I may have displeased some social conservatives with my lack of enthusiasm for talking about family values in previous posts. And to be fair, placing these values before all else is a mistake of religious dogmatists. Nevertheless, the traditional family is clearly an asset because it minimises the wasteful use of resources towards purely vain hedonistic ends. It is by means of the traditional family that an aristocracy is established, and it is by means of the traditional family that it is preserved through efficient reproduction and childrearing, and its power is not diminished through wasteful polyamorous spending. This is ultimately why certain leftists dislike the traditional (monogamous, heterosexual) family. To them it represents power, and because the position of the left is essentially derived from slave morality, a morality centered around demonizing the powerful and all their attributes, it should not come as a surprise that much of the left hates, or rather fears, the traditional family, and may even go so far as to call it “oppressive”.
The slave has an unfavourable eye for the virtues of the powerful; he has a skepticism and distrust, a REFINEMENT of distrust of everything “good” that is there honoured–he would fain persuade himself that the very happiness there is not genuine. … Slave-morality is essentially the morality of utility. Here is the seat of the origin of the famous antithesis “good” and “evil”:–power and dangerousness are assumed to reside in the evil, a certain dreadfulness, subtlety, and strength, which do not admit of being despised. According to slave-morality, therefore, the “evil” man arouses fear; according to master-morality, it is precisely the “good” man who arouses fear and seeks to arouse it, while the bad man is regarded as the despicable being. –Fredrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil Chapter IX, paragraph 260 (emphasis mine)
It is ultimately the Will to Power, the intuitive genetic self-interest, as Butch Leghorn calls it, of the left, which is driving the left against the traditional family, and it is ultimately the Will to Power of the right which is driving us to keep it intact, and further, to promote it as an ideal, contrary to a life of consisting of endless masturbation, pornography viewing, and one-night stands. Now it should be obvious why a certain *ahem* small section of our society promotes such a libertine lifestyle. Yes, I think you know who I am speaking of. If I told you outright who they were the SPLC would try to ruin my life. The traditional family is in their way. It limits their power. It makes us more difficult to exploit financially and otherwise, and it makes us more likely to organise a long-lasting opposition to their power. Therefore, their Will to Power encourages them to destroy the traditional family.
Now, it is said that monogamous reproduction is a characteristic of a K, rather than an r evolutionary reproductive strategy (The Anonymous Conservative), and this is ultimately the biological basis for these opposing Wills to Power. It is the master versus the slave, in Nietzschean terms, that respectively corresponds to the K versus the r in biological terms.
I think that I have made it rather clear to those who read my blog that I am not a fascist, and I will also say that I am not a National Socialist, however, being a member of the non-mainstream right, I am bound to get exposed to various strange viewpoints which pop up all over the web. One such viewpoint is expressed at Aryanism.net, a leftist National Socialist website which, if you check it out, (seemingly) successfully argues that National Socialist Germany was in fact not a mono-ethnic state, but (in its own weird way) a morally, and biologically idealistic state, which was permissive of immigration of some persons of non-German ethnicity. Ethnic nationalism is condemned on this site as tribalistic “non-Aryan” behavior. I really don’t know if these people present an accurate picture of German National Socialism or not, and I don’t have time to research that. Perhaps the only thoughts I completely agree with on that website are those regarding the origin of certain modern phenotypes in early Neolithic agricultural societies, such as in China, Persia, the Mediterranean, Egypt, etc, which then spread out into many parts of the world. This view of recent genetic history is supported by a recent study by the somewhat well-known geneticist Iosif Lazaridis.
The other important points I agree with regarding this website is their aesthetic ideals regarding the human body and the importance of various distinctly evolved phenotypes, which can have implications for the purpose of nation building in specific geographic areas (see their page here). I also seem to agree with these people that “Religions based on the premise of perfection attainable through struggle” are good and necessary, however, I see this more from a Nietzschean master morality viewpoint, whereas these National Socialists see it from a Christian slave-moral viewpoint.
The aesthetic idealism I previously mentioned is important in a Nietzschean frame of mind, where an aesthetic phenomenon is seen as the justification for existence and the world, thus averting the nihilism and the existential crisis consequent from the “death of God”. You can watch the following video below to find out more about this idea.
My main criticism, however, of the ideology promoted by these National Socialists is their desire, even their thought, that human reproduction can, and should be limited to an extreme. They claim that an Aryan is one who rejects enslavement, and yet enslavement to a totalitarian governmental system is what they desire to solve all of the world’s problems. They, perhaps correctly, see tribalism as a result of competition over limited resources, and they seek to end this through a severe limit on reproduction, but living under such a regime is certainly free for no one, no matter how pleasing it might be. While it might make an aesthetic ideal achievable, it would essentially turn everyone into non-autonomous livestock under an autocratic dictator. No one is permitted under such a regime to grasp the sweet fruit of master morality, rendering such and ideology useless in a Nietzschean struggle towards the Ubermensch.
Now, I did find an interesting book synthesizing Nietzschean and Buddhist thought, which perhaps reveals the reasons why Nietzschean Ubermensch-like behavior, as I have previously stated in other posts, can be found in the Japanese anime character of Haruka Nanase, whose conception was ultimately in a culture heavily influenced by Buddhism and Confucianism. A synthesis of Nietzsche and Buddha may ultimately be the answer to modern nihilism, and the existential crises we are bound to face in a rootless secular world.
Those of you who are more familiar with the German philosopher Fredrich Nietzsche may be wondering why an ethnonationalist like myself is blogging about him. It seems common knowledge that Nietzsche was against nationalism, so why do I bother to bring him up?
Update 2/19/2017 I wrote this a while back and may disagree with it to a certain extent.
A few days ago I published a blog post asserting that Haruka Nanase of the anime series Free! is a type of ubermensch who exhibits master morality. This indeed seems to be the case through most of the series. From his childhood, he insisted on swimming “free” and not being bound by the value judgment of society on his ability to swim. However, by episode 13 of the Eternal Summer season, he decides to take up swimming as a career and openly (to his friends) is willing to swim in keeping with the value judgment of his society on his swimming (times, competition, etc.). To me, this seemed like something of a tragedy. It is as though Haru loses who he is. The character that we have come to know seems to have changed unalterably at the last moment in the series. From a Nietzschean viewpoint, he loses his role as a master, a creator of values, and takes up the role of the slave, one who adheres to the values of the master.
This led me to think — are more of us Nietzschean “masters” in childhood, and we become slaves as we teach ourselves to adhere to, and to accept the value judgments our society places upon us as we grow into adulthood? This appears to be something which Haru does, and to me, it is reminiscent of a sort of “fall”, not the same as the Christian “fall”, but equally disastrous from a Nietzschean viewpoint. I encourage my readers to reflect on this and to consider how much of our behavior, and even inward thoughts is controlled(policed) as adults, and how difficult it is to openly express, or even form value judgments dissonant with what society deems acceptable.
If you wish to understand master and slave morality better, especially as it applies to this context, this video can help:
Well, it seems that my post on Nominalism and liberalism has not been of much interest to anyone yet, so I have decided to write about something some people might find less intellectually demanding: morality. I previously stated in my first post that what Nietzsche called slave morality needs to decline in order for the West to have any backbone (and to prevent the extinction of ethnic European peoples). I still hold to this idea. In this post I will give one example of how one might find good moral instruction in a source some might find unlikely: anime.
As I began to get deeper and deeper into the broader nonreactionary movement, I began to encounter a mild fanaticism related to anime, particularly in the alt-right. Of course there was one mainstream Republican news reporter who mocked the alt-right back in January of this year calling it a movement of “childless single men who masturbate to anime”(I don’t actually know if Rick Wilson’s claim is entirely false!).