This is the underlying principle of all my thinking. This simple sentence encompasses and justifies all morality. All my stances on individual, specific objects refers back to this universal, general stance.
The statement is tautological. It should be true by definition. The fact that most people aren't even willing to admit the moral weight of this principle just shows how cowardly people have become in the modern world. This is not a surprising or controversial statement for anyone who lived in the past.
I don't see why I would even have to argue for the truth of the statement. It seems self-evident to me that this is naturally right and just without any explanation. But people still balk, so maybe I can give some negative proofs of my assertion:
Someone is farming in an inefficient manner. It takes ten acres of land to provide for his family. You could teach him the new method of farming, and with it, he could produce ten times as much food with no drawbacks, or farm as much as he had before with just one acre of land. Assuming all else equal, is it moral to teach him or not?
Now let's assume the individual is too stupid to be taught this farming method. In fact, he sullenly tries to murder any foreigner who even attempts to get into communication with him. Is it moral to kill him, take his land, and from thence forth produce ten times as much food as he ever did?
Let's assume a giant army of sullen bad farmers said they wanted to conquer your land so they could turn it away from your ten times as productive system into their 1/10 as productive system? Do you invite them in as your new overlords or do you stop them at the border?
Let's assume the sullen bad farmers don't arrive with weapons, they just start walking across the border and claiming all the land they see, putting down roots and start farming in the ineffective manner they insist on. Can they be stopped at the border now?
Suppose a sullen bad farmer wants to marry one of your cheerful good farmers, and have a family of mixed genes and culture, with halfway sullen, halfway bad farmers? Is it moral to allow such a marriage?
Suppose the sullen bad farmers want equal representation after settling down on your land, and insist since they're the majority of the population they ought to rule the country from here on? Do you give them the reins of power, or do you keep power in the hands of the more cheerful, productive farmers?
Suppose the sullen bad farmers have invented a particularly effective cult. It persuades people with sex, drugs, and vague silly promises that if they become sullen bad farmers their lives will improve. Do you allow these sullen bad farmers to recruit new cultists amongst your population?
Suppose a group of extremely talented and productive people suddenly decide that the world should be inhabited by sullen bad farmers, and throw all their power and charisma behind the sullen bad farmers' cause. They fund temples for their cult, and spread the message all across the media. They funnel huge tax money handouts and private charities to any sullen bad farmer. They teach everyone in school that marrying a sullen bad farmer is the ultimate act of morality. They insist that sullen bad farmers can move anywhere they like, but that sullen bad farmer territory is inviolate and can never be invaded by cheerful good farmers. They do everything they can to see a world of pure sullen bad farmers, with a sprinkling of super-talented overseers and their chosen allies to rule over them. Can these people be opposed? Are they a smaller or larger problem than the original sullen bad farmers?
Suppose sullen bad farmers were reproducing at a rate ten times our own, and were continuously facing famines, except cheerful good farmers kept providing them the necessary food out of compassion. Suppose all of this food could have gone to enriching and increasing the population of cheerful good farmers. Were they right to instead give all of that food to exponentially reproducing sullen bad farmers?
Taken from the lens of "the superior should supplant the inferior, but the inferior should not supplant the superior," all of these questions have simple, obvious answers. Taken from any other lens people are powerless to fight evil in this world. Using any other principle, we are faced with Burke's prophecy:
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’
If we can't stop evil, if we can't supplant it, if we can't resist it supplanting us, then we all know the end of this story. Humanity devolves back to its lowest form, and then, if we followed the principle religiously enough, devolves from there back into animals, then plants, then into no life at all. After all, if nothing is better than anything else, there is no reason to draw a line anywhere. Life is difficult to sustain, but non-existence is easy. If people do nothing, the victory of non-existence is assured. If we do not attempt to supplant non-existence with life, then non-existence will supplant life in turn.
The negative proof of my principle is that anyone who doesn't abide by it is a nihilist who seeks the end of all life.
The positive proof of my principle is the world around us. Those who followed the principle that the superior should supplant the inferior have given great gifts to the world, have provided visible progress we should all celebrate. We took the howling wilderness of hunter-gatherer, cannibal-human sacrifice America, and turned it into the civilized modern world. We defeated communism and gave Russia, Eastern Europe, and China the freedom to develop their people to a higher quality of life. We spread the green revolution to the furthest corners of the globe, giving Indians and Chinese for the first time the power to avoid famines and feed their people. We stamped out slavery. We forced Japan to stop living in the feudal age and join the modern world. Then, when we didn't like Japan's version of modern living, we invaded them again and forced them to become democratic peace-loving capitalists. Now the third time's the charm, and Japan is the best country on Earth. That's a big step up, and it was based entirely on our wish to supplant the inferior with the superior.
We inhabited howling wildernesses that a few nomads roamed across, like Australia and Canada, and turned them into modern paradises for tens of millions of people.
We continuously improve old technology, like computers, power plants, refrigerators and cars, in the hopes of supplanting inferior versions with superior versions that do our tasks faster or more efficiently. We are never content with an old model but continuously seek ways to improve it still further.
We strive as athletes to be better than anyone who ever came before. We carefully keep track of all the world records in every event and cheer whenever these old records are broken.
This spirit, the ideals of the superior supplanting the inferior, is behind everything good in the world. It is why we aren't still living in the dark ages, illiterate, scraping out a living by farming all day every day, only to randomly lose half our family to plague, war, and famine, and die ourselves at an early age.
To label this spirit immoral is to renounce all the gains we've made by following this spirit, this impulse, this moral need to see things grow and progress. To deny this moral principle is to deny that the meaning of life is more and better life.
Once it is established that true morality is simply abiding by this simple formula, that the superior should supplant the inferior, but the inferior should not supplant the superior, all current day social questions become infinitely transparent.
All we have to do is figure out who is inferior and who is superior, and we will instantly know who to favor and who to disfavor in all conflicts of interest.
Is it hard to establish who is inferior and who is superior? Hardly. We have endless gigabytes of statistics listing every single feature of every single group, carefully studied by endless scientists to ensure their accuracy. These statistics paint bright pictures no one can avoid seeing. Some groups are stupid, barbaric, criminal, and poor. Their lives are nothing but suffering and they endanger everyone around them. Other groups are intelligent, civilized, law-abiding and wealthy. Their lives are nothing but joy and they uplift everyone around them. Once these facts are established, what is there left to argue about?
People are like moving particles, they are never self-contained but always emit a field around them, this field interacts with the fields of every other individual on Earth, to a lesser or greater extent. Bad people's fields have negative, deleterious influences on the outside world. Good people's fields have positive, beneficial influences on the outside world. Leaving bad people alone is impossible because their fields don't leave us alone. There is no such thing as the superior and the inferior co-existing. Since both sides are continuously emitting fields which influence the other side, one or the other will eventually triumph and consume its opposite. The only question is "Who? Whom?"
Who does what to Whom?
Who do we want, perverts or monogamous heterosexual married couples?
Who do we want, retards or geniuses?
Who do we want, ugly people or attractive people?
Who do we want, cultists or rational thinkers?
Who do we want, criminals or law-abiders?
Who do we want, champions of the perverted, retarded, ugly, cultist, criminal people, or champions of the married, genius, attractive, rational, law-aibders?
It isn't that hard. It's never been hard. The only hard part is the moral courage for people to openly state their preferences and admit they've agreed with me all along. But the penalties of cowardice are growing too severe to ignore the issues forever. With mass immigration, massive third world fertility, dysgenics, and the steady coarsening of our culture via malign teachings and influences, 'doing nothing' is no longer a serious option. There is only asserting this principle or watching the world die. Sore dake.