>Welcome, anon. Do not worry, your post was very good, so I hope to see you around more in the future.
Thank you. I like it around here, so I'll post sometimes for sure. I found this place while looking for an English translation of Mein Kampf.
About the objective/subjective blindspot, it is one that is absolutely pervasive in today's society, from morals, to art and aesthetics, to even mathematics and physics. So in one way or another, I think everyone at some point realizes the effects of it in at least some area of human endeavor: call it moral relativism, call it postmodernism in art, architecture, or globalism, or Einsteinian relativity in physics, or the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, they all end up being problems arising from aspects of this objective/subjective blindspot that we made for ourselves.
As for the Jews, it is advantageous for the them for reasons I think you'd consider obvious, as it is easy pilpul, a language game they can manipulate by "looking at things from a different prospective" whenever the current one isn't pleasing them.
But as for ourselves, we dug ourselves into this hole, at least as far as I can see, when we put Reason and its supposed objectivity above all the subjective needs and emotions, and accepted the Renaissance conception of the universal Man, who is both the sculpture and his own sculptor. To extend that analogy, we forgot that in any case the sculpture doesn't get to choose the material for himself, and must work with what he has been given by Nature, i.e. by his nativity, what his genes gave him at birth.
The take-away is not that Reason is bad, or we shouldn't look at things objectively, but that once we have done that, the objective facts must be interpreted by the subject subjectively, and to pretend that he may interpret them objectively is to commit a fallacy, and that by doing so he becomes an hypocritical subject, unaware that he is part of the system that he observes.
That is, he is rejecting Nature and its Order, hypocritically putting himself above it and its rules, by thinking that what he observes is truly objective, and therefore how he acts also is. It is not.
This is how I interpret Natural Order and how one may go against it, in very abstract terms. It can be instantiated to more concrete situations.
About true moral systems, it fits all right. What I wrote is a starting point for me, onto which to elaborate further on specific points like morals, the importance of race, family, etc. Once the Subject's point of view is established as meaningful, you can start looking at how he comes to be, how he interacts with other Subjects, and what becomes of him.
By a Darwinian argument, as you did, you quickly come to the conclusion that the Subject should strive to survive, as only those who survive get to "play another round" in the game of life, and therefore should act by a moral system that not only increases his chance of survival and success (and about that, winning strategies in game theory are always altruistic to some extent, look into strategies for the iterated prisoner's dilemma for example), but the moral system itself should strive towards its own survival and success: it should not be easily replaced, corrupted by a moral system that decreases the chances of survival, ruling out blindly altruistic strategies.
Where we, the Man (and I am allowed here to appeal to the universal Man, as it truly is what sets us us apart), differ from animals, is that we have more than mere reproduction to look forward in our struggle for survival: due to our ability to communicate, not only do we spread our genes*, but we can also spread our memes, i.e. ideas, ideals, and eventually morals and religions, that play a survival game on their own in the collective minds of the nations.
(* Although reproduction never hurts, one of the worst points of Christianity is barring smart and pious priests and monks from reproducing, on top of being the biggest justification for the universalism of Man. While I don't buy into arguments that smart people should reproduce more, as K-selection is more appropriate than r-selection for them, as intellect must be properly nurtured, throwing away the life of the most intelligent and pious of your people is simply sad.)