The Fundamentals

Fundamentals of a New Movement


The overarching, basic fundamentals of a New Movement are listed here. The link leads to the relevant post below. Also see "The Fundamentals" post list to the lower right. This is our new path. If you agree with this direction, then join with us.


The Old Movement is dead. Let us instead build something that works, a New Movement, a fresh start.



Wednesday, April 25, 2018

The Winter of Spengler’s Discontent

The decline of Spengler: reconsidering High Cultures.

It has been decades since I last tackled Oswald Spengler, and it seemed time to refresh my understanding of his major work.  Upon the advice of a Spengler expert (and following the Pareto Principle), I acquired the abridged edition of The Decline of the West.

First, a few words about Spengler’s writing in this book, which I found to be terrible: like Heidegger, overly dense and sometimes nearly incomprehensible in the pompous old school German style (in contrast, Nietzsche, particularly apart from Zarathustra, was exceedingly comprehensible and easily understandable).  Contrary to all of Spengler’s breathless fans, I did not find his magnum opus to be very well written.  It’s a terribly boring, turgid compilation of rambling prose.  I can only imagine the full-scale version is worse (and if memory serves, it was). Another point is that Spengler’s deconstructivism is highly annoying to the more empiricist among us, his idea that Nature is a function of a particular culture.  Well (and the same applies to some of Yockey’s [plagiarized] rambling on the subject), for some cultures, Nature apparently is a more accurate “function” of reality than for others, and this more accurate representation of objective reality has real world consequences that cannot be evaded.

Thus, Spengler’s rambling on “Nature Knowledge” can be for the most part safely ignored.  Spengler laughably wrote: “Every atomic theory, therefore, is a myth, and not an experience.”  Yes, tell that to the Japanese of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who encountered the myth – not the experience, oh no! – of being blasted by atom bombs.  Spengler’s comments about the “uranium atom” are particularly ludicrous in hindsight. I have to say: Spengler was an idiot (*).

The problem with Spengler (and Yockey) and science is that the Spenglerian view could be tenable if science was only a purely abstract phenomenon, with no practical real world consequences.  Unfortunately, for Spengler, science leads to technics, and the outcome of technics (contra Yockey) is directly related to the reality behind the science.  In the absence of real world consequences, in the absence of technics, the Spenglerians can pretend that there is no objective difference between, say, Classical or Egyptian physics on the one hand, and Faustian physics on the other. However, the former, if followed to technics, will not lead to methods that can obliterate cities, shatter mountains, and sink islands; while the latter can, and has.  Facts are facts. “Theory is working hypothesis…” according to Spengler’s formulation of Faustian technics, but that can be just as easily reversed: the working hypothesis is based upon theory.  Without scientific theory, practical technics is mere makeshift tinkering.

The sections “Race is Style” and “People and Nation” are of course relevant from a racial nationalist perspective, and reflects Spengler’s anti-scientific stupidity, this time about biological race.  Those of you familiar with Yockey’s wrong-headed assertions on this topic will see all the same in Spengler’s work (from which Yockey lifted his assertions).  This has been critiqued by many – from Revilo Oliver to myself – and it is not necessary to rehash all of the arguments against the Spenglerian (Boasian) deconstructivist attitudes toward biological race.  We can just shake our heads sadly about Spengler’s racial fantasies – that is as absurd as that of any hysterical leftist SJW race-denier – and move on to other issues.

The comments by Spengler (and others) about the Russian soul and Russian character, and its “non-Faustian” nature (‘the horizontal expansive plain…the plain, the plain….”) are interesting, and may well have some validity (as a close look at Russian literature informs us, to some degree).  But this can all be taken too far.  With the benefit of hindsight obviously not available to Spengler himself – but which is just as obviously available to modern-day Spenglerians – we look at the Russian interest in space exploration, particularly during the Soviet period, and ask – was that merely just for political propaganda purposes?  The answer is not quite clear.  There are differences between cultures, yes, but when there is an underlying racial affinity, then the different cultures are not quite orthogonal to each other.  And the same principle applies to the Classical-Faustian distinction as well. Spengler would argue that the Classical and Faustian are as different from each other than either are to, say, the Chinese, Indian, or Egyptian.  I think that’s nonsense, and the same applies to Russian-Faustian/Western.  There are differences and then there are DIFFERENCES.  Being more objective about Spengler’s ideas than Spengler himself, I hope the “differences between differences” are obvious.

The section on “State and History” was actually readable and made some valid points, but I disagree with Spenglerian inevitability, and I believe he draws the line of the Fellah stage too early in some historical cases. The high point of the Roman Empire, the Pax Romana – was a historyless desert?  Spengler, I think, became too enamored with his own theories (or nonsense, if you want to be harsh).  The “Philosophy of Politics” section is also readable, with some useful points, but also has, obviously, areas of profound disagreement between Spengler and reality.  The idea that the “born statesman” has – or should have - no convictions, should be a completely amoral actor dealing with facts and effects with no ideology affecting their actions - that I reject. Who is or is not a “born statesmen?”  The examples Spengler gives are ludicrous given his assertion. Sulla, Robespierre, Bismarck, and Pitt – they all acted with no underlying ideology or conviction influencing their actions?  I will say his comments about the value of a “tradition” in politics, statesmanship, in fact in any manifestation or organized human activity (comments mirrored by Yockey), are basically sound. Again, in reading Spengler, there are some diamonds in the piles of dirt and dung; one has to dig them out and treasure them.  However, the diamond-to-dung ratio is not enough to grant Spengler the acclaim as a “great writer.” While Spengler and his ideas have worth, whether or not we agree with all of them, I wonder if he may not be one of the most over-rated writers in history.

Those are mere details however.  Important details, but not the fundamental, the main thesis.  So, what about the main thesis of his work?  The overall idea of cyclical history?  Yockey’s lifting of that idea in his own work?  Rereading Spengler’s major thesis hasn’t changed my mind about it in any major way, but there are some further points to make.

To begin with, I do believe that Spengler was on to something; his most fundamental observations about the cyclical nature of High Cultures, in their broadest sense, have validity.  I reject his self-assured assertions about inevitability and his smug and snide pontifications about the emptiness of current and future cultural possibilities, as well as his complete lack of self-awareness of the effects of his fundamental observation to the ability of future generations to interfere with what was previously a completely unguided historical process.  By analogy, before the germ theory of infectious disease was asserted, and then proven as fact, man was for the most part helpless against the onslaught of microbes, apart from the natural and (by conscious thought) unguided processes of the human immune system.  After the discovery of the germ-disease link, we have preventive and therapeutic interventions against these diseases.  Furthering this analogy, we can say that before Spengler, man was helpless in the face of historical inevitability; after Spengler and his discovery, the situation is changed.

Another point: being more familiar with Yockey’s work than with Spengler’s, I note how much Yockey plagiarized from Spengler.  Everyone talks about Yockey plagiarizing Carl Schmitt, and that Spengler “inspired” Yockey  - well, if by “inspired” you mean ruthlessly copy than, yes, Yockey was very “inspired.”  However, I do not say that to disparage Yockey or Imperium, the work which contains most of the plagiarism in question.  Yockey was a political polemicist, and Imperium was meant to be a thoroughly political work, sort of a Communist Manifesto for fascists, it wasn’t meant as a scholarly work and Yockey made no pretense of any original thought in that book. So, I just note for the record that the plagiarism took place.  I also note that, in a real sense, it is good that the plagiarism did take place, because Imperium is much more readable, much more digestible, than Spengler’s ponderous work, which is, as stated above, a caricature of “heavy” self-indulgent pedantic German scholarship.  Spengler’s views on (biological) race, as derived from his statements in this book, were as wrong-headed as Yockey’s regurgitation of them.  But enough of that; it is a side-issue at this time, and has been already discussed, by myself and (many) others, with respect to Imperium.

Let’s get back to Spengler’s content, and some of my objections alluded to above.  Thus, as far as content goes, my “take” on it remains the same; I agree with much but I disagree with much as well, particularly the “pessimistic” inevitability of it, and the smug arrogance in suggesting, or implying, that disagreement with that aspect of the work implies some sort of mental weakness, delusion, or cowardice on the part of the reader.  Spengler himself suggests that he “truth” of the book is a “truth” for him, a “truth” for a particular Culture in a particular time, and should not necessarily be viewed as an absolute truth in any or every sense (indeed, it everything from science to mathematics is, according to Spengler, formed by the Culture which creates it, and is thus no absolute in any universal sense, then we can quote Pilate ‘“what is truth?”).  Therefore, my “truth” in the current year leads me to conclusions different from Spengler; one can again assert that Spengler himself, by writing the book and outlining he problem, himself undermined his assertion of inevitability, since know we can understand the trajectories of Cultures and, possibly, how to affect those trajectories.

I’ll have more to say about that shortly.

One thing about re-reading the book that did influence me – more of a minor point – is that I’m now more in agreement (although not totally in agreement) with Spengler that the Classical Culture was quite different from out Western Faustian one.  There was always a sense of a different style, a different mindset, a different worldview, but The Decline of the West, and the evidence Spengler presents, helps clarify the Classical-Faustian distinction and brings it into stark relief.  So, yes, there’s more to that issue than I previously thought.  However, it doesn’t’ change the fact that both the Classical and the Faustian (or Western) High Cultures came into being in Europe, created by Europeans, and, therefore, if we accept one aspect of Spenglerian inevitability – the actual “decline of the West” – and indeed we appear to be ahead of schedule, well into Winter, then we can discard other aspects of inevitability and assert that Europe and Europeans are well capable of creating other High Cultures.

So, I will say that Spengler exaggerates the Classical-Faustian divide, even though I’m a bit more supportive of his views on that than before.  There is an intermediate ground between saying the two Cultures are completely and utterly distinct entities with absolutely no connection and saying that the Faustian is merely an outgrowth of the Classical.  On a side note, as a result of re-reading Spengler, I’m now studying the last period of the Western Roman Empire, from Adrianople to Odoacer, to (1) examine the parallels to our own day, (2) discern the “breaking point” where the last vestiges of the Classical World died out (What happened? How?  What came after, what was the result?), and (3) to re-examine stupid “movement” dogma on how the later Empire was becoming ever more decadent as a result of racial changes (if anything, the later Empire was more moral than before).

That is related to an important deficit in the work of Spengler that I have read.  He describes the lifecycle of High Cultures, but never really dissects why the cultures inevitably (or so he says) move from Culture to Civilization to Fellahdom.  What actually are the mechanistic causes of Spring to Summer to Fall to Winter?  I guess that Spengler (and Yockey) would just say that it is what it is, that the Culture is life an organism that grows old and dies.  The problem is that this analogy is just that, an analogy.  A Culture is composed of living organisms, humans, but is itself not alive. And esoteric rambling about a “cosmic beat” explains nothing.  If ones buys into the Spenglerian premise, then some rigorous analysis as to why High Cultures progress in particular ways is necessary.  We need an anatomical and molecular analysis of the “living organism” of the High Culture. Does Frost’s genetic pacification play a role? The cycle, noted by Hamilton, of barbarian invasions, the influx of altruism genes, followed by the aging of the civilization at which point fresh barbarian genes are required to spark a renaissance in the depleted fellhahs?  The moral decay that occurs with too much luxury, too much wealth, too much power?  A form of memetic exhaustion?  

By analogy to the memetic exhaustion hypothesis, consider successful television shows.  Although a few of these have been unusually very long lasting – but even these eventually do go off the air – the vast majority follow a trajectory of a lifespan of, say, half-a-dozen years or so.  In the first season of a successful show, there is freshness and novelty, experimentation with plotlines and characters, some unevenness, but excitement and the growth of a fan base.  Then the show reaches a crest wave of success – compelling storylines, solid character development, a strong fan base. This is followed by a bit of stagnation, attempts are made to shake things up, introducing new characters, altering the basic storyline, which may well cause a secondary, shorter spike in interest (Caesarism?), followed by “jumping the shark,” actors leaving the show, stale and repetitious stories, flat characters, a loss of interest of the fan base, decline, and eventual cancellation.  At some point, the show exhausts the memetic possibilities of its setting, characters, and fundamental storyline, and the “magic” is lost.  Does a Culture likewise exhaust all the possibilities of its actualization?  But unlike a TV show, where the station and the show writers (and the fans and reviewers) are consciously following the show’s trajectory and ratings, a High Culture is, or has been, independent of such analysis and direction.  In what way does memetic exhaustion promote the next phase of development?  Further, given Spengler’s identification of the cycle, does this now mean that a High Culture can be tracked analogous to a defined cultural artifact, like a TV show?  If so, how?  Can an elite consciously and directly alter a culture’s direction?  Can they “cancel” it and create a new one?  These are questions that require the rigorous analysis if mechanism previously stated as being required.

What about moving forward?

I maintain that those of us in the interregnum between High Cultures have the power to shape the next High Culture to come, to plant the seed, to choose the specific seed to plant, to nurture it as it grows up toward the sun.  Analogous to lucid dreaming, in our awareness of the Spenglerian thesis – to the extent that it is true – we can guide what was in the past an unconscious and organic flowering, speed it up, and mold it in particular directions.  Obviously, the extent of this control is limited; one cannot “preplan” an entire High Culture in advance, but one can influence its direction, and get it jumpstarted. Imagine some asteroid or comet hurtling toward Earth; if you can deflect it just a small bit, when it is far enough away, that small deflection will become amplified over time, over the long distances it travels at great speeds, and it would them miss the Earth by a healthy margin.  Giving a “nudge” in the right direction at the very beginning of a High Culture’s flowering can be enough, over time, to create a path along which it will develop.  The exact outcome, the precise path, cannot be determined or even precisely predicted, but the general direction, the overall constraints of a set of possible paths, I believe can be determined and predicted.  You might not be able to pinpoint a direction to the precision of say, “we’re going to Boston” but perhaps to the extent of “were’ going to the Northeast United States.”  And that would be enough.

In any case, imagine a person, or group of people, and here I mean our people, who today or tomorrow (broadly defined) wish to create cultural artifacts.  And this culture creation can be of our current Western Faustian High Culture or some new one to come.  Very well.  Should they refrain from doing so simply because Spengler insisted that the time of culture was over, and we should now be concerned only with technics and conquest?  When Spenglerism takes itself too seriously, it descends into absurdity.  It is best thought of as possible guidance, as broad outlies, as description – but not any sort of definitive absolute prescription.

By the way, having a European Imperium – which Spenglerians would say is a marker of late Civilization – is not in my opinion in any way incompatible with the creation of a new High Culture.  After all, some Spenglerians are fond of telling us that a new High Culture is likely to come from Russia, and Russia is, as many Duginite Russian “nationalists” like to tell us, an empire.  So massive states, including multiethnic empires, can very well be the wellsprings of new cultures.  We shouldn’t confuse surface political forms with the underlying cultural realities.

Speaking of Russia, another part of Spengler’s work that I found reasonably well argued and somewhat convincing (as well as fairly novel) is his idea of applying the concept of pseudomorphosis to human populations. In particular, one cannot really dispute some of his points about the Magian and Russian cultures in this regard, but when he says that Antony should have won at Actium – what nonsense is that?  So, that Rome should have become more tainted with Near Eastern cults and ideas even more than it was?  What’s the opposite of pseudomorphosis – where a Civilization becomes memetically conquered by a meme originating from a young Culture?  How did the memetic virus of Christianity infect the West?  Wouldn’t it have been worse if Actium was won by the East?  When Spengler writes of “syncretism” he begins to touch upon this reversal, which eventually goes in both directions (and as Type I “movement” apologists for Christianity like to tell us, that religion was eventually “Germanized” in the West).

Speaking of Christianity, Spengler’s comments about Jesus are interesting, but in my opinion too naive and too positive.  Yes, the meeting between Jesus and Pontius Pilate was world historical and meaningful; however, I view it from the Pilate perspective rather than, as Spengler does, the Jesus perspective.  Spengler takes his own view too seriously in the sense that – and the Antony-Actium thing fits here – and he seems to think that we all need to look from the viewpoint of “what was best for the new Magian High Culture?”  Personally, I could care less – I care about – only care about – those High Cultures of racially European origin (Classical, Faustian, Russian, and what comes next for the West).  Let the Magians worry about the Magian.  What? The poor little NECs were suppressed by the Classical?  Too bad. Who cares about them?  Spengler rightfully outlines how alien the Magian worldview is from the Faustian; thus, why should Faustian peoples care about Magians or follow a Magian religion like Christianity?

Spengler’s basic, fundamental thesis is novel and powerful: the idea of a series of High Cultures, moving in parallel with similar life morphologies.  But he went too far, arrogantly casting his idea with the aura of rigid inevitability – neglecting that the very act of identifying and evaluating the phenomenon, and doing so as part of a history-obsessed Faustian High Culture, forever destroyed a basic prerequisite of the phenomenon’s previous record of repeatability; i.e., that it was unknown and ahistorical.  Ironically, Spengler’s own observations are a major reason why the patterns he observed are no longer inevitable, or, perhaps better said no longer immune from intentional manipulation and control.  When the process was unknown, unidentified, and occurring in the background independent of direct human perception, it was beyond control, once identified and classified, that no longer necessarily holds.  

Let’s reconsider the analogy I made above, about the discovery of the germ theory of disease.  Before discovery, there was inevitability of certain events; with vaccination, that no longer holds.  Smallpox epidemics are no longer inevitable.  Even if the decline of the West (which has already occurred) is not stoppable, the idea that rollover to the next European High Culture is beyond control has been refuted by the knowledge gained by Spengler’s own analysis.  Spengler himself is responsible for eliminating the clockwork inevitability of his system.  What kind of “Fellah” status can a people really have once they – or at least their intellectual elites – are aware of Spenglerism?  Is a “Fellah” aware of their “Fellahsm” really “Fellah” anymore?  Or is that an oxymoron?  The Spenglerian Cycle can occur in its previously manifested form only when its actors – human actors in various cultures and civilizations and post-civilizations – are not consciously aware of its workings.  Once aware, the illusion of inevitability fades, once aware, and awareness manifested in those with a will to power, the knowledge becomes a tool and the Cycle becomes amenable to manipulation and direction.  Spengler’s work was based on the analysis of High Cultures that were to a very basic extent unaware of their own existence in these terms, unable to look at themselves objectively from “outside.”  That is no longer the case.

And if Spengler’s main thesis is flawed by its own self-realization, what can one say about his side ideas?  Those, particularly dealing with science, are absolute hogwash.  In that sense, Spengler is over-rated, never mind his poor writing, including his horrifically turgid style.  Yockey may have been offended by this “blasphemy” against his idol – “The Philosopher of History” – but it is nevertheless warranted.

Do I recommend The Decline of the West to the reader?  No.  As per the Pareto Principle, just read Imperium, which will take 20% of your effort and give you 80% of Spenglerism.

Notes:

*A particularly retarded footnote: “And it may be asserted that the downright faith that Haeckel, for example, pins to the names atom, matter energy, is not essentially different from the fetishism of Neanderthal Man.”

Yeah, that’s great Oswald, you pompous semi-Jewish purveyor of ponderous Teutonic rumblings.  Too bad this idiot wasn’t around in the 1950s; they could have tied him to the Castle Bravo thermonuclear device and he could have experienced the “downright faith” that what he was about to experience was just the subjective interpretation of the Faustian High Culture.  Oswald would have been deconstructed indeed!

And for those who wish to take the Yockeyian line that technics is separate from scientific theory - that is nonsense.  The technics of nuclear power or GPS systems require an understanding of the underlying physics; the technics of CRISPR requires an understanding of the biological principles involved.  Can you train someone to use those technics, at a low level, without understanding the science?  Of course you can, but what’s the point?  Someone can read a history book without knowing Spengler, someone can fix a car engine without knowing about internal combustion.  But you cannot construct, refine, improve, or replace with something superior a technic without knowing the principles behind it. Read up on the difficulties nations had in figuring out how to get thermonuclear weapons to work (and, no, it’s not that you stick a tank of hydrogen behind an atom bomb) and you’ll understand how integral theory is for getting the technics to work and keep working.  It doesn’t take an understanding of nuclear physics to drop the bomb; however, it does require such an understanding to invent the bomb to begin with.

Further:

I can’t help notice that the buffoon Chad Crowley cites Spengler to support some of his viewpoints, even though Spengler’s fundamental thesis was that ALL High Cultures have an innate tendency to travel along the same socio-economic-politico-religious trajectory; the case of Rome is not unique, and “racial degeneration” by no means needs to be invoked to explain any of the broader changes that, according to Spengler, were destined to occur there as in any other culture he studied.





Thursday, July 14, 2016

After Twenty Years

A retrospective look at 20+ years of struggle against lies, stupidity, and cowardice.*

What are some of the insights I have accumulated in the more than 20 years of activity (analog** and digital) in “this thing of ours” – aka Der Movement?  Rather than write a cohesive narrative, which would be essentially repeating things I have already written, I will instead make comments in a more aphoristic form. Thus:

There is no such thing as any sort of organized pan-European racial nationalism in America and there never has been.  Any organized groups or “movement” leaders claiming that pan-Europeanism is part of the American “movement” are liars.

The relative lack of interest in Frank Salter’s work has been disgraceful.  Of those who are interested, too many invoke “EGI" in a purely instrumental fashion, as it were some sort of talisman, without understanding what they are talking about.  The smaller fraction that do understand (more or less) concentrate predominantly on the first part of On Genetic Interests (explanation and initial defense of the EGI concept), have a breezy conceptual grasp of the second part ([bio]political implications), and completely disregard the third part (ethics).

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works in Der Movement, particularly in its HBD faction, and as well in those who cherry pick population genetics studies or who misinterpret ancestry testing data.  Science is always a “work in progress,” hypotheses are always being presented, tested (if possible), refuted, or tentatively accepted until such time as new data suggest otherwise. That’s how in theory it should be approached. “True believers” of rigid, fossilized dogma do not represent science; that’s HBD pseudoscientific quackery.  Further, no one study is “the last word” on anything, and the tendency of Der Movement to get all breathless over some population genetics study (as long as said study supports – or the Nutzis think it supports - “movement” dogma) is pathetic.  A few months go by and another study comes out with different data and different interpretations – that’s science.  True enough, it is counter-productive to question everything – after all, we can accept that the Earth is round and not flat, and that it revolves around the Sun.  But not everything – particularly when it involves biology, genetics, etc. – is as clear cut as that.  That said, genetic differences between human populations – the broad idea that these differences exist and are important – sort of ranks up with those phenomena that we can say are “true” to the extent that the overwhelming evidence supports it.  Most “movement” dogma though is far from that level of certainty.

Population genetics must be the most politicized science in existence.  I say that not so much about Der Movement’s obsessions – which while stupid have little influence on the field – but on mainstream population geneticists themselves, many of whom are mendacious “anti-racists” and/or who have nakedly transparent ethnic motivations (e.g., all the controversies about Jewish origins, for the most part derived from the work of Jewish, particularly Israeli, academics).

Did I overestimate the utility of DNAPrint Genomics?  Certainly, but remember at the time it was the only autosomal game in town (for personal analysis), and the state of the art in the literature at the time was not much better.  And, for all its faults, that company actually provided statistical information – confidence intervals, etc.  Companies today lack these excuses – extant personal ancestry analysis lags far behind the state of the art, it typically does not provide statistical data, and does not clearly define how findings are influenced by initial parameters (e.g., parental populations).  Der Movement’s (justifiable) skepticism over DNAPrint has not been duplicated with respect to current companies (for which skepticism is equally justified). 

Digital activism is all well and good, and the Internet is a net plus.  However, one must consider the negatives, the substitution of blogs and comments threads for the real-world “analog” activities that will be necessary to solve our racial problems.  The Internet is merely a tool (one which we should not get too dependent on, given possibilities of online censorship), means not ends, and we must not forget that the ultimate objective is to translate our racial ideas to actual nuts-and-bolts “facts on the ground.”  All else is folly.

Some of the best people I have ever met have been through the “movement,” and, also, some of the worst. It is perhaps common to dissident movements that extreme personalities are attracted, and these constitute both the best and worst of the human condition.

It is ironic that a “movement” based upon the foundation of racial identity has been so consistently unable to clearly define itself, what its “in-group” really is.  Lies?  Stupidity?  Cowardice?  All three?  The very definition of a group is the boundary of “in” and “out” and this the “movement” cannot bring itself to declare with any finality.  Granted, the “movement” is not monolithic and there are many factions with different opinions on this matter.  But even within each individual faction, one often finds confusion and/or mendacity on this point. Who is it that is the focal point of the activism?  What ethny or ethnies?  “In” or “out?”  Single individuals will waver on this, to the point of absurdity.  Also, one often reads: “we will continue to discuss this.”  Er…no, that should be, absolutely, the very first thing decided.  Again, the very definition of the group is based upon who is in and who is out.  If you cannot even determine that from the outset, you don’t have the slightest right to be organizing any sort of “movement” activity whatsoever. Ludicrously, these folks believe that you can decide who is in and who is out after the group has already been formed and after people have already been committed to it and working for it.  “Sorry, I know you’ve been working your rear end off for us for years, and have contributed time, effort, and money, but we’ve just now decided, after much discussion, that you don’t make the cut.  We’ll keep your donations of course.”  Stupidity, lies, and cowardice.

SS motto: Our honor is loyalty.  Der Movement motto: Our dishonor is disloyalty.

Der Movement: We are truth tellers!  But, alas, if a favored group is in question – and in some cases that favorite group is Jews (for the conservative HBD faction) – then, suddenly, “truth telling” takes a back seat to political expediency.  Of course, the Jews never return the favor.  Stupidity, lies, and cowardice.

I have been talking about “the ‘movement’s’ affirmative action policy.”  Sorry to say, it is all too real.  The policy extends to those who are considered leaders, who are listened to, what ideas are considered, and, at the population level, what (European-derived) ethnies are valued and which are despised.  It allows certain individuals and certain ethnies to have a “Teflon coating” of immunity, nothing bad sticks to them.  Affirmative action is of course a zero sum game, so that for every instance of unfair advantage, there is the associated instance of unfair advantage.  “Well, life is unfair,” some would say.  Indeed it is.  However, that brings us to the more fundamental practical problem with affirmative action: it breeds inefficiency, cynicism, and failure, as those unfit for positions are elevated to those positions, and their manifest failures are excused, to be repeated over and over again.  Thus, the treadmill of endless disappointments for Der Movement.

Der Movement likes to state that it is about preservation, and does not deal with issues of superiority vs. inferiority.  However, for most “activists” that is an outright lie – the feeling of inherent superiority is the bread and butter of ossified “movement” dogmas.  Unfortunately, Der Movement fails to understand that superiority is not anyone’s birthright; superiority has to be earned.

Conversely, respect has to be earned.  The “White ethnics” have themselves to blame, to a large extent, for the fact that they are held in contempt.  It is a mathematical certainty: if you behave in a contemptible manner, you will be treated with contempt.  If a Schettino is the archetype of your national character, what else can you expect?  If you are always the anvil and never the hammer, expect to be flattened down into the dust.

People in Der Movement like to accuse other “activists” of “larping.”  But, isn’t the entire “movement” a circus of laughably tragicomic larping?

What is this?  Is this serious?  People fighting over the carcass of the National Alliance (using the court system, even though they all allegedly want to “overthrow the system”).  The National Alliance died with Pierce, and he had already ruined it beyond repair before then.  Older people are disgusted by the zombie-like attempts at reanimating the corpse; the younger “alt-right” snarky types could care less either way - it’s before their time, it has nothing to do with them, and they share the negative attitude of their generation for all that came before them.  Why attempt to raise the dead?  Why not start something new?  Are they incapable of it?  Probably so. Therefore, the ghost of Pierce hovers around endlessly. The ghost of Hadley as well.  One could almost hear the “meow.”

Der Movement is and has been a dismal failure and will continue as such until it is completely deconstructed and rebuilt from scratch. If Der Movement was a business enterprise, it would have gone bankrupt and its CEO and board of directors deposed and replaced. “Eschewing defectives” will be a major problem for Der Movement since a majority of its membership consist of such people - including “leadership.” A fundamental problem for Der Movement – the same for many “real-life” institutions and entities – is that the wrong people are in charge. The characteristics that allow for ascent into leadership leave the “leader” ill-prepared to do perform their functions and responsibilities effectively. Further, there is relatively little original thinking in Der Movement. It is all just knee-jerk fossilized dogmas regurgitated over and over again, at best slightly repackaged but essentially of the same content.

To summarize Der Movement: the emperor has no clothes, so to speak.  Apparently, I’m one of the few people willing to see that and say it.  Everyone else is engaging in deception or self-deception. The “movement” is morally bankrupt, intellectually bankrupt as well.

I must say, sometimes I think to myself: “I can’t believe I’ve wasted more than two decades of my life with this nonsense.”

Notes:

*Apologies to Saint Adolf.

**As for my experiences in real-world “analog” activism, I can quote the movie Blade Runner and tell the younger, alt-Right activists of today: “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe.”  Unfortunately, those things cannot be discussed here.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Book Review: Beyond Evil and Tyranny

Stolfi book.

I have read Stolfi’s Hitler book (Stolfi, R. H. S. Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny. Prometheus Books), and will briefly review it, although from a different view than a previous analysis.

By the standards of mainstream history, Stolfi’s work would be considered unacceptably and slavishly pro-Hitler (and pro-German and anti-French). By the standards of historical objectivity, Stolfi is actually only mildly pro-Hitler, and I believe his interpretation of Saint Adolf is closer to reality than the Judeophilic screeds of the mainstreamers.

The book has many flaws. The writing style is absolutely terrible, and it is comically repetitious – who edited this? The whole thing cries out to be “blue-penciled;” likely, at least one third of the book (one half?) can be eliminated without subtracting any real content. Stolfi apparently never heard of the jet stream and so labored under the misunderstanding that the climate of Europe is the same as areas of North America of the same geographic latitude. And what to make of the comment that Hitler living in Vienna in the first decade of the 20th century did not have “even a microwave?” Well, true enough, but…here it is 2016 and I don’t have a Jetsons-style flying rocket car. On the other hand, no one else does, so I’m not sure it counts as a hardship.

What also to make of this:

Hitler had founded the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP or German Workers’ Party) in 1919, founded the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP or National Socialist German Workers’ Party) in 1920…

No, the party was founded by Anton Drexler. I mean, this basic history here. But, perhaps, errors like this are not surprising in a book that reads like it was written by a barely literate middle-school student.

In addition to the Counter-Currents review linked above, the flavor of Stolfi’s book can be discerned by the following quote from that work:

His relentless consistency in the attack on Marxists and November Criminals is in accord with the unalterable messages of the great Christian messiah or Islamic Prophet. The attribution of evil in Hitler's consistency because of excessive hatred of an enemy must be handled with care also. If Hitler is interpreted as messiah, or at least a man characterized most fundamentally as having the qualities of a messiah, then it was his mission to save the Germans from some enemy— presumably a considerable one. Given the dimensions of the enemy suggested by the size of Germany and its misfortune, it is difficult to imagine Hitler either as messiah or otherwise and not hating the enemy Did Jesus the Christ or Mohammed the Prophet hate Satan or merely disapprove of him? We do not have to answer this question to get further into Hitler, but we do have to point out that Hitler could be considered to be a messianic figure notwithstanding the presence of either hate or outrage in his presentation of the Marxist enemy.

Essentially, Stolfi’s interpretation is Hitler as the German Messiah, promoting a vision of the German Destiny. Something analogous to Der Movement’s breathless Hitler fetish, but nevertheless superior to the banal “Hitler was evil; he picked on the poor, defenseless Jews” tripe spewed forth by so-called “mainstream historians.”

An amusing detail is this about Hitler’s opinion about so-called “modern art” – 

Hitler would note with his characteristic knack for biting sarcasm that rather than a detraction, “it was only an attraction that these works of art were difficult to understand and on that account very costly: no one wished to admit lack of comprehension or insufficient means.”

This is analogous to the “snob effect” I wrote about previously.

And then we have this:

Hitler's words indicate that he was in deadly earnest about immortal cultural achievements as the basis of a people's right to existence.

Well, certainly, culture is the highest proximate interest, but I would take the Salterian view that a “people’s right to existence” is, at least from their perspective, innate and independent on how someone would rank their abilities and achievements (said rankling being the HBD view – although the HBDers are fundamentally dishonest so as to achieve their pro-Jewish and pro-Asian political objectives). If we accept the concept of “universal nationalism” then we should accept the innate right to existence for every ethny (at least in theory – if another ethny is truly threatening your own – an existential crisis of EGI – then your rights, from your subjective standpoint, must be put ahead of theirs).

A point by Stolfi:

He would reiterate that any end for Germany short of the finality of an unassailably defensible state was not worth the effort.

Indeed. Similarly, any end for Whites short of the finality of an unassailably defensive racial position is not worth the effort, which is one reason why stupidities like “citizenism” need to be absolutely eschewed.

Also of interest:

From 1929 onward, Nuremberg became the site of the vast Party Day rallies and could be considered one of the four “Nazi cities.” Various masses of people would assemble as spectators and participants in presentations, demonstrations, speeches, and the like, during both day and night. Hitler intended that the brilliantly staged assemblies would pull Germans together into a sense of belonging to a single body mystically bound by a sense of common destiny.

In relation to those rallies, my essay on “totalitarian democracy” is relevant.

Stolfi’s views on Hitler’s anti-Semitism – at one point Stolfi refers to Hitler as a “thoughtful anti-Semite” - are such that I presume some would accuse Stolfi himself of that “crime:”

We are left to wonder how history's arch enemy of “the Jews” interacted so easily with individual Jews under such circumstances. The conventional wisdom has assigned to Hitler a visceral— deep, organic, emotional— hatred of them. But his interactions with individuals suggests an entirely different kind of anti-Semitism based less on emotion and more on hard, emotionless logic. He would remark in a more general context that he would be known as the hardest man in history, not the most hate-filled.

Thus, Stolfi suggests that Hitler’s “hatred” of the Jews was based on a logical analysis and not “irrational bias.” I agree with Stolfi here and it is remarkable – and to his credit – that he was able to write on this subject so objectively. Did Stolfi ever read MacDonald’s trilogy on the Jews, I wonder? I would not be surprised if he did.

On Operation Barbarossa:

This generalization demands the following reevaluation of Hitler: His decision to advance against Soviet Russia was correct and necessary Hitler could have made Germany impregnable only through seizure of the strategic resources and space of European Russia. His decision was so bold and fraught with consequence for history that it pressed him into the category of world-historical personality. His decision did not doom him to lose, rather it gave him clear and present opportunity to win. Within the ongoing campaign, Army Group Center had the striking power and physical location on August 14 to seize Moscow. There has always been a time and a place in history for everything. The time for Hitler and the Germans to have won World War II was in August, and the place was closely west of the enduring city of the vanished Dukes of Muscovy As concerns Hitler, he made the decision unwittingly to lose the war in surrounding diversions and eccentricities— Halder's aptly described zigzags. As concerns Hitler as world-historical personality, he alone created Barbarossa, and he alone, in the face of resistance and legion objection, destroyed it. His utter loneliness in decision making from Munich 1938 onward, and the world-altering consequences of that loneliness in the inception of Barbarossa, place him in a category distant from the tyrant of the great biographers. Barbarossa had possibilities and consequences so great that it demands a fundamental reevaluation of the course of World War II. The German army attacked Russia to win. The army had the capabilities to win. The army placed itself in geographic position to win. These are historical facts. But the German army failed to win reality of December. Historians have seen World War II as an exercise in early German victories followed by Hitler's alleged mistake of the attack on Soviet Russia and a gradual downhill slide into defeat. No historian has made the interpretive point that Hitler's mistake was not in attacking Russia but in failing to defeat it immediately— in six to ten weeks.

Stolfi thus disagrees with Irving’s interpretation (an oversimplification on my point but nevertheless broadly true) of Hitler a s a great, strategically sound warlord. Stolfi – contra mainstream historians and even Irving – sees Hitler in a sense as following as much a defensive as an offensive war strategy:

…he would cement the interpretation of himself as siege Fuehrer wedded to the proposition that German wars were fought to secure strategic resources.

And we see this:

Hitler's historical stature lies significantly in his putting Germany in position in August to win World War II. Hitler's interpretation as world-historical personality lies in his decision to lose World War II. The decision was single, lonely, and influenced by no other man. The Allies did not win the war; Hitler lost it.

The best books on Hitler I have read were Irving’s Hitler’s War and Flood’s Hitler: Path to Power. Irving is mildly pro-Hitler (and also sufficiently dismissive of the Italians to meet “movement” tastes), while Flood is mildly anti-Hitler. Flood also concentrates solely on Hitler’s early days, up to his release from prison, while Irving’s work mostly concentrates on the war and the events leading up to it, so the two books are effectively complementary. I have read Fest in the past, and note all the things Stolfi complained about; I likely read Toland as well, but do not remember that one so well. But even Irving makes clear that Hitler did in fact (hence the title of his book) bear much primary responsibility for the war; Stolfi can pontificate all he wants about “the man of German destiny” but there were other options open to Hitler than this war that helped complete the destruction of the White World. Salter’s comments in On Genetic Interests about Hitler’s failed quixotic crusade, and the negative effects it had – including on German EGI – are pertinent here as well. Having said that, and with all my criticisms, Stolfi should be credited for attempting to examine the subject from a more objective standpoint than most mainstream historians; Stolfi’s mild positive approach to Hitler is more reasonable than the negative hysteria observed in mainstream biographies of Saint Adolf.

Sunday, December 27, 2015

Behold The Man

An evaluation of an evaluation: Sallis on Young on Nietzsche.

I’d like to comment on aspects of Julian Young’s philosophical biography of Friedrich Nietzsche.  Consistent with “fair use” scholarly criticism, a minuscule fraction of the work will be quoted here and analyzed.  This will not be a traditional book review, in which the entire work is scrutinized and put into the balance – suffice to say I think the book is mostly excellent and is recommended to those interested in such topics.  However, I will note that Young’s liberalism on many topics shines through clearly, which I found extremely distasteful (e.g., Young’s pro-feminism is pitiful and his attempts to legitimize Lou Salome’s sociopathic exploitation of beta orbiters are pathetic), although Young draws the line at attempts to have his “Fritz” portrayed as a closet homosexual.  I won’t get into the Cate plagiarism controversy.  I will say Young is much more honest about Nietzsche than was the Jew Walter Kaufmann (should we be surprised?) – indeed, after reading Young, I realized how badly I had been hoodwinked by Kaufmann’s mendacity (again – I’m shocked, shocked).

Instead, the point here is to focus on specific items of Nietzsche’s philosophy (and Young’s interpretation thereof) and put in into a perspective to those who may share my own sociopolitical inclinations. In the spirit of Nietzsche’s aphorisms, these will be very short analyses of specific snippets of text. Note that in some cases these are excerpts linked together and not direct quotes of intact paragraphs, where one sees sentences linked by “…” one should assume that considerable text has been deleted. These deletions have been carefully done so as to not change the meaning or context of the quoted material.  As always, I strongly urge the reader to obtain the original work and read it in its entirety themselves.  Footnote numbers have also been deleted from the quotes to avoid confusion.

All of the quotes should be ascribed to: Young, Julian (2011-07-27). Friedrich Nietzsche. Cambridge University Press. 

What is wrong with the mythless ‘motleyness’ of modernity?...The first symptom is loss of unity. Since the unity of a community, of a ‘people’, can only exist when individuals are gathered into the ‘maternal womb’ of a unified myth, there is, in modernity, no community, no homeland. Instead, all we have is a ‘wilderness of thought, morals, and action’, a ‘homeless wandering about’…the society driven by the frenzied quest for ‘experiences’, cheap thrills; for sex, drugs, rock and roll and ‘extreme’ sports….Without the (healthy) stress provided by an identity-defining ideal, one can only try to preserve oneself from boredom through the ever-diminishing returns of ever more exotic thrills.

That seems to me to be an accurate  description of, and criticism of, today’s rootless, deracinated, globalist multiculturalism, which replaces the organic solidarity of a folk community with the “cheap thrills” that came to the fore in the 1960s and has become amplified in today’s degeneracy.  By the way, “game” and the pursuit of sexual hedonism is part of this degeneracy, as is Randian “individualism,” “libertarianism” and any other of the “isms” that have come to define 2st century modernity.

In explaining why this is our overriding task, Nietzsche appeals, not, this time, to high-flown metaphysics, but rather to biology…So, concludes Nietzsche, mankind ought to seek out and create the ‘favourable conditions’ under which those great men can come into existence…Nietzsche here is appealing to a version of (social) Darwinism…And what he is appealing to, in particular, is the value of, in Darwinian language, the ‘random mutation’. According to evolution theory, he is observing, a species evolves into a ‘higher’ species when it produces a mutation which is better adapted to the current state of the environment. Because the mutations breed successfully whereas the remainder tend to die out before doing so, gradually the species evolves into a new species better adapted to thriving in the current environment. Because human beings and human societies belong, just like plants and animals, to the realm of biology, Nietzsche concludes, we ought to apply this same principle to society and so do everything possible to promote the appearance of ‘chance existences’, random mutations.

This interpretation by Nietzsche of course veers into the “naturalistic fallacy” but that “error” can be obviated by invoking values. There is nothing inherently wrong with choosing values that support a “social Darwinism” foundation for society. By so doing, Nietzsche also supports, at least indirectly, the viability of group selection (at least that promoted by human choice), and the competition between human cultures that forms the basis of such selection. I (and certain other sociobiological-oriented people( would argue that such has actually occurred in human history and is occurring today.  Also, anyone whose initial understanding of Nietzsche was malformed by exposure to Kaufmann’s Asiatic mendacity will find passages such as this quite refreshing.

On the Darwinian line of argument the great individual is again valuable only as a means, this time a means to the evolution of society as a whole to a ‘higher’ condition….

Once again, this is consistent with group evolution arguments. And, once again, all of Kaufmann’s Levantine flim-flam asserting that Darwinian interpretations of Nietzsche are a totally wrong misinterpretation are shown to be, at best, wrong, and at worst, intentionally mendacious.

Are we all consigned to slavery to create his ‘freedom from the necessity of earning a living’? Should all non-geniuses become coal-miners or sock-darners? Not so. Even ‘second and third rate talents’ can contribute to the task by preparing both ‘within’ and ‘without’ for the appearance of genius. Presumably the idea here is that the higher the general level of culture the more favourable are the conditions for the appearance of genius.

And today’s degenerate culture mitigates against the emergence of genius. Is that part of the plan?

…since a large gap between rich and poor causes envy and social unrest, the concentration of enormous wealth in private hands will be avoided. Businesses, in particular banks, that generate such wealth will be state-owned. This passage makes two things clear: that, at least in Wanderer, Nietzsche's ‘anti-socialism’ is in fact anti-communism, and that the social-democratic ideal of partial nationalisation of the means of production and exchange is something he actually endorsed.
 

That sounds a lot like national socialism and/or fascist corporatism to me. Why not call it as it is?

But everyone can, in a way that fits their expertise and station in life, contribute to the well-being of the community as a whole and in that way secure self-respect and their own kind of feeling of power: their own happiness, in other words.

Thus, to the “individualist” Nietzsche, self-expression and authenticity can be achieved by working to contribute to “the well-being of the community.” 

The positivist worldview offered a theory of the world of incredible power and efficiency in comparison with that which had preceded it. And that, surely, one can imagine Nietzsche saying, is some kind of evidence of truth. Creatures, that is to say, who are radically mistaken about the nature of the world tend to die out before reproducing. Conversely, those whose power over their environment enables them to survive and thrive are probably close to the truth… Nietzsche can never be certain that his metaphysics of will to power is true. What, then, is its intended epistemological status?...The best theory is that which ‘works’, which, in other words, gives us power over ourselves and our environment. Nietzsche's claim for the will to power – his, as he sees it, corrected and completed version of Darwinian science – is that it comprehends reality in a way that is more comprehensive and powerful than any rival theory. He would, I think, also add, as I suggested in discussing Dawn, that the fact that a theory ‘works’ well is evidence – less than completely conclusive evidence, to be sure, but still evidence – that it is true.

This is an important point. While Nietzsche denies that scientists can ever know the way reality really is, because reality is filtered through their human perceptions, nevertheless, for practical purposes, those closer to the truth will be vindicated through their ability to exert power over the environment and to survive. Hence, the power of science, and why science, properly applied, is different from metaphysics, from religion. If an asteroid or comet was hurtling toward the Earth, with the potential to wipe out all human life, religious faith and “praying to Jaysus” is not going to help. Science can detect the threat, and science has the potential to avert the threat. If two peoples are in a war to the death, and People A use thermonuclear weapons, ICBMs, nerve gas, mustard gas, and weaponized anthrax, and People B use "the power of prayer,” hopefully all sane people can predict total victory for People A.  Whether People A perceive “reality as it truly is” doesn’t matter, since they perceive it close enough to true reality to be useful for their ultimate interests.

It is, in other words, the ‘survival of the fittest’ in a competitive and, at least potentially, hostile environment. Nietzsche applies this theory to human society, which makes him a ‘social Darwinist’: he regards human societies as organisms subject to the same laws as organisms in general…a ‘universally binding…faith’ sometimes also ‘morality’ or ‘custom’. It is such a faith that constitutes the community as a community, orders the relations between individuals in such a way as to enable the social organism to function as an efficient survival machine.

Nietzsche: social Darwinism and group selection. Kaufmann: a despicable liar (or, simply, a Jew).

Without the social glue of a communal faith a society loses its capacity for collective action and becomes ripe for destruction, either through internal disintegration or through colonization by a more successful society. The principal means by which the community – or ‘herd’ – preserves conformity to communal faith consist in more or less crude forms of social ostracism. What makes this effective is the individual's basic need for community. ‘Even the strongest person…fears a cold look or a sneer on the face of those among whom he has been brought up. What is he really afraid of? Growing solitary’. Nietzsche calls this ‘the herd instinct’ in the individual. The ‘herd instinct’ has thus two aspects. On the part of the community it is the instinct to exert pressure on the individual to conform. And on the latter's part it is the instinct to give in to that pressure.

Thus, Nietzsche recognizes societal policing of free-riding, which critics of EGI seemingly are unable to understand (or, more accurately: they pretend to not understand).

In a Darwinian world the law is: mutate or die. The agents of such mutation are the non-‘herd’ types, those who resist the pressure to conform to current norms, free themselves from the chains of current morality: the ‘free spirits’. ‘The celebrated European capacity for constant transformation’ depends on such ‘malcontents’. China, on the other hand, Nietzsche claims, is a country in which large-scale discontent became extinct centuries ago, and with it the capacity for change. (Hence, presumably, its history of colonisation and exploitation by European powers, and later Japan.)
 
This is interesting in a couple of ways. First, we can consider that today, the dissident Right are the non-herd free spirits, who bring the new dawn, as opposed to the politically correct globalist herd animals. Second, note the anti-HBD assessment of China as a conformist, herd-like non-creative entity – an accurate description, since today’s “rise of China” is merely a default condition of them filling the niche space left by a dying, degenerate, multicultural “West.”

Thus, whereas the factory owner is mostly seen by his workers as nothing but ‘a cunning bloodsucking dog of a man’, the military leader is often treated with respect. The crucial point is that the leader should have some kind of nobility, should appear to be of a ‘higher race’ than the led. ‘The masses are basically prepared to submit to any kind of slavery provided that the superiors constantly legitimize themselves as higher, as born to command, through refined demeanour’.

Here we see another “fail” for the “movement’s” (affirmative action) “leadership.”  Nobility?  Higher race?  Laughable!

With the abruptness of a deranged, born-again Christian (as well, perhaps, as the relief of speaking after ten years of silence), Zarathustra spews out the sum of his decade of wisdom-gathering. Man, he shouts, is a ‘rope stretched between beast and superman’. The superman is the ‘meaning of the earth’. Beloved are those who take the dangerous path of dedicating themselves to making the world a ‘house for the superman’. Man needs an ‘ideal’. But since the supernatural is a delusion, we must reject all other-worldly ideals. Our ‘greatest hour’ is when we see that we fall as far short of the superman as the ape does of us.

The real meaning of the Earth: human over-coming, not worshiping a dead Jew on a stick.

This, then, is why the motleyness of European modernity threatens its ‘death’: lacking a shared ‘game plan’, it lacks the capacity for effective collective action, in particular, for action directed at its own preservation and expansion.

The diagnosis of multiculturalism and the cult of diversity killing the West.

Nietzsche takes it as self-evident that the death of European humanity would be a bad thing. Those with a more jaundiced, more guilty, view of the European tradition might think otherwise.

That’s great.  Is the latter idea Young’s view?  Why must it be mentioned?  Why must it be accepted as a viable alternative?  If the word “European” was replaced by “Jewish” or “African” would Young dare cite those who “might think otherwise?”  That I very much highly doubt.

Master morality was, then, self-focused. Slave morality, by contrast, was other-focused. It was based on hatred and fear of the slaves’ oppressors. So it was that the hate-filled word ‘evil’ replaced ‘bad’, the expression, merely, of contempt. In the ethical ‘revolt’ of the slaves the good–evil dichotomy came to replace the good–bad dichotomy of the masters. The hard qualities of the masters were given new names – ‘self-confidence’ becomes ‘arrogance’, ‘resoluteness’ becomes ‘ruthlessness’, and so on…The second disastrous consequence of the triumph of Christianity is that it ‘keeps the type “man” on a low…level’… It does this in two ways: by preserving life's ‘failures’ and by disabling its potential ‘successes’. It preserves failures on account of the supposed virtue of compassion. Compassion means that a Christianized culture preserves ‘too much of what should have perished’ Though there is no reason to think of the extermination camps, here, there is no getting away from the harshness of this view. What Nietzsche is talking about, I believe, is the eugenics – ‘breeding.’…Christian morality disables life's potential successes because it ‘throw[s] suspicion on delight in beauty, skew[s] everything self-glorifying, manly, conquering, autocratic, every instinct that belongs to the highest and best-formed type of “human”, twist[ing] them into uncertainty, crisis of conscience, self-destruction at the limit’.

Thus, we see a summary of a principled critique of Christianity – one that should be kept in mind as popes, priests, and other Christian religious figures speak out in favor of immigration, refuges, minority rights, and speak out against racialism, nationalism, and eugenics. Christianity: a creed for losers, for weaklings, for slaves.

…‘socialism’ (a term covering both social democracy and communism), and finally, and particularly vociferously, feminism. All these movements are applications of the doctrine of ‘equal rights’, which makes them ‘heirs’ to Christianity's doctrine of the equality of all souls before God.

Yes, indeed, all the leftist “isms” are derived from Christianity. Crush the infamy!

If Nietzsche treats ‘lower’ types as mere means, if he treats them as things rather than people, then he really is an immoral (and ontologically blind) thinker.

Once again, Young interjects his opinions as facts.

‘If we win’, he writes, ‘we have overcome the absurd boundaries between race, nation, and classes (Stände): there exists from now on only order of rank (Rang) between human beings.' The difference between rank and class is the difference between ability and birth. What Nietzsche seeks, as we shall see in detail in discussing The Antichrist, is a hierarchy not of blood but of natural ability and aptitude.

Obviously, we must vehemently disagree with Nietzsche here. While blood alone is not all, it is the prerequisite. The hierarchy must be confined to one people. Within that people, we have rank and hierarchy; outside the people, there should be nothing but enemies.  After all, didn’t Nietzsche also state elsewhere the importance of the organic solidarity of a culture?  How can that solidarity be maintained with elites consisting of alien peoples?  Consistent with this, Young reminds us:

As we have seen, in order to survive in a competitive, Darwinian environment, a community must have a morality which provides the ‘hardness, uniformity and simplicity’ of, as I put it, a shared ‘game plan.'.

A “shared game plan” requires shared blood, whether Nietzsche (and Young) want to admit it or not.

‘Woman as such’, the ‘eternal feminine’, lacks the capacity for ‘manly’ pursuits. Women have no concern for truth – their great talent is in the (slavish) practice of lying. They have no capacity for ‘enlightenment’ (rational objectivity) and so should be silent on religion and politics – and on the question of ‘woman as such’. Women do not even know how to cook, though they have been at it for millenni…Is this just a mass of prejudices – or, at best, ‘period errors’ – or is there a serious point mixed in with this, as it now seems, unintentionally comic rave?

Once again, Young interjects his liberal, feminist sensibilities here, smugly assuming we all consider Nietzsche’s reasonable views on the female to be “comic.”  No, Young, the idea of gender equality is what is indeed comic.

For ultimate value attaches not to the ‘tree of knowledge’ but rather to ‘the tree of life’.

If true, that is an endorsement of ultimate interests, of EGI, of Salterism. If promoting the interests of life is important, and if life is about genetic continuity (It is, insofar as we can tell), then ultimate value holds there. Would Young accept that argument?  I doubt it. Should he accept it?  Should you accept it?  Yes, most definitely.  After all, what use knowledge if not to promote the interests of life?  Then we see the next step – whose life?  Step by step we come to the racial nationalist EGI agenda.

The West is, then, in a parlous condition. In its ‘motley’ state it lacks the ‘hardness, uniformity and simplicity of form’ of a shared, as I called it, ‘game plan’ possession of which is necessary to survive and thrive in a competitive world. But the situation is not hopeless. For one thing, for all the difficulties it creates, the collapse of Christianity, since it made our culture sick, is fundamentally a cause for celebration. For another, we possess a secret ‘faith’, a vision of what should and must redeem us from the present and the past.

For the West to survive, the rotting corpse of Christianity must be swept away, and we must make way for the Overman High Culture.

…he will not support any anti-Semitic undertaking, he does not trust her any more, he hopes all the anti-Semites will leave Germany and join them, and he hopes that the Jews come to power in Europe.

This view of Nietzsche was unfortunate but nevertheless we must be honest: he was not a budding anti-Semitic Nutzi. Quite the opposite.  But that was the Nietzsche of the 1880s, a time of European world dominance. Would the Nietzsche of the 2010s be a radical racial nationalist national socialist?  Quite possibly.

What does ‘questioning’ the will to truth, turning it into an issue, mean for Nietzsche? It means elevating life, healthy life, into a higher value than truth. If self-deception, illusion, is what best promotes your psychic health that is what you should go for.

Ultimate interests over all?

However:

At the end of the story, therefore, the unconditional will to truth becomes the criterion of psychic health.

Salterians would argue that ultimate interests and EGI have the added advantage of being true (to the extent that we humans can perceive truth).

What the passage does, it seems to me, is to endorse modernity's unlimited will to power over both nature and human nature. It is one of those things which used to be considered ‘bad’ – ‘playing God’ – but is really good. And here, it seems, Nietzsche offers us a new ‘one goal’ to override all other goals, an ultimate goal to replace the ‘one goal’ of Christianity: making ourselves masters of the universe. A glance into the notebooks of the period makes this clear. So we read, for example, that ‘what is necessary’ in place of the old morality is a ‘reversal of values’ which will produce ‘a morality that has the intention of breeding a ruling caste – the future masters of the earth’. In The Gay Science Napoleon is admired for wanting to make Europe ‘mistress of the earth’, an admiration which incorporates the desire for the domination of the globe by European culture that goes back to Human, All-Too-Human.
 
That sounds a lot like Sallis’ Overman High Culture and Yockey’s Western Imperium to me. Of course, the despicable Young has to throw cold water over all of it:

Perhaps the best that can be said for him is that if he were alive now he would certainly classify the unlimited will to power as one of those things that used to be considered ‘good’ but is now ‘bad’.
 
Here, Young predictably gets it backwards by imposing his own liberal morality on Nietzsche.  I say the opposite: if alive today, Nietzsche would be disgusted at the weakness and worthlessness of European Man, he would be shocked that Europeans are letting themselves be colonized and dispossessed by inferior cultures, he would redouble his emphasis on ‘will to power,” but now give it more of an explicitly racial-cultural “blood and soil” basis.

Re:Twilight of the Idols:

What Is the Nature of Reality? The fourth of the work's eleven parts, which runs to half a page, is titled ‘How the True World Became a Fable’. There are six stages. First the ‘true’ (the term is of course ironic), supernatural world of ‘being’, the opposite of this natural world of pain and ‘becoming’, was immediately accessible to the sage's – Plato's – mental gaze. Then it became something to one had to wait for; Christianity postponed the true world, transmuted it into the future home of the virtuous. With Kant it receded further, since it could no longer be known to exist. Yet as a consoling hope and as something we had to believe in for morality to make sense, it lingered on in a twilight state. But then came the ‘cockcrow of positivism’, the thought that something unknown could hardly be consoling. ‘Gray morning’, Nietzsche's stage direction, as it were, reads at this point, ‘first yawn of reason, cockcrow of positivism’. This lead to the coup de grâce. Positivism, when it finally arrives, abolishes the true world (denies it, one might say, ‘rights of citizenship in science’). Nietzsche applauds from the sidelines: ‘Bright day; breakfast; return of good sense; Plato blushes in shame; pandemonium of all free spirits’. And now the conclusion arises that since there is no ‘true’ world, it makes no sense to call ‘this’ one a merely ‘apparent’ world. There is only one world and ‘this’ is it. As Ecce Homo puts the conclusion: the ‘true world’ is a ‘made up world’, so that what used to be called ‘the world of appearances’ is, in truth, ‘reality’.

An excellent summary of the nature of reality. 

And Nietzsche's idea, here, looks to be something like what we would now call genetic determination: the idea that an individual ‘is’ the sum of the genes inherited from both parents, which they have inherited from their parents, and so on. Notice that this idea explains Nietzsche's continued belief in the importance of eugenics.

But Nietzsche by no means rejects the notion of freedom as such. ‘My idea of freedom’, he writes, is that it is a matter of ‘being responsible for oneself’, maintaining one's ‘distance’, ‘becoming indifferent to hardship’, ‘being prepared to sacrifice people to your cause, yourself included’. To be free means that ‘the instincts which take pleasure in war and victory have gained control over the other instincts’, the instinct to ‘happiness’, for instance, happiness, at least, as conceived by ‘grocers, Christians, cows, females, Englishmen, and other democrats’. Freedom is not a birthright. Rather one ‘becomes free’ by being a ‘warrior’ on the internal battlefield of the soul. The degree of freedom one possesses is measured by the degree of ‘resistance one has overcome, the amount of effort it costs to stay on top.'

Indeed, as I have often said: superiority is not anyone’s birthright; it needs to be earned. Likewise, freedom. Thus, this view differs from mainstream “movement” “thought” in which all positive human traits are embodied by certain ethnies – Bill Clinton and Angela Merkel as superhuman demigods.  Such a laughable image is directly derived from “movement” values.

As I emphasised earlier, a great deal of Nietzsche's philosophy has been a preparation for this validation of Dionysian feeling, for validation of the idea that one's ‘true’ life is universal, that individual life is ‘untrue’: the persistent theme of the individual as the summation of the causal history of the universe to date, the individual as nothing substantial but rather a temporary conglomeration of forces that will soon reconfigure itself, a momentary ‘wave in the necessary wave-play of becoming’.
 
But is this universalism the same as that preached by the Left?  It cannot be so:

One values one's enemies, Nietzsche continues, because one only discovers one's identity when faced with opposition. This is as true of individuals as of political parties.

Having enemies is a bit inconsistent with the sort of universalism promoted by the Left.  If opposition is so important to Identity, then Nietzsche’s universalism is not that of globalist multiculturalism, but instead more akin to William Pierce’s cosmotheism.

So what, then, does Nietzsche have to say about such ‘healthy monsters’? Do they not represent a counter-example to his claim that no healthy person knowingly does evil, that a well-formed person, a ‘happy’ one, never knowingly performs harmful actions? I think not. For Borgia, Napoleon, the Vikings, though healthy and happy, are not, in Nietzsche's sense, ‘well-formed’.

That is an effective answer to retarded Christian criticism that Nietzsche would support serial killers, that Ted Bundy was a Nietzschean superman. What should one do with such stupidity?

It is no mere coincidence that, with the arrival of German power, German spirit, German culture, has disappeared. For, as we know, there is an ‘either–or’ choice to be made. If – either as an individual or a nation – one expends all one's energy on ‘economics, world commerce…power, and power politics’, one will have none left for culture.

This seems to be a Spenglerian argument and one that I do not necessarily agree with.

Notice the rationale, here, for authoritarian conservatism – as his reviewers thought, a kind of ‘Junker philosophy,' for all Nietzsche's loathing of Bismarck. Without it, the capacity for resolute collective action disappears, so that the community degenerates and eventually disappears.

Hello, multiculturalism!

Whatever morality the new society possesses, it will have differential rights and duties for different kinds of people. Though hierarchical, it will be the opposite of homogeneous.

This puts the mature Nietzsche firmly on the political Right.  Although the part on "the opposite of homogeneous" shouldn't imply racial diversity.

Looked at psychologically the Jews are the people with the toughest life force; when transplanted into impossible conditions they took sides with all the instincts of décadence…out of the most profoundly shrewd sense of self-preservation – not because they were dominated by these instincts, but because they sensed that these instincts had a power that could be used to prevail against ‘the world’.
 
Interesting how the anti-anti-Semite Nietzsche, through his pursuit of (subjective?) truth, found his way to the same criticisms of Jews thoughtful and honest people make today.

The real Jesus was no metaphysician, had no supernatural beliefs whatsoever. For him, ‘the kingdom of heaven’ is a ‘state of the heart’. It lies neither ‘above the earth’ nor ‘after death’ but is achieved here and now in the practice of universal love. Jesus taught by parable and by example. His death was not an expiation of human sins but rather the ultimate demonstration of his doctrine of nonresistance. He was, in short, a kind of Buddhist, Buddhism being also a non-metaphysical life-practice engendered by hypersensitivity to pain. Jesus represented a ‘Buddhistic peace movement.' This true, original Christianity represents a ‘life that is still possible today, for certain people it is even a necessity’. Possible and in the 1960s, surely, actual.
 
The deepest essence of Christianity: a 1960s-style, hippie-like renunciation of force, of will, of power – the sissification of humanity.  Guess which race has swallowed that poison?

Young summarizes Nietzsche’s criticism of Christianity as outlined in The Antichrist; there is no need to rehash all of that once again.  However, this is interesting:

Sixth, modern Christian theologians lie through their teeth. They know ‘there is no “God” anymore’, that the ‘God-hypothesis’ is incompatible with all the other furniture of the modern, educated mind. Everyone knows that there is no ‘last judgment’, no ‘sin’, and no ‘redeemer’, yet everything goes on as before. It is notable that the ‘Law against Christianity’ that concludes The Antichrist reserves the harshest punishments for liberal Christians, on the grounds that ‘the criminality of being Christian increases with one's proximity to science’.

I believe that the higher one goes up any religious hierarchy (at least in the West), the less degree of true belief in the metaphysics there is.  Thus, the pious Christian washerwoman truly believes Jesus was the Son of God, believes it all in every last detail, while the Popes and Bishops and Cardinals know better – it is all a “happy fiction” to impose Christian morality on the masses.

‘The Antichrist’ delivers his judgment that Christianity is the worst disaster ever to have befallen the human race. In promulgating his concluding ‘Laws against Christianity’ he condemns it to having all its priests either expelled or imprisoned, along with all preachers of chastity. All its churches are to be razed to the ground with farms for poisonous snakes erected on their sites (‘holocaust’ memorials, as it were).
 
Excellent, excellent: exactly what we need.  Root out the Christian disaster, destroy it, and salt the earth under it so the poisonous brew of self-destruction can never rise again.

…the superman ‘is a superman specifically when compared to the good ’ – he stands ‘super’, above, their morality. Nietzsche adds, recalling the Genealogy's point that most free spirits will be ‘martyred’ by the forces of social conservatism, that ‘the good and just would call [Zarathustra's]…superman a devil.’

The racial nationalist as a “White devil evil supremacist” – would Young agree with that?  Young of course is very choosy as to which of Nietzsche’s pronouncements in his (insane) last letters were sane or not; thus:

Entirely sane, too, is the idea that war can only finally be overcome through the abolition of national and dynastic egoisms, an abolition that requires European unification and, in the end, world government. These ideas, Nietzsche's cosmopolitanism and his understanding that only the abandonment of armed nationalism can produce genuine peace, are paragons of sanity…

Young agrees with those sentiments, so they are – of course! – “paragons of sanity.”  Is this fellow Young really a serious academic?

…it follows that morals are just, as it were, an instruction manual for the ‘preservation and growth’ of either of an individual or a community.
 
Salterian morals as the basis for the (re)growth of the European community.

In a nutshell, the lesson Jünger took from Nietzsche was: If you cannot mould the world to fit your morality you must mould your morality to fit the world.

The Left tries to alter reality to conform to ideology; the Right tries to conform ideology to conform to reality.  Of course, Young waves away The Will to Power as just a misuse of Nietzsche’s notes by his sister.  Maybe it was, but there nonetheless are underlying themes there consistent with his overall mature philosophy – which Young actually is later forced to admit.  Nietzsche was not a Nazi, but a very embryonic form of Nazi?  Perhaps. Certainly a Nietzsche around today, observing the nightmarish hell of multiculturalism, would likely have shifted much farther to the right. Of course, liberals would have asserted that the world wars and the “holocaust” would have shifted “Fritz” to the left, but why discuss the past rather than today’s present? 

In Young’s favor, he does critique Nietzsche favoring a “will to power” over a “will to life,” and he also critiques Nietzsche’s later misunderstanding of Darwinism (Yockey made similar mistakes):

Darwin's theory is not a theory of cultural evolution, and in any case he claims not that species become more ‘perfect’ but only that they become more adaptive.

Another example of Young the political/social activist being unable to separate his leftist morality from an academic work is the following:

Nietzsche's heart, then, is in the right place. Violence, brutality, and barbarism ought to be expelled from human life.

Question for Young: is the ongoing biological and cultural genocide and destruction of Europeans a manifestation of “violence, brutality, and barbarism?”  If you say no, what justification can you have?

And here is an amusing aside:

Almost from the beginning, the Försters’ Paraguayan venture found itself in deep trouble. Based on Aryan ideology rather than skill and planning, it soon found itself short of water and, with no roads or railways, unable to transport the timber that was to have been its economic foundation to any market.
 
Der Movement in a nutshell!  Affirmative action in action!

And here we see Young the plagiarist further discredit himself as a serious academic:

(In the 1930s she welcomed many of the Nazi bigwigs, including Hitler himself, to the house (see Plate 32) – their stench somehow remains to this day. There is no trace of Nietzsche.)

Can such things be possible?  Is this what Western “scholarship” has fallen to?  And then:

Though Nietzsche's philosophy was likely produced by a manic-depressive (as, probably, were the works of Plato, Newton, Mozart, Hölderlin, Coleridge, Schumann, Byron, Van Gogh, Geog Cantor, Winston Churchill, Silvia Plath, John Lennon, Leonard Cohen and many other great human beings), there is nothing ‘pathological’ about it – apart from the views on women.

Note the last phrase.  Young, you are absolutely despicable. Have you no shame?  I guess Cate would say: no.

Young's interpretation that Nietzsche's mental breakdown was completely psychological is not the last word on the subject.  It may be true - however, Young is very selective of the physiological mechanisms he refutes - essentially restricting it to syphilis and a brain tumor. Looking at the biomedical literature, one can see alternative neurological diagnoses.  We cannot know which is "true" (Nietzsche I suspect would approve), but, nevertheless, one should show a bit of reserve instead of making dogmatic statements on the matter.