Posted by Nietzsche, the liberal's liberal on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 15:46 | #

Nietzsche, the liberal’s liberal

a note from Graham

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/04/how-win-future-why-blue-labour-way-forward

In an impressive essay, John Milbank asks: if “the typical object of desire is still thought of as a commodity consumable by the individual in isolation”, what can we do to change what is desired? He answers by pointing out that this ignores the relational goods that we most value – family, friendship, love and communities.

In other words the connection between philia, community and justice. As Aristotle notes, philia is said to be based upon relative equality, and thus implies relationships of fairness between members of the community are required to maintain a community. Again this reflects evolutionary based ideas of mechanisms to punish ‘selfish’ free-riders that undermine group cohesion.

Philia (φιλία philía) means “affectionate regard, friendship,” usually “between equals”. It is a dispassionate virtuous love, a concept developed by Aristotle. In his best-known work on ethics, Nicomachean Ethics, philia is expressed variously as loyalty to friends, family and community, which requires virtue, equality and familiarity to be possible.

Not that any form of liberal (Tory or Labour, Republican or Democrat), let alone neo-liberal politics can have family, friendship, love and community at its heart. But even among the liberal academy thoughts are stirring that the liberalism of both the left and right is heading in the wrong direction. Our politics is one of ethno-communitarianism - morally serious and responsible - not teenage nonsense about violence and the ‘individual will to power’ (Nietzsche at heart is the liberal’s liberal - the enfant terrible of liberal thought proud of the unconstrained individual ego given free-reign).

                                                    Regards - Graham

Posted by qaulitarian on Tue, 28 Apr 2015 19:21 | #

Graham, it sounds pretty good, but of course communitarianism still needs some sort of over arching coordination to keep it from being exploited by elitists. That remains to be conducted by a White leftist union perspective in my estimation.

Other than that, I would not use the word equality; but would rather focus on qualitative differences. Though it does show spunk and provoke thought to defy the WN taboo against equalitarianism.

The readers have earned a prize from Lucky Leos - here is one bobble-head for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT3gazWBPD4

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 05 May 2015 04:52 | #

Right-wingers, such as those over at Stormtrooper radio, simply cannot live without their god, Adolf (where their other Jewish god, the one on the stick, fails them).

And it seems that the London-Warsaw Axis cannot live without a Diabolus in the form of Uncle Adolf to define its moralistic cosmology - er, I’m sorry, “ontology” - in opposition to. 

Just how many Polacks does it take to screw in a light bulb again?

 

 

Posted by As many as it takes to screw you on Tue, 05 May 2015 05:00 | #

As many Polaks as it takes to screw you, Captainchaos.

I can live without the Diabolus of Uncle Adolf alright.

Its a bit harder to live without you, however.

You may find it difficult to believe, but I am actually glad to see you again!

...never meant to chase you away. Sorry for insulting your Uncle Asshole.

Posted by London and Warsaw on Tue, 05 May 2015 05:38 | #

BTW,

It is not London and Warsaw,

It is a Poznan and Brighton Axis of Evil.

Now, be a good boy and go play in the street.

Posted by Mike on Tue, 05 May 2015 20:19 | #

You’re missing the point. This is not a question of “power and survival vs morals”. It is a question of “morals vs morals”. This is psychological warfare,
laying the groundwork for a shift in public perception and focus, particularly among White people, from respect for invasive Semitic Slave Morality,
toward rekindled love for our own traditional European Master Morality.

It’s convenient to use Nietzsche’s terms because of the well-known and influential treatise on the subject, “On the Genealogy of Morality: A Polemic”.
However, Nietzsche was neither the first, nor the last, to discuss these concepts of morality. To paraphrase: Pathological altruism and subservience are
“virtues” of Slave Morality. Pride and strength, (i.e., “power and survival”) are virtues of Master Morality.

The “moralizing”, discussed herein, is adherence to the Slave Morality of the Semitic religions, slave religions, created by and for enslaved peoples,
and promoting the “virtues” of, subservience, obedience, and a sense of perpetual indebtedness, (“Original Sin, an infinite and unpayable debt,
requires Divine salvation”). Slave Morality is the “We must serve [God and humanity]” world-view, which is entirely destructive to our own traditional
European spirit.

In the world-view of Master Morality, there is no requirement for “Divine Salvation” because there is no concept of “Original Sin”, the infinite debt that
makes all men slaves. Rather than existing as “moralized”, humble servants and hapless slaves to our Destiny, the traditional European world-view is
one of freedom, strength, self-expression, and self-determination, wherein one’s Fate lies in one’s own hands. Our Gods do not demand that we kneel.

“...the Right is inherently unstable…”
Our struggle for survival is as old as time. An unfortunate paradox exists among White nationalist Christians. Due to the “debt of Divine salvation”, they
are unable to free themselves from the Slave Morality of the Semitic religion, therefore, they can never quite fully embrace the European world-view of
Master Morality.

When one worships the Gods of his enemies, he is already defeated. ᛟ

Posted by Nietzsche's step in liberation toxically reified on Wed, 06 May 2015 01:32 | #

Mike no. 6, thanks for the comment, but you begin by saying that “I am missing the point” and finish by saying that “When one worships the Gods of his enemies, he is already defeated” - which is in essence just part of my point. I did not miss the point, I am making a point which is being missed.

You start by saying:

“You’re missing the point. This is not a question of “power and survival vs morals”. It is a question of “morals vs morals”. This is psychological warfare, laying the groundwork for a shift in public perception and focus, particularly among White people, from respect for invasive Semitic Slave Morality, toward rekindled love for our own traditional European Master Morality.”

You are addressing the public and hoping to instigate awareness that survival and its realization through power is a preeminent concern; that’s fair enough, but with Nietszsche and Truck Roy’s rendered juxtaposition of “moralizing”, the apprehension is inclined to be a false either/or between morals and power. 

It’s convenient to use Nietzsche’s terms because of the well-known and influential treatise on the subject, “On the Genealogy of Morality: A Polemic”.

It is a brilliant and worthwhile read, as all Nietzsche is, but convenient, overly convenient, would be the operative word indeed. I believe GW to be right in suggesting that the Nazis were heavily influenced by a convenient dichotomy between master and slave morality, which was a falsely clear dichotomy and integral to creating the violent, overcompensating hubris of Nazi Germany. More, it would be convenient, overly simplistic and irresponsible pandering to the wish for a largely Germanic America (and others of a background less sympathetic to the Allied cause) to be unburdened of guilt that they should not bear at any rate; but rather taking it beyond an unburdening of guilt into a self righteous and false dichotomy, so as to don a morality which “justifies” the mistreatment of neighbors as “slaves.”

However, Nietzsche was neither the first, nor the last, to discuss these concepts of morality.

Clearly. As I said, there is no avoiding morality, we live within it. That is my point.

To paraphrase: Pathological altruism and subservience are “virtues” of Slave Morality.

OK, I’ll buy that characterization; and Nietzsche’s rendering as such is brilliant; but it must be looked upon as a step in a process, e.g., for those who need to be liberated from Christian morality and the like “slave morality;” otherwise, as reified into a false dichotomy, it becomes toxic, as is Nietzsche’s wont to be.

Pride and strength, (i.e., “power and survival”) are virtues of Master Morality.

Nothing wrong with these valuations, provided their valuation is not taken to hubris (which the Nazis and Hitler did – the proof is in the pudding; despite their apologists blaming everyone else).

The “moralizing”, discussed herein, is adherence to the Slave Morality of the Semitic religions, slave religions, created by and for enslaved peoples, and promoting the “virtues” of, subservience, obedience, and a sense of perpetual indebtedness, (“Original Sin, an infinite and unpayable debt, requires Divine salvation”). Slave Morality is the “We must serve [God and humanity]” world-view, which is entirely destructive

Fair enough, but particularly as the discussion was aimed at public apprehension, “moralizing” as it was used requires this clarification, as not being a freedom from moral concern.

to our own traditional European spirit.

Our traditional European spirit is complex, not only Promethean and Apollonian, Dionysian, it was/is many. But most Europeans would agree that in over-arching famework, that Aristotle is our most characteristic philosopher: he would not reject these virtues, e.g. of pride and strength, and the warding-off slave morality, but would have them optimized so as not to take them to toxicity in naivete or hubris – again, as the Nazis did.

In the world-view of Master Morality, there is no requirement for “Divine Salvation” because there is no concept of “Original Sin”, the infinite debt that makes all men slaves.

Fine, good and perhaps a revelation to Christians, but not so much to those of us (most Europeans) who have left Christianity behind and are trying to flush its self destructive memes from our system (for that, a little Nietzsche now and then, is a helpful reminder).

Rather than existing as “moralized”, humble servants and hapless slaves to our Destiny, the traditional European world-view is one of freedom, strength, self-expression, and self-determination, wherein one’s Fate lies in one’s own hands. Our Gods do not demand that we kneel.

Good stuff and I would object less than GW and Graham probably would – they would see this overly inclined to the propositional self, one of sheerly self created individualism detached from biological and social constraints. I think Greg would agree with that as well, despite his admiration for Nietzsche. This detachment from biological (and I hasten to add, social constraints), this overvaluation of and to an illusionary freedom, that should be posed as a provisional hypothesis at most, has become a toxicity to and from Europeans and European Americans. 

“...the Right is inherently unstable…”

Yes.

Notice that whether it is Christianity, Nietzsche or scientism, “merely objective” factuality, etc, it is wont to go beyond the conceptual and biological constraints of social classifications (racial classifications), their systemic ecology and accountability.

Understandable though it is, particularly in America, it is often a motivation to be free of social indebtedness.

Our struggle for survival is as old as time. An unfortunate paradox exists among White nationalist Christians. Due to the “debt of Divine salvation”, they are unable to free themselves from the Slave Morality of the Semitic religion, therefore, they can never quite fully embrace the European world-view of Master Morality.

You are not seeing my point, perhaps because you, or your audience, have not liberated yourselves from Christianity enough to where you can see social classification (racial groupings) as a median stabilization – a stabilization that will not occur with the conception of this group as master/ those as slaves – another right wing concept, along with Christianity’s quest for purity.

When one worships the Gods of his enemies, he is already defeated.

We agree there (a large part of why I am not a Christian), but one is also defeated when one accepts their terms and the tried and failed epistemological blunders of their Nazi/Jew outlook: the false dichotomy of their master race or the chosen people is much the same catastrophic failure to the best moral outlook, the European outlook (Aristotlean, on balance), its ecological relations and stewarding.

Full liberation from Christian slave morality is achieved through awareness and understanding that it is neither the only, nor the best morality (neither is Nietzsche; neither is liberalism).

.............
On a note of jaw-dropping perversion, Maureen Corrigan’s (NPR) take on Anders Breivik, his “motives” and the character of his victims:

http://www.npr.org/2015/05/05/403303535/one-of-us-examines-the-damaged-inner-terrain-of-norwegian-mass-shooter

Corrigan portrays Brevik’s motives as an unintelligible emanation of “evil.” Yes, she really does that - to her, his motives had nothing to do with genocidal and hideously exploitative imposition of non-native migration onto Norway

Finally, she gushes and glows in “hope” over the pure goodness of the migrants and youth camp liberals.

Posted by Truck given good directions from KM on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 20:57 | #

Good discussion by Don Black and Roy reflecting on a Kevin MacDonald interview a few days prior:

http://mediaarchives.gsradio.net/stormfront/hr1061215.mp3

Roy takes orientation from KM on the symbiotic relation of DNA and culture:

“Our people have a propensity to override basic survival instincts, or rather, can, with higher brain-functions. And these higher brain functions are controlled by culture. This is huge because the cultural control over our higher brain functions can be used to suppress basic survival instincts.

This is something that’s very very important to understand because if you had a chart and you could draw lines up to the control points that means the ultimate control point is in the culture.

The DNA is the basis of it, but if you have cultural control the DNA can be eliminated. So, even though DNA and race is more basic, more fundamental, culture is actually the control point.

Some of the good thinkers among White Nationalists are beginning to understand this - that you can’t just make a straight biological argument, you have to understand that they way we view the world has a symbiotic relationship with our DNA. If we don’t have that DNA we will lose our culture, if we don’t have that culture we will lose our DNA.”

 

Posted by Neither Uncle A nor Ganucci a leader on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 22:59 | #

I had the occasion to speak with TT last weekend.

Much agreement and good relations as ever.

Though it may well be practical to view Jews as a criminal conspiracy,  as he does, I disagree with him that Jewishness or partial Jewishness is unimportant because “Jews are not a race.”

Unfortunately, TT isn’t taking account of genetic evidence that there are distinct Jewish markers.

And being partly Jewish could have caused a serious internal conflict in Hitler.

It would matter of course, if Hitler was 1/4 Jewish. But I do not suppose it would matter in the way that TT thought that I was going with that - he seemed to think that like the right wing conspiracy theorists, that I was trying to spin an elaborate theory that he was trying to do the Jews’ bidding. I do not think that Hitler was secretly Jew friendly. On the contrary, he hated them and seeing a German mother beaten by a half Jewish father could set in motion intense internal turmoil, a conflict of intense empathy and antipathy.

While he would care about Germany being “bullied” as he saw it, he would understand Jews very well and focus more on Jewish malevalence than on the overall well being of all Europeans. They were not particularly caring and protective of his mother(land).

I’ve seen a similar tendency in Dana Antiochus (1/4 Syrian). Not that being 1/4 Syrian should be a big problem, but this seems to incline his view to focus on the Jews to the neglect of other problems and does leave out of focus the concern for Europeans on the whole; instead, wreckessly proposing Hitler as the advocate of all Europeans. Hitler certainly was not. Again, it seems a result of the William Pierce school that falsely teaches that Hitler can be rendered Slav friendly.

We aren’t saying that Hitler had no good qualities. Whether he was, in fact, 1/4 Jewish, his actions do read as if he might have been conflicted by that, instigating him to be a catastrophe for European people. In regard of his being a castrophe, TT and I agree.

Anyyone who thinks otherwise is s a fool. Speaking of that…

Angelo John Ganucci is still trying to say that Hitler was misunderstood. But he wasn’t fundamentally misunderstood in a very obvious way that ought to be enough to cast him aside for anyone who proposes to represent the interests of European peoples. He meant no good to his eastern neighbors. WWS tries to say that Ganucci is a leader. Unless he drops the naive effort to try to ressurect Hitler, he is a leader of fools, if any.

Being “anti supremacist” and an advocate of Hitler is laughably inconsistent.