It's in boundaries

that doesn't entail hiring tons of retards to make and sell a bad product to other masses of idiots so they can throw it in the landfill

Many societies in ancient past have actually reached the point where they concluded that they don't want to pursue further expansion or increase in wealth

Modern society has no such capacity

Morals are a thing of the past. Morals are the chains of the white male.

their morality is wrong

aryan morality says it is their obligation to oppress the inferior

the inferior, the ugly, the stupid, the immoral

Morality is subjected to a sens of order

And Christian morality?

christian morality is where all this garbage came from

Most of moral instructions purpose is to prevent excess

and christian morality came from the nicene creed, which came from roman theocracy, which came from their realization that by being "inclusive" and incorporating random north africans and arabs into the "roman family" they can expand and conquer

It's funny to notice one thing

Have you read https://dissidentright.com/2015/12/09/victimization-as-power/ ?

Most of the people who are victims today, either of violence, or crimes which we consider "immoral"

Would never be in such a position in the past due to existence of an extended family, tribe, et cetera

Which would punish any insider, and especially outsider, who would do such a thing

well yes, I would explain that to you in detail TES but you are a dalit

`Slave morality begins as a rejection of Master morality, as the yin to master morality’s yang. Master morality has also created slave morality; it is reactionary in nature, and exists because it seeks to rationalize to the weak their position in life. The primary hallmark of slave morality is one of a ‘relief of suffering and oppression’. Those things, whatever they are, that are useful in opposing oppression is a moral ‘good’. This makes values such as selflessness, altruism, meekness, and feeling pity a moral good to the weak. It is fundamentally pessimistic about the human condition by seeing people as inherently weak and pitiful, questions the happiness of the strong and noble, rejects hierarchy as an manifestation of oppression, and doubts the ‘good’ of this life. Generally, it argues for a morality for all, noble and weak alike. Because of the conditions its adherents find themselves in life, it must look to the future, to ‘progress’, for ‘salvation’. It lacks respect for, and in instances has outright disdain for, tradition and ancestors; what have their ancestors or traditions done for them?`

`To truly understand slave morality, it is necessary to examine where Nietzsche first observed the inversion of master morality, in the Roman-Jewish interactions of Ancient Rome. The Jewish underclass of the Roman Empire ‘achieved the amazing feat of inverting values’. This had the effect of creating a moral outlook from the act of being subjugated. In Beyond Good and Evil (BGE), Nietzsche describes the Jews’ ‘slave rebellion in morality’, and how they managed to invert the higher values as prescribed by the master morality:`

`The Jews, a people “born for slavery”, “the chosen people among peoples,” as they themselves said and believed, achieved the amazing feat of inverting values, thanks to which life on earth for two millennia has possessed a new and dangerous appeal. Their prophets fused “rich,” “godless,” “evil,” “violent,” and “sensuous” into a unity. In this inversion of values (to which belongs the use of the word for “poor” as a synonym for “holy” and “friend”) lies the significance of the Jewish people: with them begins the slave rebellion in morality.`

`Nietzsche noticed that the Jewish subclass ‘were the first to mint the word ‘world’ as a curse word’. Worldly success (what was ‘good’) indicates moral failure (is now ‘evil’). But the Jewish prophets were only the beginning – it was Christianity which carried the flame of the slave revolt to the world.`

`Disregarding the claims of the theological truth in Christianity, it is the primary manifestation of the slave morality mentality throughout the world. Christianity, with its ‘paradoxical god-on-a-cross’, is a reactionary movement born initially from the Jewish ressentiment, a rebuff against the values of the masters and an inversion of their morality upon itself. For slave morality, the primary characteristic in the transformation of moral thought wasn’t one based upon strength, power, and honor, but rather a defensive prejudice against those things that the successful and ruling class had, wanted, and believed in. It transformed the archetype of the ideal person from one in a position of power to one of meek stature, oppressed and impoverished. The roots of this ressentiment grew into a mythos of its own, with the seeds of hate for Roman rule growing into a tree from which the Jewish underclass could climbed upward. In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche said that:`

The Christian faith is from the beginning a sacrifice: sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of the spirit, at the same time enslavement and self-mockery, self-mutilation … Modern men, with their obtuseness to all Christian nomenclature, no longer sense the gruesome superlative which lay for an antique taste in the paradoxical formula ‘god on the cross’. Never and nowhere has there hitherto been a comparable boldness in inversion, anything so fearsome, questioning and questionable, as this formula: it promised a revaluation of all antique values. – It is the orient, the innermost orient, it is the oriental slave who in this fashion took vengeance on Rome and its noble and frivolous tolerance, on Roman ‘Catholicism’ of faith – and it has never been faith but always freedom from faith, that half-stoical unconcern with the seriousness of faith, that has enraged slaves in their masters and against their masters. ‘Enlightenment’ enrages: for the slave wants the unconditional, he understands in the domain of morality too only the tyrannical, he loves as he hates, without nuance, into the depths of him, to the point of pain, to the point of sickness – the great hidden suffering he feels is enraged at the noble taste which seems to deny suffering.

`In Genealogy of Morals, He goes further:`

The act of most spiritual revenge. It was the Jews who, with awe inspiring consistency, dared to invert the aristocratic value-equation (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = happy = beloved of God) and to hang onto this inversion with their teeth, the teeth of the most abysmal hatred (the hatred of impotence), saying, “the wretched alone are the good; the suffering, deprived, sick, ugly alone are pious, alone are blessed by God . . . and you, the powerful and noble, are on the contrary the evil, the cruel, the lustful, the insatiable, the godless to all eternity, and you shall be in all eternity the unblessed, the accursed, and damned!

`Rather than adopting the values of the Romans, the Hebrews took their station in life and examined it from a new perspective. Instead of seeing themselves as failures when competing for Power and Wealth against the Romans, they inverted their ideological alignment and re-branded their ressentiment into a form of self-righteousness. This self-righteousness, this new moral footing they had found, provided ample opportunity to re-value not only their ressentiment but their entire value system, ultimately forming a morality not so much concerned with attaining a good life as it was with lambasting those who did. Thus, asceticism was borne anew, re-branding the lack of ability to have a good life as an active choice, and a morally ‘good’ choice at that. In abstaining from the pleasures of this world, many imagined that they would be morally permitted to enjoy pleasures even hence unknown in ‘the next life’, as recompense for their suffering in this one. One can easily see how this moral perspective was attractive to the underclass of its time. In a world where you cannot obtain the good life, pretending that the poor circumstances you find yourself in is a virtue is a good way to rationalize and sustain your existence in this life.`

`It is on the basis of this analysis that Christian morality is inherently a form of slave morality’s ressentiment towards the masters, and provides an impotent form of revenge in providing the moral foundation for those of the underclass to pass judgement on those of the upper. The embrace of the downtrodden, poor, oppressed, passive, and meek as those of true moral character, coupled with a denial of wealth, power, strength, self-assertion, and dominance as a moral failing is pervasive throughout the Christian New Testament. The very center of the religion’s iconography, Jesus Christ, a physical manifestation of God upon this Earth as his ‘son’, helps to show this. He is a man borne from low status, had every ‘virtue’ of slave morality thrust upon him by his destiny, and overcame the ruling Romans to return to Heaven, that next life his followers and followers of slave morality dream of. In the Christian mythos, during his life, he rebuked the powerful and wealthy, he embraced the poor, sickly, and oppressed, and he did all of this while maintaining a lifestyle of a Roman underclassman. It is my belief that Christianity’s major value proposition from a perspective of utility is that it provides an underclass with a moral foundation that spiritually and psychologically sustains a ‘slave’ class, be it racial, sexual, economic, etc, under such a burden. It acts as a lever does, reducing the weight associated with life as an underclassman of various sorts.`

Author of this makes a mistake himself

"re-branding the lack of ability to have a good life as an active choice"

He makes a same value statement

"good life"

I mean "value" in a sense of a pretense of standards

This was a danger of Nietzsche's philosophy

TLDR that shit nigger

I am starting to get a migraine so I am definitely not reading all that

I know what master/slave morality is already

@Deleted User 57835c2c that's the TLDR. You should read the whole post. It's one of the best posts on the internet.

It's overconfident certainity in believing how only enjoyment of fruits of life mean a "good" life

PM me and I will read it later