, and the cycle continues. But at every point in the cycle, it is important to remember, someone's needs are being satisfied. That is how wealth is created. Wealth is not created when materials sit stagnant in some miser's basement, so if someone choses to be a miser, the market will punish them in the form of huge lost opportunity. Thanks for reading let me know if you have any questions

I don't want to respond to the content of your post, because how you phrased your post is manipulative, and it therefore shows a fundamental lack of empathy you are willing to extend towards the topic Obviously most people on this board who have been spanked experienced it as traumatic, and have even had to go to therapy to heal from their trauma. Since you've never been spanked, it comes across a bit incredible for you to just claim you're skeptical of the trauma others say they have experienced from being spanked. Sorry I had to edit a few times to check my own reaction

Lykourgos is the type of troll who expects all the work to be done for him, and if it doesn't meet his satisfaction, he takes that as proof the theory is wrong. He expends no effort to rationally comprehend any arguments put forth, as can be seen from his first OP here which linked to an article which criticized UPB without making a single argument, yet at the same time claimed UPB "fell short," "was a disaster," etc. He has hereto shown he has no credibility and why I will not waste any more time responding to him. He is a concern troll who feasts on the attention you give to him because he evidently gets satisfaction from wasting people's time and confusing onlookers.

Lykourgos, you have a criticism of UPB? Why don't you call in to the show? Otherwise you're kind of a concern troll. So are you going to call in about UPB, and if not why won't you?

And the academics indoctrinate millions of young minds ever day to prime them against universal morality. So there is a lot of unlearning one has to do to be in a position to judge UPB, which is why it is no surprise that people would rather mock it and put forward straw men than refute it.

I think you just need to stop being a racist and embrace the facts. If there is little hope for adult black communities as they currently exist, that is a fucking good thing. They're abusive, criminal, parasitic - in a moral society they should have no hope unless they're committed to change their ethical standards. Having a low IQ doesn't necessitate a lack of moral progress, and there is still a huge future uncharted area of peaceful parenting which is no where near being implemented in any community, let alone the black community. So hold out for the best, but remain mentally prepared for the worst which is that black communities won't change (I think they will though). But man, if white people sucked and black people were outperforming them in terms of moving towards a peaceful and rational society, I wouldn't care if all the white people in the world were hopeless but me if they weren't committed to changing their ways. I would hold them fully accountable for their actions. And if there was some difference which made friction between white people and moral progression insurmountable, I would drop them and move my enthusiasm to a community which was committed to moral change, regardless of race. Morality is what matters; it's bigoted to cling to your tribe in the face of their moral deprivations. In my opinion its a huge burden to have to put on this "pro black" filter to every dose of reality you get. Just embrace the facts. Embrace objectivity whenever it is possible. It makes life a hell of a lot less stressful to embrace reality rather than cling to impractical expectations for your race based on your need to see things the way your tribe wants you to. Do you really care what happens to black people, or do you care what happens to humanity? Are you really disappointed if the population of black people decreased significantly as a moral society came about? Or is it the disappointment you're burdening yourself with because your race wants you to view them as more moral and intelligent than they actually are? Don't let them have their cake and it eat it, too. If race doesn't matter towards being virtuous, then it doesn't matter. Period. Last point, this is killing me, just think how much good you could do to overall society if you could speak the truth about black people as a black person. You have an awesome opportunity to kill the narrative in every space you're present, and a lot of white people would appreciate that. I would completely admire that. If I were black, I would use that advantage of novelty and credibility every chance I got to speak the truth about my race. Or at least I would try, I'm not the bravest guy, but I speak out when I think someone will honestly listen to me. Sorry if I came off a little strong, but it's not an easy post to write and I want to make sure I'm being fair to you.

I think you're both incorrect. The fact is most people who consider themselves interested in philosophy aren't even going to be familiar with UPB, not even by name. If they are familiar with the name, then it's still unlikely they have read the book. And if they have read the book, it's still unlikely they have comprehended the arguments if they have not spent time considering similar theories before. A student who has only taken mainstream ethics courses and has been introduced only to utilitarianism and the categorical imperative is going to have a harder time grasping UPB than someone who is familiar with something like Hoppe's argumentation ethics, in my opinion. So when you both say outside this forum there is plain mockery for UPB, do you actually mean UPB, or strawmen of UPB? This is subjective because I do not claim to fully comprehend UPB (though I accept it as true because I cannot refute it), but it's not clear to me either of you understand UPB yet to say who is mocking it and who actually understands it. Kevin Beal, WasatchaMan, and Dsayers are some of the most knowledgeable members on this board when it comes to UPB in my experience so you may want to check them out.

I unfortunately don't know of any other philosophers that accept UPB as valid (unless you consider some board members as philosophers) Sorry I can't help in that regard, but it certainly would be interesting if other popular philosophers or anarchists have accepted UPB.

Nope. Since some people will be at a net deficit they will not be "sharing in the spoils." Please don't make this seem like some fun party where everyone is included, when in fact some people need to lose for others to win. If I crash my neighbor's house when they're not home to have a party, they're not "sharing in on the spoils." It is dishonest or careless to claim everyone is included in the spoils when they're not. What is accurate to say is that lower IQ less hard working people will get to share in on the spoils from higher IQ harder working people. Stated that way at least we get to see who society treats as the moral equivalents of the handicapped or children. Plus, wouldn't the extra spoils per kid financially advantage Rs compared to the Ks? That is one of the major problems with the welfare system now, is the built in incentive for the poor and dumb to have as many kids as possible. "If this could actually replace all the other welfare state measures, it would be very positive." Positive for whom? You? Or are you making a moral judgement?

If there were obvious holes in it I think by definition you would have noticed them. I empathize with the reservation to embrace a new argument, but when you say the logic is sound, but you don't discount the possibility that there could be obvious logical flaws, then I'm not sure you're being fair to the theory. I disagree that true theories have to overcome anything. It is not a challenge of a valid theory to propose an invalid theory. 2+2=4 is either true or false, but it doesn't have to overcome the fact that some people don't perform math correctly. It is a challenge for society, but it is not a challenge for the theory that people propose invalid arguments against it. I'm sure you will find philosophers who have adopted UPB, but you won't see them teaching at state funded universities for obvious reasons. Either way, what does it really matter who publicly has stated they believe UPB is true? Ethics is not a popularity contest. If what you are interested in is even more supporting reasoning I would recommend the more recent podcasts on UPB, or checking out discussions on the forum that pop up all the time. There is a lot to dive into here , probably more than is worth the time. Sorry I couldn't directly answer your question I just wanted to point out it may not be as important as you think if you already acknowledge the logic is sound (for the most part). I hope you can form a critique if you continue to have any reservations at all, since it is essential we revise and reform UPB and I don't think anybody here is opposed to that (not that you said they were).