PDA

View Full Version : The Metaphysics of Power (rewritten essay)



Jack
Sunday, August 31st, 2003, 05:40 AM
This is the much updated, expanded, and far more detailed version of the essay I wrote and posted here earlier, titled "A Philosophy of Freedom, Power and Culture". I scrapped that title and called this the Metaphysics of Power because it covers a lot more than power, freedom and culture. This has my theory of knowledge, definitions for every potentially confusing term I use (I have a problem with leaving words I use ambiguous, misinterpretation is something I don't like much), a critique of rationalism, and other things. I intend this to be a starting point for a change in the Philosophy and Politics forums here at Skadi - the move away from analysis, and towards creating our own. I hope this essay can operate as a framework we can build in. I've tried to mix in what I know from Freud, Jung, Spengler, Yockey, Machievelli and even Ayn Rand, though I doubt people would be able to find her influence if I had not mentioned her name - I think by mixing Freud and Rand together I've destroyed Rand's rationalist obsession as an influence. My influence from Freud comes from his tripartite division of man's mind into the unconscious (which I have said is instincts and sentiments, both personal and Cultural), preconscious (memories and national identity) and conscious (volition, aka free will, intelligence). The only idea (as far as I consciously know) I have taken from Jung is his adaption of the collective unconscious (originating myth of society) and placing it in a state of constant evolution, and calling that collective spirit. Machievelli, Spengler and Yockey's influences should be immediately obvious.

In any case, I am quite interested in getting a discussion going, and having typed this up I think it would be a good topic.

========================================

The Metaphysics of Power

By Anarch

The word “freedom” has become an emotionally loaded term – it has effectively become the war banner of the United States of America since September 11, 2001. Against all governing systems of control that oppose the influence of the American and Western political elites, it is promoted through the barrel of a gun.

Freedom is a powerful word, but it can only be defined in negative terms. In essence, behind its current usage as a war slogan, freedom means freedom from force. Once viewed in this context, it becomes interesting that if the ruling elite of the United States Government believes its own rhetoric, it is using force to bring about (and enforce, behind the doctrine of America as “the world’s policeman”) the absence of force.

Without a higher aim behind it, freedom inevitably leads to nihilism, the absence of all values. The hollow consumer mass culture the rest of the world perceives as the Unites States of America is a reflection of this. The ruling elite of the US Government attempts to tear down authoritarian and theocratic governments, and then present the host population with ‘democracy’ – i.e. multiparty elective governments. Never is the alternative of a native, self defined governing structure permitted, as the US ruling elite would like to present their ‘democracy’ as a ‘one size fits all’ system, hence reinforcing its perceived intellectual legitimacy.

Nor is the choice of ethnic minorities to secede and form their own nation-states permitted (see, for instance, the Croatian War of Independence, during which the US Government continuously supported the pre-civil war Yugoslav Federation – only after a length and blood civil war was Croatia’s independence recognised by the US Government, even after the European Union had supported Croatia’s independence struggle from the beginning – see also America’s indifference to Turkey’s occupation of Kurdish North Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein). In short, the banner of freedom may be waved as often as chosen by America’s political elite, but the nature of their ‘freedom’ is the freedom to live under any Government the population chooses, except one which America’s elite does not approve of.

The word freedom is generally opposed by the word power, a term affiliated to Governments not approved of by the American elite. “Power” has, in the minds of the population of Western Civilization, become viewed as evil – images of National Socialist Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Mao’s Red China often come to mind. Lord Acton once claimed, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. But what is power?

As was mentioned before, freedom can only be defined in negative terms – freedom from something. Power picks up where freedom leaves off – whereas freedom has what could be termed a ‘negative definition’, power cannot, it can only have a positive definition – power is the capability to act. Power cannot be “power from x” in the sense that freedom can be “freedom from x” – in the latter, “from” signifies a break, in the former, a resource.

Power – that is, the capability to act – is derived from two kinds of resources – external resources, and innate. External resources are objects and ideas that are not innate, which provide some degree of power – other individuals, objects, ideas. Innate resources are those that, if separated from the individual, would quickly result in his practical impotence, and destruction would quickly follow.

The two resources, which are of most importance in terms of an individual’s capability to act, are the will to power – that is, the drive to impose one’s will on the external environment – and intelligence, which is the capability to analyse the environment to some degree.

The will to power (perhaps better termed “the drive to impose one’s will”) is also an innate resource based in human biology, on testosterone – it has been demonstrated that creatures with a high quantity of testosterone have an intense drive to achieve the desired. Testosterone is the fuel of action, as opposed to inaction.

While intelligence is inherited, the extent to which it is developed is largely environmental, e.g. educational. The purpose of intelligence is to serve as a tool by which an individual may organise sensory input into a non-self-contradictory paradigm of knowledge, which serves as a framework for actions. Observed and transferred knowledge (observed meaning knowledge derived from direct experience, transferred meaning communicated), however, when placed in a framework, may be incorrect. The means for determining the whether knowledge and the intellectual framework it resides in is correct or incorrect is the test of action. Within the knowledge provided, if an action attempted based on that knowledge fails, one of two things may be deduced. Either part of the operational framework of knowledge was incorrect (though a failure of intelligence, or disinformation, for example), or required knowledge was missing.

However, the world is not static, and all individuals have, to some extent, the capacity of self-determination. Accordingly, intelligence does not analyse the environment, and then “turn off” once the process of actualising the potential beings – intelligence, the capacity of analysis, is constantly in service, observing and interpreting phenomena and incorporating that information into a non-contradictory paradigm. If something occurs which is not able to be facilitated within the current framework held by the individual, intelligence must analyse the occurrence and accordingly reform the framework if actions build around that phenomena are to succeed. Ignorance is not bliss, but self-destruction.

Volition is the master of intelligence (also known as ‘reason’), not the other way around. Life is not a function of intelligence, but life uses intelligence in order to further itself – any other arrangement brings the individual to the realisation that reality itself carries no reasons or objectives. Life as master of intelligence brings the realisation that reasons and objectives are carried within life, and are realised by actions. Power, therefore, as the capability to act, is one of the three elements of life – the other two being volition and values.

Volition is best described as the conscious decision making process, yet volition is not ‘free’ in terms of absolute self determination – it is affected by biological, cultural (i.e. social and individual values. Whether these affect one’s decisions consciously or unconsciously depends on one’s intelligence) and social (one’s profession, social rank, etc.) factors. Neither is volition ‘rational’ – the capacity of reasoning, i.e. intelligence, despite the vast cultural output expounding the virtues of that faculty, does not hold nearly as much importance in life as many are led to believe.

All actions are preceded by a decision – an aim is defined by the volition of the individual, then will follows through with action down the path illuminated by reason. The capability of an individual to reach his chosen aim is determined by his intelligence and his will to power.

Even from the perspective of the rationalist, actions always have objectives. Only by the manner of achieving its aims can a decision be judged as ‘rational’. Any aim for which violence (that is, physical compulsion) is used is judged irrational, with the exception of its use for reactionary (i.e. defensive) purposes. If it is ‘irrational’, its study by rationalists is always coloured by a negative perspective, which seeks to ridicule what it determines as irrational and hence ‘evil’ – this is an example of morality impinging on the study of existence and how it operates. With few exceptions, there has yet to be an entirely amoral study of life and its nature. Rationalism is useless as a means of attempting to learn how the world works – it is engineered to produce a Weltanshauung of how the world should work. How it does work, and how it should work, are two entirely different conceptions.

Irrespective of rationalism, all actions – forceful or not – require an aim – which is dependent on the values, the intensity with which those values are held, and their hierarchy. If a man values the lives of his family above his own, he will willingly lose his life, if necessary, to ensure their continued existence. A man who values his religion and its tenants above the physical word is the material of which religious armies are forged. If a man values his own power (in terms of influence, as compared with the direct capability to act) above his own life, he will, if necessary or advantageous, accept his own destruction in order to protect or advance his own power.

The last example provides a means to distinguish values from convictions. A value is the basis used by an individual to act in a certain way, while a conviction is a value, intensified and raised in one’s hierarchy to the degree that the individual will risk everything, even one’s own life, to advance that value.

Hence values lie at the basis of all actions, as actions are carried out, directly or indirectly, to protect or advance a subjective value. That there are no absolute values means not that life is futile, but that life is a collection of subjective consciousnesses propelled by subjective values within an objective existence. All actions have meaning – that is, they relate to a subjectively held value. There are ‘irrational’ actions (when viewed within the framework of rationalism) but there are no meaningless actions.

Values are cultural abstractions, yet they are as real as the individuals in whose minds they exist, and are an inseparable part of an individual’s personal identity – if he does not act to ensure the protection, if not advancement of his values, he does not live, he merely exists. He is a speck of dust thrown around by the winds of life with no element of self-control – the second he does assert his self control, he acts out of an aim. If a man does not act to achieve, protect or advance values he claims to hold, then he lies, and he must hold an aim which can be protected, advanced or achieved by that act of lying – a tactic which is only viable in relation to others.

The nature and collective tendencies of a society may also be revealed in a similar way. A society, in order to be considered such, must have common basic values, and a common identity on which those values are built. Identity is formed easiest in conditions of contrast – the distinction between “us” and “them” (which Sir Arthur Keith referred to as the ‘in-group’ and the ‘out group’) may be seen as the father of all nations, just as recognition of the contrast between the environment and the self is the prerequisite for consciousness. Consciousness of common identity is as useful for a nation as self-identity is for an individual – it is required, but alone it does not suffice for survival. A nation is best defined as a spiritual community – this incorporates ‘active’ economic classes in the Marxist sense, ethnic groups, religious communities which place their values above the societies its members live in, and so on. Survival requires two values – identity and survival.

Behind all actions lie a mind, and that mind is construction of two elements, both are required before an action may occur – on element selects or creates the value, this is man’s creative faculty. The other element analyses the environment and the conditions necessary for actions in relation to that value to be realised. This second element, intelligence, has already been dealt with.

Creativity is not genius - creativity deals with ‘problems’, the removal of restrictions that impede the advancement of values. Creativity involves analysis of the environment in order to construct means that can aid in the advancement of values against resistance. Creativity, therefore is a function of reason, and does not ‘create’ values – that is the function of genius.

Genius is the ability to understand what is felt as instinct, and to articulate it to a degree that allows that same instinct, down to the same degree, to be felt by all who perceive that product of genius. Intelligence, as analysis and articulation, is the fire which permits fluid instinct to be formed into art, religion, philosophy and music.

Not all men feel instinct to the same degree, and certainly not all have the same analytical and articulatory means for great creation – genius. While every man has some creative force enough to make something of himself, genius is the great creative force from which culture is produced.

Because genius is the product of intelligence and instinct, it is apparent to all who perceive it – however, not all men have intellectual ability to apprehend instinct when articulated through its incarnation – whether religious, artistic, philosophical or musical. There arises the necessity of an intermediate cultural class, that of the appreciators, as distinct from the geniuses, whose essence was just covered.

The appreciators are a separate group from the creators (that is, the geniuses) – they are centred on the creators, typically outnumber the creators, and their function within a nation is different. Whereas the creators develop and articulate the passions, instincts and values held by a population, the appreciators serve to assist in the development of cultural works, and to a greater extent project cultural works onto the population of a nation, playing an active part in the development of a cultural and national identity. It is they who play one of the most important roles in developing the meaning behind the national consciousness and the distinction between “us” and “them”.

Where a cultural elite (that is, the creators and appreciators, as separate from the mass of their nation) shares its produce with the cultural elites of similar nations (recall that a nation is a spiritual community of individuals with a common basic identity), it is possible to speak of a Culture in the Spenglerian sense – that is, a group of nations with a common spirit and high culture, though usually less well articulated than the individual identities of each nation that is a part of that Culture. However, the strength of an identity depends not necessarily on the degree to which it is articulated, but the perceived danger of the destruction of that identity – and therefore, the spiritual and perhaps physical identity of those who hold to that identity – is faced with.

Cultural and national identities are felt in unique ways by the different groups in relation to those identities. For the cultural elite (the creators and the appreciators), the identities are felt consciously, as they participate directly in its articulation and propagation. For those whom the identity is projected upon, that is, the mass of the nation, this identity is felt preconsciously – the national identity can be brought into conscious thought, and in the normal lives of the population this does not frequently occur to the degree of conviction. National spirit (a spirit is an identity constantly in the process of evolution) is akin to memory without reference to time. The Cultural collective spirit is unconscious, existing parallel to instinct. Rarely is it directly articulated, and it is directly out of the unconscious instincts, sentiments and irrational drives that it is developed.

[see next post for continuation]

Jack
Sunday, August 31st, 2003, 05:43 AM
The Metaphysics of Power [Continued]

The dominant cultural movement at any given stage in the development of a Cultural spirit may be termed as ‘zeitgeist’ – that is, Spirit of the Age, and is reflected through social morality, religious, philosophical and education expression and articulation, political slogans, and the mode of behaviour of factions in relation to power – namely, what to do with the ability once it is acquired.

A faction shall best be defined as a group of individuals sharing common convictions, acting in concert in relation to power. The political system of a nation is an organisation that is constructed by those wielding a strong degree of power, aimed at the protection and advancement of the values of those who brought it into existence – usually, but not always, factions operate within these systems.

What distinguishes a faction from a nation is the degree its values and aims are specialised and articulated, and the degree of intensity the values are held by the faction’s members. Hence factions also have their own cultural elites (i.e. theorists), but these generally do not cover as wide an area as national cultural elites do. Also, a faction’s members are not motivated my morality (good/bad), aesthetics (beautiful/ugly), or economics (utile/inutile), but the advancement of convictions. Those who are part of an organisation but are motivated primarily by morality, aesthetics, economics or a mix of the three are not part of the faction, but are auxiliaries – those who serve, but do not coordinate.

Groups do not think – individuals think, and it is on the basis of common identity, values and therefore objectives that all groups are formed by individuals. The genius is the man that develops modes of thought and values, and these values are apprehended and absorbed by individuals. As values are the source of all objectives, the individual with the strongest innate abilities (i.e. intelligence and will to power) will be the individual that is most likely to take the role of leader, assuming this individual shares the convictions to the same (or higher) intensity as the next strongest believer. If he did not hold the faction’s convictions, he would either have other values that are advanced by joining the faction, or he would not be in it. If he holds the convictions of the faction, his greater ability of analysis and stronger will to power will ensure he becomes the leader of the faction.

The purpose of the true leader (that is, the leader which shares the same convictions as the group which he leads) is to establish the organisation pattern within the group which is most efficient – that is, the pattern which minimises internal conflict and maximises the capability of the group to achieve its aims. The core problem needed to be dealt with by the leader/s of a faction is to ensure the free flow of ideas relating to strategy and tactics (plans and methods employed within the plans), while ensuring total unity in times of action. The issue of total conformity and unified effort in the advancement of convictions does not relate to morality, the self determination of the individual, or whatever sentiments on may have – it is an issue which directly effects the degree to which a group achieves its objectives. That which holds back the actualisation of the convictions of the group is a source of inefficiency relative to the aim.

This distinction, between what advances convictions and what prevents convictions from being achieved, is in fact the core issue of politics – politics defined as activity in relation to power. It is along the line of what advances and what prevents the realisation of convictions that the contrast between friend and enemy occurs.

One’s aesthetic preferences and moral evaluations have little to do with one’s activity in politics unless those values effect the actions drawn from one’s convictions, or those values themselves are raised to convictions. The arena of economics is draws distinctions between what is useful and what is not useful – useful for what? For one’s subjective values and convictions. An individual may be morally disgusting, aesthetically hideous, and economically useless, but so long as he does not prevent the advancement of one’s convictions, he is not an enemy. An individual may be morally impeccable, aesthetically beautiful, and economically utile, but if he prevents one’s convictions from being achieved, he is the enemy. Whereas power, as the capability to act, is the arena of politics, convictions and those who hold them are the flags and armies on a million-front, world-spanning battlefield.

Within politics, there are two levels at which opposition to the advancement of a conviction can occur – the level of theory (that is, the convictions themselves are opposed), and at the level of practice (either the strategy, which is the plan by which power is to be achieved, or tactics, that is, the method of operation). The enemy on the level of convictions is the enemy of primary politics – so long as he keeps his convictions, he cannot be compromised with, as the convictions that motivate the politics are at stake. Compromise in primary politics is either a tactic, or destruction of the conviction, and hence a distortion of all previous actions carried out for the realisation of that conviction.

The enemy on practical grounds is the enemy of secondary politics – he is a creature with which joint action is possible, because he already shares the convictions and intelligence may provide the material to convince the secondary enemy of the correctness of one’s strategy and tactics. Generally, the enemy of secondary politics, if he exists at all, usually resides within one’s own faction. If intelligence cannot do this, there is either a lack of information, the case being argued is incorrect, the perceived secondary enemy does not share the aims which are intended to be realised by the strategy and tactics promoted (the only reliable means of determining this are to observe contradictions between the professed convictions and the actions of that individual), or finally, if both the convictions and the method are absorbed by the mind of the individual to the extent that they cannot be amended.

In the last two points, the individual may view himself as either neutral or an obstacle to the advancement of the convictions, but in either case he is a primary enemy. This is because neither of the individuals can be amended for the purpose of advancing the convictions through one’s own strategy - the first pretends to hold the convictions, and so impedes their advancement, and the second will oppose any attempts to act contrary to his own method, which he holds with absolute faith. A man with faith in practical method cannot be changed, because the man of faith in a certain method of implementation to the exclusion of all other options is not a realist.

An individual who holds his values to the level of conviction – that is, be willing to risk everything to actualise that value – should desire to acquire all the information possible, in order to act in the most efficient manner within the situation. If the individual with faith in his own method is not operationally impede because his method, which lies on the level of faith, is correct for the situation and this is combined with a strong will to power, he is almost invincible. But because conditions change, more often than not he is politically retarded.

Deception can be divided into two types: motivational deception, and operational deception. Motivational deception occurs when a man’s convictions cannot be changed, but his relative disadvantage in the process of analysis allows him to be manipulated. The people against whom motivational deception is predominantly utilized are those who merely value – because they do not have convictions, for which one is prepared to risk everything to advance, they do not have any perceived reasons for constantly being driven to analyse everything that they are told. As a result, manipulation of information, and hence manipulation of perception, is not a difficult task when compared to the task of manipulating a man of convictions

This can be done by tying politics to other arenas of man’s spiritual existence – economics, which deals with the utile and the inutile, morality, which separates the psychologically agreeable from the psychologically repulsive, and aesthetics, which divides the attractive from the hideous. By associating the negative aspects from each of these field’s of a man’s mind with one’s enemy, an individual, or a group of individuals, who are indifferent towards the enemy in that he does not impede their capability to act, can be made more inclined to oppose him on a political level.

The difficulty that can arise from the use of deception (both motivation and operational) against neutral individuals (with the aim of bringing operational unity to a faction) is that it is inefficient when compared to the individual who acts out of self-driven convictions and constant analysis that coincide with one’s own strategy and convictions. This individual is the natural ally – whether given information on a ‘need to know basis’, given all the information available, or deliberately misinformed so that he will act in accordance with a preconceived strategy which he is not aware of, he will always act in a manner that carries the most logic considering the convictions he attempts to advance and the situation he is faced with. In contrast, the neutral man who acts out of deception alone and whose convictions have no relationship to the enemy, who then has the veil of deception removed, is capable of doing anything. Such is the danger inherent in the use of operational deception.

The distinction between primary politics and secondary politics is that the former ceases when an external enemy acts in relation to power held by the faction within which secondary politics occurs. In secondary politics, the convictions are shared, only in the realm of practical implementation do differences occur, and compromise is possible if required for the group to maintain its power.

Power, as the capability to act, changes hands but is rarely destroyed – through actions, it is either transferred between individuals within a group (for example, in leadership struggles or reorganisation), or from one group to another. Power is destroyed through the destruction of resources, but more often than not, these resources change hands.

Secondary politics is activity in relation to power within the context of a group’s ability to actualise its convictions. The secondary (i.e. internal) enemy becomes the primary (i.e. external) enemy at the point in which the context of common convictions becomes irrelevant. This occurs when a primary, that is, extra-factional enemy, acts in relation to the group’s power, and the secondary enemy does not cease his power-struggle, or when the secondary enemy actively enlists the assistance of a primary, extra-factional enemy in his struggle for power.

If an internal enemy has allied with an external enemy against group power, either the internal enemy did hold to the convictions in the past, which makes him a traitor, or he never held the convictions at all – in which case, he is an infiltrator – that is, an individual inserted into a faction for the purpose of disrupting the faction’s power from the inside.

Disruption is a part of the art of force – force defined as the manipulation of the enemy so that he works in accordance with one’s plans. Force is a core element in the achievement, protection or advancement of convictions, and the core element of politics. The three primary elements of any activity in the realm of politics are economics, as the management of resources, power, as the capability to use those resources, and convictions, as the very reasons for using those resources. As intelligence is the faculty that provides the framework for the advancement of values, so does it construct the operational plan that guides to will to power to the actualisation of a conviction.

Operational plans exist at two levels – strategy, and tactics. Strategy is the large scale plan created as a guide for the advancement of a value and accounts for possible future developments. Tactics is the level where capabilities and resources are employed in relation to the power of the enemy. Tactics is force, its purpose is to maximise the power of he who implements them at the expense of his enemy. Tactics has two recognisable subdivisions – tactics in relation to mobilizing one’s own resources and power, and tactics as counterforce. The first class may be termed ‘positive tactics’, the second as ‘negative tactics’.

Positive force includes mass motivational deception by the faction against what can be termed the ‘auxiliaries’. The relationship between the faction and the auxiliaries shall be defined thus: while the faction is mobilized to action from conviction, auxiliaries are persuaded to render assistance to the faction by motivational deception (performed by writers or speakers, respectively) which aligns the faction’s enemy with the auxiliaries’ preconceptions of evil, useless and ugly, through the political tactics of slander (spoken defamation) and libel (written defamation). In contrast with the motivations of the faction, convictions are only part of the reasons the auxiliaries struggle. It is the capacity to mobilize otherwise indifferent people, and form them into auxiliaries, which may be considered one of the main measurements of a faction’s power, and once auxiliaries are formed, they must be commanded in line with the preconceived strategy, or they are incapable of organised action. While auxiliaries must be commanded, that is, told what to do, members of a faction do not need to be commanded, but merely coordinated – they are already motivated by the very virtue that they share the convictions from which the objectives are derived.

Negative force is the class of tactics that are concerned with the denial of the enemy’s offensive capacity. It includes both actual and potential use of violence in relation to the power of the enemy (that is, action for the purposed of partial or total destruction of an enemy’s physical capability to act). Threats, or realisation of threats, are relevant only so long as it effects the process of forcing the enemy to surrender his power within the area needed to advance one’s own convictions.

Mass motivational deception, though also a tool capable of being used to mobilise one’s own auxiliaries, is also potentially a negative force tactic which can be used to slow or cripple the mobilisation of enemy forces. This is done by associating the enemy leadership with a negative evaluation in every field of human judgement (e.g. enemy, evil, useless, ugly), and then mass dissemination of these evaluations amongst both enemy auxiliaries and one’s own auxiliaries. This strategy (as it is a plan for annihilating the enemy faction as a cohesive operational unit) implants in the minds of the enemy auxiliaries the perception their own leadership is intensely undesirable, and that one’s own auxiliaries are liberators, not destroyers. This strategy can also increase the likelihood of the enemy faction splitting through a leadership struggle, and the possibility of assisting one uprising political elite within the enemy faction against the dominant elite, thereby making, if successful, the enemy faction into a tool for the power of one’s own faction.

[See next post for continuation]

Jack
Sunday, August 31st, 2003, 05:44 AM
The Metaphysics of Power [Cotinuation]

Deception (that is, the tactic of manipulating the information sources of the enemy to one’s own advantage) and infiltration combined can provide the means to wreck the enemy’s power, aid in the liberation strategy outlined above, and can render the enemy faction impotent to oppose one’s own advancements. Infiltration also brings the rare possibility of puppet mastering the enemy faction through proxy leadership, allowing it to become a tool for achieving one’s own convictions. The nature of factional activity in relation to power hitherto covered applies to all organised groups.

The relationship between factional activity, a nation and the Culture which it resides in can be explained as follows: factional activity in relation to the power of a nation is the struggle for the actualisation of a Cultural ideal. The nation upon which the mission of the Spirit of the Age is first impressed wields massive influence within the Culture. The Cultural Idea of the Future is the product of genius, through which the strongest instincts and sentiments of the population of a Culture are articulated. That nation which absorbs the Cultural Idea of the Future becomes, quite literally, the avant-garde of that Culture.

A Cultural Idea is first felt in the collective spirit (the collective spirit is Jung’s collective unconscious in the process of live evolution) of a Culture’s population – through genius, which is the ability to feel and articulate strong sentiments and instincts, it is developed and projected in a simplified form (this form is still far more advanced, though equal in content, to the tendencies, sentiments and instincts of a Culture’s collective spirit) on to the population. A Cultural Idea is projected onto the population through institutions and organisations, such as organised religion, the culture industry, education, academia and politics.

Politics may be seen as the struggle between the present and future – factions, such as political parties, cultural organisations, parapolitical groups, think tanks, etc., may be seen as vehicles for the realisation of various interpretations of the present and future Cultural Ideas.

The relationship between Cultural factions (that is, groups which advocate an interpretation of either the present or future Cultural Ideas) and political factions are tight. The cultural elite, given a strong degree of allegiance to the future Cultural Idea, can mobilise an entire nation. With similar movements operating within the other nations of that culture, it is unstoppable. While a Cultural elite can give form to the dominant sentiments within the collective spirit of the Culture, it is the dominating political faction/s that control the socially recognised power for coordinating the actualisation of the Cultural Idea.

The distinction between a cultural elite and a Cultural elite is as follows – the cultural elite is predominantly focused on national identity and development, while a Cultural elite is concentrated on the identity and development of a Culture – the cultural elites of all nations within a Culture typically outnumber the Cultural elite itself, because national identity is easier to recognise than a Culture’s identity.

This is not to say, of course, that dominant political factions and cultural elites must necessarily always work together – if a dominant political faction is driven by the present Cultural Idea and is posed by the incarnation of the future Cultural Idea amongst the masses, it is doomed. The French Revolution of 1789 is a prime example.

When a dominant Cultural elite and a dominant political elite cooperate towards achieving an objective, the values required to motivate the population are heightened (if those values are already consciously held), accelerated (if the objective chosen is part of the political aspect of the Cultural Idea of the future), instilled (in which case a thorough propaganda campaign (propaganda shall be discussed later) is required), or manipulated (if those who assert themselves as a Cultural elite are not a part of that Culture). A foreign Cultural elite is capable of only partially comprehending the currents of the collective unconscious of a Cultura, and so its capacity to articulate those currents into Cultural works is fragmented and limited.

The process by which a political faction becomes the investment of the Cultural Idea of the future, and then subordinates the cultura industry and the political system to the task of disseminating the Cultural Idea amongst the population is known as propaganda – that is, mass enlightenment, as contrasted with mass deception for the purposes of mobilization of auxiliaries solely as a political tool.

The culture industry, as Theodore Ardono termed the mass media and mass entertainment sectors of a society, is one of the most efficient means for total mobilization to occur, if in connection with the Cultural Idea of the future expounded by a cultural elite native to that Culture. If the culture industry operates in concert with a foreign Cultural elite, only partial mobilization can occur, for the simple reason that it is unable to relate to the collective unconscious of a Culture to the extent a native Cultural elite is able.

The term mass deception is equally applicable regardless of whether the dominating political faction maintains power because it maintains power over several competing political factions through diversion and deception or maintains power through brute force – in other words, an oligopoly or a tyranny. If a faction holds power by virtue of it being the vanguard of the Cultural Idea of the future, the nation over which it wields power is a democracy, regardless of whether it was elected or not. This is because the Cultural Idea is the articulation of the sentiments of the mass of the Culture, and the faction that leads its implementation leads the mass from its own collective spirit.

If a political elite does not lead the mass from its collective spirit, the political elite must then subordinate the culture industry to the task of mass manipulation and deception, and isolate members of the native Cultural elite from the means of cultural dissemination (the culture industry, academia, religious institutions, and so on), and must not, if it seeks to maintain its own power, hesitate from employing any means necessary to keep a Cultural-political faction from organising or gaining influence. Slander, libel, infiltration, disruption and brute force are the means available for use by a dominant political faction that seeks to maintain its power by any means necessary.

As convictions have their roots in a Cultural Idea of either the present or the future, the strongest line between primary and secondary politics is the Cultural Idea which one holds allegiance to. An individual or faction will be willing to accept loss of power if another were going to implement the convictions held, rather than losing power to another individual or faction that represents an opposing conviction of Cultural Idea. Hence Culture struggles between the present and the future are often the most forceful and intense.

Contrary to the well-known quotation from Mao Tse Tung, all power (that is, capability to act) does not derive from the use, or threat, of brute force. One does not use force against something one wishes to utilize - whether the threat of force becomes actual or remains potential is irrelevant. Because man, for all practical purposes, is to some degree a self-determining being, it is conceivable that he might refuse to do what he is told even if there is a threat of force against him, which could result in his destruction. If this is the situation, one of two things may be deduced about the man who is under threat of force - he is either a nihilist, in which case there is no power for the taking, or he values something higher than his own life - in which case, it is not through threat of force against him that will bring the ability to utilise his capabilities, but action in relation to his values. There can be no control over a man with opposing convictions, as a man with convictions necessarily (because he holds his values to the level that he is willing to risk everything to realise them) has will to power.

Likewise, a dictatorship that maintains its control through brute force alone will not last long - the population itself will not identify itself with the objectives of the governing system of control, and there are always a handful who have convictions, intelligence and self control to the extent they are the undefined and the uncontrolled. In such a situation, despite the frequent use of brute force on behalf of the governing system of control, national revolution is not inevitable. Revolution is a child of two parts - identity and resentment. Without identity, recognition of common values and objectives on behalf of the suppressed population is impossible. Without resentment, no action is perceived as necessary.

In the case of a nation being dominated by a foreign elite, with which the nation is least likely to identify with if it has its own articulated character, the struggle of liberation and revolution does not at first fall to militant revolutionaries, but to the cultural elite of the suppressed nation. Its task, as a national cultural elite, is to formulate and articulate a national identity, which contrasts starkly the nation against the foreign elite. As the foreign elite would naturally control the means of cultural propagation, total mobilization in the manner of the dominant Neo-Conservative cultural elite of the United States have executed post September 11 becomes much more difficult. Street networks, community organizations, decentralised religious structures and national revolutionist factions become the cultural pipelines by which national identity is disseminated.

As has been illustrated, contrast is the best means by which identity, both individual and nation, can be recognised. The purpose of the cultural elite is not only to develop an idea in the minds of the nation of who "they" (that is, the dominating foreign elite) are, but also to simultaneously cultivate a sense of national self-identity - that is, values which are an essential part of the national character. If the values expressed are identical as those held by the foreign elite, the struggle on the cultural plane is futile, and in the minds of the nation, what is a massive campaign of suppression carried out by the foreign elite could genuinely be a massive "counter terrorist operation". The purpose of a national cultural elite in times of foreign domination is to drive as large as possible schism between the foreign elite and the nation itself. If the values which form a part of the national identity significantly contrast with those of the foreign elite, once the underground national culture has been adequately disseminated, the groundwork for national revolution is prepared, the politics transforms the potential into the actual, and the rest is a matter of numbers, intelligence and will to power.

Keeping in mind that individuals have the creative capacity to decide (if not create) the objectives which their actions are directed towards achieving, that the objectives are dependent on the values of the individual, and that values are to a large extent contingent on the social conditions and the dominant Cultural movements as developed, articulated and disseminated by the Cultural elite, we may thus come to the conclusion:

The nature and objectives of actions are founded on values, values are determined by volition and culture, the capacity to achieve those values are determined by intelligence and will to power, and that they who control and propagate culture control the streets, and in the words of Adolf Hitler, "He who controls the streets controls the politics".

END.

Tryggvi
Monday, September 1st, 2003, 03:09 AM
Let's break this down bit by bit, and let's start at the beginning:

From where the idea that "freedom" can only be defined in negative terms? - It can be defined in negative and positive terms: freedom to do something, freedom of speech (= freedom to express oneself uninhibetedly). Defined in that way, freedom can be split up in neat little portions and granted as a right.

I also do not agree that "freedom inevitably leads to nihilism, the absence of all values". Why should it? Could you elaborate on that idea?

There is a necessary core distinction between Freiheit (= concrete freedom; positive freedom; freedom that aims at what is necessary, that does not violate the Begriff, or notion, or concept of a thing) and Willkür (= arbitrariness; abstract freedom; negative freedom; freedom that is detached from necessity, that violates that violates the Begriff, or idea, or character of a thing.)

Freedom itself is the nature of man; it finds its limits in the freedom of others (other individuals and the society as a whole), or wherever moments of the individual freedom are voluntarily limited for the sake of a higher common freedom (as in a marriage or the state). There is really nothing despicable, nihilistic or evil about it. On the contrary, a philosophy that does not recognize freedom, or other equally important aspects of man, such as the pursuit of happiness, will fail.

Gladstone
Monday, September 1st, 2003, 08:34 PM
Freedom itself is the nature of man; it finds its limits in the freedom of others (other individuals and the society as a whole), or wherever moments of the individual freedom are voluntarily limited for the sake of a higher common freedom (as in a marriage or the state). There is really nothing despicable, nihilistic or evil about it. On the contrary, a philosophy that does not recognize freedom, or other equally important aspects of man, such as the pursuit of happiness, will fail.

Yes. Exactly.

Freedom is critical for humanity's happiness. Freedom is not the problem, it's licentiousness (abuse of freedom) that is.

It's almost as though society has not yet quite a grasps on this self awareness thing and is still learning how to operate outside of pure instinct. While we have gotten a good idea of how our physical selves work thru modern medicine, we still have quite a ways to go as a group in the area of understanding the dynamics of our emotional selves.

Hopefully, humanity will maintain the necessary freedom required to learn and understand these things.

Gladstone

OnionPeeler
Tuesday, September 2nd, 2003, 10:46 AM
need not be a hang up here. It is a nebulous, multiplanar term. But much of the categories and their possible ramifications are the starting point for further discussion. If "freedom" is a problem, start reading from paragraph seven.

Jack
Tuesday, September 2nd, 2003, 01:14 PM
From where the idea that "freedom" can only be defined in negative terms? - It can be defined in negative and positive terms: freedom to do something, freedom of speech (= freedom to express oneself uninhibetedly). Defined in that way, freedom can be split up in neat little portions and granted as a right.

Freedom to do something is precisely a negetive definition - it means freedom from restrictions. No where, even in the American constitution protecting freedom of speech, does it provide the means to do something - those means, such as the press, for example, are capability to act, hence POWER. Power brings freedom, but freedom does not nessecarily bring power.


Why should it? Could you elaborate on that idea?

Without a higher aim behind it, freedom inevitably leads to nihilism - I don't need to elaborate on it. The pursuit of happiness is a 'higher aim', in that it is the reason for wanting freedom in the first place. That said, rights are a product of looking at the world as an ideal of how it should be, and then taking aspects of that ideal and projecting it on to the world we live, which is the world as it actually is. Rights, by the very fact they are violable subjective abstractions, are irrelevant. The reason your rights actually mean anything is because people with force are willing to back them up say, the police, or yourself, or whoever. Rights, in reality, are not absolutes - rights are the priveliges of power. If you want to dispute me on this, I ask you where were the rights of the tens of thousands of Tutsis who got slaughtered by the Hutus in 1996? Rights as social reality are the priveliges of power.


On the contrary, a philosophy that does not recognize freedom, or other equally important aspects of man, such as the pursuit of happiness, will fail.

It will not 'fail', because to fail, it has to have failed at a self chosen aim - and the aim of this (my essay above) is to describe the world as it is. Only after man understands the world can he work in it - and do blacks have a 'right' to breed with white women? Do Turks have a 'right' to move into Europe in massive numbers, so long as they do not violate property rights?

As for humanity, "Humanity is either a zoological term or an empty word" - Oswald Spengler. Gladstone, 'humanity' is a sick joke. Long live the white Occident, but "Humanity" (anyone else besides me who gets the picture of a teeming third world mass whenever they hear 'humanity'?), from my perspective, is irrelevant. I ask you, are you in the struggle for the ressurection of the white Occident because it's "for the good of humanity", or because you are white and the traditional white west is what you identify with? Does the thought that in all probability, millions of humans are going to have their rights violated for the ressurection of the white Occident to become possible, put you off the task we face? Are whites, all 180 million of the, about to leave America because the semi-mongoloid natives complain? Are the 16 million Anglo-Celt white Australians about to head straight back to Ireland, England and Scotland because the Aborigines don't want us here? No? Then what makes you think the Turks, Mexicans, Arabs, and Blacks are about to voluntarily leave the white Occident? Because we'll plead with them? Is the Government supposed to bribe them to leave the country with our tax money? After all, tax is theft, hence the violation to private property rights, yeah? Now, if the entire white Occident were to adopt Rationalism and its product, universal absolute rights, how would it save itself from racial and cultural annihilation? Notice I have not advocated anything in my essay. I have merely described the world, as it is. If the Occidental white race woke up to this, perhaps it would be better in acting for its racial and cultural survival. I do not see how rationalism and rights can facilitate such a struggle.

Moody
Tuesday, September 9th, 2003, 05:30 PM
I find the phrase 'Metaphysics of Power' tempting as an enigmatic essay title, but not clear enough as a philosophical designation.

The term 'metaphysics' is itself ambiguous and can imply something being 'beyond the physical', and so makes an oxymoronic clash with the usually understood meaning of 'power' which is physical. Nietzsche described his philosophical position as 'will to power', but then he was anti-metaphysical.

For every action there is an equal re-action.

You write;
"Freedom is a powerful word, but it can only be defined in negative terms".
Surely this is wrong; if I call the exercise of my strong Will, 'freedom', then that is positive as far as I am concerned. There is freedom TO do something, as well as freedom FROM being done to.
Likewise, power can be exercised negatively too - the slave even has a sort of power over the master, even if it is the negative power of ending his own life and then depriving the master of his slave. Therefore even the slave has "power to act".

Of course, going back to the question of freedom, those who have to buckle under my strong Will would regard this as a negative - but that is the point.
Freedom exercised by one means lack of freedom for another - this is a basic characterisation of Power.

When the Bushite cabal use 'freedom' as their justification for force in the Gulf War for example, they are obviously talking about the 'freedom' of private companies to operate without national control and so to operate across all national borders [so-called 'democracy' - which is really a plutocracy - is the best form of government as far as capitalists are concerned as it legitimises their depredations].
This 'freedom' of international finance leads to the 'unfreedom' of nationalism.

In keeping with your own philosophical designation I would say that Freedom = the exercise of power with a good conscience.

Because power is ultimately a means to end, I am not happy about including Red movements alongside fascist, as they desired different ends; this difference of ends meant that they used their means of power differently too.

The Power of non-reaction

Power needn't always be "imposition"; after all, the ability to stand back and leave well alone requires power - the power not to act.

You say; "All actions are preceded by a decision –"
This strikes me as false if you are implying CONSCIOUS decision; while it may be true in some cases, I would say that in the main actions are reactive, instinctive and unthinking and have no real rational decision-making behind them. This is why I say that freedom/power is more apparent in the LACK of reaction; the ability to detach oneself.

If we say that morality is the interpretation of actions, then an absolute amorality is not possible because the moment we begin to consider it we are interpreting. However, we can, as Nietzsche did, take a higher perspective and view the variety of moralities that occur and detach ourselvers that way.
The danger here is that action itself is vitiated - the best doers are those that think less.

Values therfore, must be thoroughly imbued and saturate the racial/cultural group so as to be purely instinctive.

The genius is, as you indicate, he who takes these values and expresses them in their higher essence - whether through political leadership or through any one of the arts; however the genius adds something of his 'own' - something unique; this is the divine spark that separates the genius for the craftsman.

Jack
Thursday, September 11th, 2003, 12:37 AM
I find the phrase 'Metaphysics of Power' tempting as an enigmatic essay title, but not clear enough as a philosophical designation.

The term 'metaphysics' is itself ambiguous and can imply something being 'beyond the physical', and so makes an oxymoronic clash with the usually understood meaning of 'power' which is physical. Nietzsche described his philosophical position as 'will to power', but then he was anti-metaphysical.

Nietzsche, as best I can discern, took the metaphysics of Schopenhauer and threw the ethics in positive direction: instead of self-castration of the will (Buddism), Nietzsche took this in a positive direction, and advocated a violent strengthening of the will. Here I agree with him. Metaphysics, as I use it (and I think this definition covers everything 'metaphysical') is the study of the underlying nature of reality - Nietzsche's will to power, therefore, is metaphysical. I would not say (as some have interpreteted Nietzsche and Schopenhauer) that reality is motivated by a universal will, but by millions of wills, which are instincts - in individual people. So metaphysics of power basically means power as the underlying nature of reality.


For every action there is an equal re-action.

Definetly not true :D Otherwise, no one would surrender, would they? Unless you mean for every action there is an impact (as I learned after I failed my physics test last year, based on this one idea), then I certainly agree.


You write;
"Freedom is a powerful word, but it can only be defined in negative terms".
Surely this is wrong; if I call the exercise of my strong Will, 'freedom', then that is positive as far as I am concerned. There is freedom TO do something, as well as freedom FROM being done to.

No :p Power (capability to act) includes freedom - freedom as the absence of restrictions. The more power, the more restrictions that can be overrun. And so you can have power in a totalitarian legal system, but this would mean that you can override the laws of that system, not that the laws do not exist - if they did exist, they could resist your actions which impede in their arena.


Likewise, power can be exercised negatively too - the slave even has a sort of power over the master, even if it is the negative power of ending his own life and then depriving the master of his slave. Therefore even the slave has "power to act".

I never said the slave doesn't have power. Negetive tactics (from the second half of part two of the essay):

"Negative force is the class of tactics that are concerned with the denial of the enemy’s offensive capacity. It includes both actual and potential use of violence in relation to the power of the enemy (that is, action for the purposed of partial or total destruction of an enemy’s physical capability to act). Threats, or realisation of threats, are relevant only so long as it effects the process of forcing the enemy to surrender his power within the area needed to advance one’s own convictions."

So the slave does of course have some measure of power, just as trade unions, even if not legally recognised and suppressed, have the ability to deny labor power.


Of course, going back to the question of freedom, those who have to buckle under my strong Will would regard this as a negative - but that is the point. Freedom exercised by one means lack of freedom for another - this is a basic characterisation of Power.

Not nessecarily. Power is the ability to act. Lack of power by one party in relation to another occurs only when there are limited resources, or when one party and another have contradicting aims, and one party acts to deny that power to the other. See negetive tactics.


When the Bushite cabal use 'freedom' as their justification for force in the Gulf War for example, they are obviously talking about the 'freedom' of private companies to operate without national control and so to operate across all national borders [so-called 'democracy' - which is really a plutocracy - is the best form of government as far as capitalists are concerned as it legitimises their depredations]. This 'freedom' of international finance leads to the 'unfreedom' of nationalism.

Of course. Freedom in the sense the American elites uses as a propaganda slogan means the suppression of restrictions in relation to their objectives. This requires power.


In keeping with your own philosophical designation I would say that Freedom = the exercise of power with a good conscience.

Not quite. Freedom in the realm of economics (which is one of the primary sources I draw my definition of freedom from, as this encompasses the freedom to bear arms, trade, and so on) does not imply power (as the capability to act) which implies resources - an individual is free to work for another, trade, aquire resources without violating the property rights of another, and so on. But power implies resources - power to apply violence, likewise, does not imply freedom, the absence of restrictions (resistance, in this context).


Because power is ultimately a means to end, I am not happy about including Red movements alongside fascist, as they desired different ends; this difference of ends meant that they used their means of power differently too.

Of course - differing values mean differing convictions, and differing convictions in relation to power mean contradiction, and so we have power-struggles, violent and otherwise. ARA and the ANL versus the National Front are prime examples. If the convictions of the two value-groups did not conflict, there would be no power struggle between the two.

The Power of non-reaction


Power needn't always be "imposition"; after all, the ability to stand back and leave well alone requires power - the power not to act.

I agree. This is self discipline, which can be useful (if guided by man's capacity to reason in relation to the objectives, which means holding back until the right time), or self-destructive (Schopenhauer).


You say; "All actions are preceded by a decision –"
This strikes me as false if you are implying CONSCIOUS decision; while it may be true in some cases, I would say that in the main actions are reactive, instinctive and unthinking and have no real rational decision-making behind them. This is why I say that freedom/power is more apparent in the LACK of reaction; the ability to detach oneself.

It is always conscious - you know what you are doing, even if the decision is not consciously made. Even if, for example, someone pulls a knife on a friend of mine, and I am there, and I fight and beat up the individual who applies the threat of violence against my friend, I still know what I am doing - of course, the roots of the action lie in the instincts, but there is still self-awareness. All values arise out of instinct. "To do or not to do?" - "DO!" - "why?" - "Because we are one, and I am greater, and we will do!" - and the action happens. So speaks instinct to consciousness.


If we say that morality is the interpretation of actions, then an absolute amorality is not possible because the moment we begin to consider it we are interpreting.

I would say morality is an evaluation of an action in relation to one's own values - which arise out of instinct. If I judge someone's actions in relation to what they were trying to achieve, this has nothing to do with morality. The second I say the action is morally disgusting, that is morality.


However, we can, as Nietzsche did, take a higher perspective and view the variety of moralities that occur and detach ourselvers that way. The danger here is that action itself is vitiated - the best doers are those that think less.

Knowledge is a form of resource that supplies one's power - capability to act. The best doers (actors, I would say, without the connotations of dramatic arts and so on) are those who follow through their actions arising out of their values until they are achieved, without stopping, without re-evaluating their values. There is a difference between constantly absorbing knowledge relating to one's present situation and the objective and revising one's values. Hesitant (in relation to values) politicians are quite often the most poor actors in relation to power.


Values therfore, must be thoroughly imbued and saturate the racial/cultural group so as to be purely instinctive.

I would not say 'thoroughly imbued', if you are referring to the present state of the European white race and its descendents. I would say these values need to be reinterpreteted without relation in any way to Jewish culture distortion.


The genius is, as you indicate, he who takes these values and expresses them in their higher essence - whether through political leadership or through any one of the arts; however the genius adds something of his 'own' - something unique; this is the divine spark that separates the genius for the craftsman.

The craftsman ('creator' in the essay) is essentially a technician - he uses is knowledge, knows what he wants to do, and assembles his product into something that works for what he wants to do - if selling this to others, make something his customers would find useful and best adapted to their values (moral, aesthetic, power, economic etc). The genius is not interested in primarily selling his product - he articulates, develops, brings into form, his own will, his instincts, his core values, and projects them into material reality, so others of similar instincts and core values can truly comprehend them, a link between the genius and his appreciator is made - this is the origin of all things 'spiritual', and the basis of all cultural-spiritual unity - this of course requires common instinct above all, and hence why culture mostly conforms to racial deliniations. The creator builds tools - the genius is the tool for bringing instinct into form.

I don't think there is a great deal of conflict between your perspective and mine, after I cleared up the confusion that appeared between you and myself. Anyway, keep the criticism coming, I hope I can clear up further differences in perspectives.

Moody
Thursday, September 11th, 2003, 05:39 PM
1. Metaphysics
A 'Philosophy of Power' would be a better designation in my opinion, simply because Metaphysica is usually understood in the Platonic sense as a theory of what is 'beyond' ['meta-'] reality, or the physical.
This goes for Plato's Theory of Forms, and also for German Idealism - both very well-known philosophies.

The use of 'metaphyics' for fundamental reality is a MISNOMER.
Aristotle called this study 'First Philosophy', but because his [untitled] book dealing with the subject was catalogued AFTER [or 'beyond', 'meta'] the book called The Physics, it was erroneously named The Metaphyics.
Taking this title literally lead to the aforementioned more common philosophy of 'Beyond Reality'.
My point is that naming your postion on a misnomer is unhelpful.

2. Energia
ctionSurrender itself is an 'action'; that class of actions we might cal re-actions, but actions nonetheless. To the Noble morality of Nietzsche, a re-action is far more important than an action [although ultimately we might find that all actions are in fact re-actions].
Therefore, the re-action of Surrender is a response to defeat.
It seems you agree that power can be negative, anyway.
Nietzsche himself often pointed out that true Nobility resided in the power NOT to act.

Power includes the imposition of restrictions as well as the lifting of them.
Of course, life is ALL about restrictions and is never bereft of them.
Life on Earth is restricted by the need for food and water, the pervasive force of gravity, the inevitability of death etc.,

If we get away from the interpretive language of 'power' [deriving from the root 'to be'] and 'freedom' [meaning originally 'closeness to the (tribal) chief'], and think instead of 'energy', then we realise that energy can never be created or destroyed.
Therefore a loss of energy in one place means the increase of energy in another.
So there is always a quantum of energy/power/freedom existant.
If we think of this quantum as a Tiger, then it is a case of who is 'riding the Tiger' at any particular moment.
I would say that economics/politics/arts etc., are just manifestations of this energy in the human realm.

3. Values
With there is undoubted a conflict of values, there is also a conflict WITHIN values. Indeed, the conflicts that occur WITHIN factions are usually more destructive than outer conflicts.
So we have the spectacle of those with the 'same values', working within the same faction, falling out in bitterly destructive ways [see forums such as this]. The ancients knew that the most evil war was civil war.
So I would say that the conflicts WITHIN values are far more important than the conflicts between different values.

4. Instinct
The word 'instinct' is meant to describe the phenomena of action without self-awareness. This is usually more effective as it is not impeded by doubt. No wonder then, that it appears paramount in the animal kingdom; man himself has tended to blunt his instincts, try to tame them and even tried to deny their existence. This is why modern man cannot understand crime and war, for example, and resorts to age old moral concepts such as 'evil'.

5. Morality
Morality is the judging of actions, period [cf 'mores']. The popular sense of 'moral' meaning 'good' is a another misnomer; morality is an [often systematic]interpretation of behaviour(s).

6. Knowledge
An important aspect of knowledge is DISCERNMENT. The wise man REJECTS much [just as the Nobleman chooses NOT to act]. I see a pattern here; we must look at what Keats called 'nagative capability', i.e., the ability to BE in negatives/non-actions/rejections.

7. Culture
Yockey's idea of 'Jewish culture-distortion' shouldn't be repeated without a thorough consideration of its implications. We need to take a cold look at what is and isn't Jewish [and we certainly shouldn't take the Jews' own word for this], and how such phenomena are related to what is non-Jewish.
I say this, as your own promotion of the Red army struck me as an embrace of 'Jewish culture-distortion'.

8. Genius
I would say that the genius is above the craftsman, but he cannot dispense with craftsmanship. The genius must at LEAST be a great craftsman; but he must be MORE than that ALSO; he must be a unique creator and a fearless hero.

Jack
Saturday, September 13th, 2003, 07:22 AM
1. Metaphysics
A 'Philosophy of Power' would be a better designation in my opinion, simply because Metaphysica is usually understood in the Platonic sense as a theory of what is 'beyond' ['meta-'] reality, or the physical.
This goes for Plato's Theory of Forms, and also for German Idealism - both very well-known philosophies.

The use of 'metaphyics' for fundamental reality is a MISNOMER.
Aristotle called this study 'First Philosophy', but because his [untitled] book dealing with the subject was catalogued AFTER [or 'beyond', 'meta'] the book called The Physics, it was erroneously named The Metaphyics.
Taking this title literally lead to the aforementioned more common philosophy of 'Beyond Reality'.
My point is that naming your postion on a misnomer is unhelpful.

Ok then.


2. Energia
ctionSurrender itself is an 'action'; that class of actions we might cal re-actions, but actions nonetheless. To the Noble morality of Nietzsche, a re-action is far more important than an action [although ultimately we might find that all actions are in fact re-actions].
Therefore, the re-action of Surrender is a response to defeat.
It seems you agree that power can be negative, anyway.
Nietzsche himself often pointed out that true Nobility resided in the power NOT to act.

That idea seems to come dangerously close to the slave morality of Jesus Christ. You might say tolerance is a virtue of the noble man, and I would agree - partially. Tolerance to the point of capitulation, weakness of will, and so on, I would count as the characteristics of the despicable. Self discipline as a means to achieve your aims is something different altogether. Tolerance of what does not concern you or violate your capacity to bring your convictions into reality is a sign of the noble man. I would say the noble man is defined by his disgust at people's tendency to control what does not concern them - example: modern leftists who want to control discrimination against nonwhites, when they aren't being discriminated against. Stupidity and weakness of will.


Power includes the imposition of restrictions as well as the lifting of them.
Of course, life is ALL about restrictions and is never bereft of them.

Of course, power does include imposing restrictions as well as lifting them. Power is the capability to act - including the capability to act on other people. Controlling them through force is one way. Setting them free from force is another. Or you could convince them to work for you, or whatever.


Life on Earth is restricted by the need for food and water, the pervasive force of gravity, the inevitability of death etc.,

I agree. Power cannot be infinite.


If we get away from the interpretive language of 'power' [deriving from the root 'to be'] and 'freedom' [meaning originally 'closeness to the (tribal) chief'], and think instead of 'energy', then we realise that energy can never be created or destroyed.
Therefore a loss of energy in one place means the increase of energy in another.
So there is always a quantum of energy/power/freedom existant.

Yockey calls this the law of political plenum. I disagree with it. By destroying resources you can limit everyone's power relative to their objectives, but relative to other individuals, power changes hands but is not destroyed. Social power versus material power.


If we think of this quantum as a Tiger, then it is a case of who is 'riding the Tiger' at any particular moment. I would say that economics/politics/arts etc., are just manifestations of this energy in the human realm.

Arts, culture? I'm not sure about that. Economics and politics I can agree with. Energy I'm likely to interpret as life-force, I would say (psychologically) this comes through in instinct. I'm going to try give my own meaning for instinct below.


3. Values
With there is undoubted a conflict of values, there is also a conflict WITHIN values. Indeed, the conflicts that occur WITHIN factions are usually more destructive than outer conflicts.
So we have the spectacle of those with the 'same values', working within the same faction, falling out in bitterly destructive ways [see forums such as this]. The ancients knew that the most evil war was civil war.
So I would say that the conflicts WITHIN values are far more important than the conflicts between different values.

I don't see how conflicts within values can exist. Conflicts within groups who hold common values, yes - then that would be between values in the context of a greater value, not inside a value itself (example: say, the trotskyites versus the stalinists within the greater value (I don't hold it, the people I'm discussing do) of achieving communist utopia, that idea being held by the Communist Internationale circa 1925). I would say these is the difference between primary and secondary politics. I've discussed the potential advantage and disadvantage of its internal-group destruction through infighting in the essay. I think this is what you are referring to. And I certainly agree that there's a more epic struggle that occurs when a group cuts itself apart in self destructive infighting than when two groups meet and fighting cleanly (clean meaning without infiltration and other forms of 'dirty warfare').


4. Instinct
The word 'instinct' is meant to describe the phenomena of action without self-awareness. This is usually more effective as it is not impeded by doubt. No wonder then, that it appears paramount in the animal kingdom; man himself has tended to blunt his instincts, try to tame them and even tried to deny their existence. This is why modern man cannot understand crime and war, for example, and resorts to age old moral concepts such as 'evil'.

Modern man can't comprehend war and crime because he is used to the notion of rights (Thorburn, we discussed this online, I followed rights down to the logical argument for globalist capitalism, and we both ended up agreeing that what you call positive rights are the priveliges of social power), a product of rationalism. This is what I have a problem with - rationalism, or what I call analytical rationalism. Analytical rationalism looks at charcteristics of objects (Apollonian in the extreme), like man's capability to reason, calls it his essence, and everything else follows from that. Analytical rationalism is false, if we are to understand how the world actually works, rather than how it could optimally work. In contrast to analytical rationalism, I pose synthetic rationalism (my own perspective), which looks at tendencies, motivations, origins, force, energy, power, space. It's descriptive, as opposed to prescriptive.

I would define instinct as the reason that does not have to be thought into existance. Sex, Love, Hate, Aggression, Defence, Family, Race, Nation, that is instinct. Culture, Religion, Philosophy, that is intellect. I have no hesitations in saying intellect draws its motivations from instinct. Instinct is drawn from the blood and channelled into the requirements for man's social mode of existance. The best (that is, most useful, from anyone's subjective perspective) products from the intellect are the products of Genius (see further down).


5. Morality
Morality is the judging of actions, period [cf 'mores']. The popular sense of 'moral' meaning 'good' is a another misnomer; morality is an [often systematic]interpretation of behaviour(s).

It can be, but I would not link morality with interpretation. Man percieves, then he builds a concept to fit it in, then he asks himself the question, "what can I do?". Morality is measuring something that does happen against a standard of what should happen - what the individual observing desires to happen. Morality distinguishes what is good from what is bad (or evil). The question is: good or bad according to what (and who's) standard? Analytical rationalism builds a morality around rights and calls anything that violates that standard evil. Synthetic rationalism tries to understand what people do without passing moral judgement - the synthetic rationalist does not allow his personal moral standard to impinge on his study. In this sense synthetic rationalism probably has more to do with psychology than anything else.


6. Knowledge
An important aspect of knowledge is DISCERNMENT. The wise man REJECTS much [just as the Nobleman chooses NOT to act]. I see a pattern here; we must look at what Keats called 'nagative capability', i.e., the ability to BE in negatives/non-actions/rejections.

This seems similar to Karl Popper's hypothetico-deductive model, in which he pushes the idea that a theory is not scientific unless it forbids certain things from happening - basicall, that all theories are nothing more than working hypotheses, and true knowledge won't ever be achieved, but so long as scientific theories are developed and tested, scientists will become far more able to describe how the world works, but they will never be able to tell us how it works - simply because they don't know. So I asked myself the question, what's the point in knowledge anyway, and I came up with the idea that knowledge is nothing more than a framework for actions.

"Within the knowledge provided, if an action attempted based on that knowledge fails, one of two things may be deduced. Either part of the operational framework of knowledge was incorrect (though a failure of intelligence, or disinformation, for example), or required knowledge was missing." - I think that covers what you were trying to say. About a third of the way through the first part. I would definetly agree the noble man is the man always seeking knowledge.


7. Culture
Yockey's idea of 'Jewish culture-distortion' shouldn't be repeated without a thorough consideration of its implications. We need to take a cold look at what is and isn't Jewish [and we certainly shouldn't take the Jews' own word for this], and how such phenomena are related to what is non-Jewish.
I say this, as your own promotion of the Red army struck me as an embrace of 'Jewish culture-distortion'.

Consider my motivations: I want the European white race to survive. The Russians seem to have an innate tendency for fraternal brotherhood. I think if we integrated that tendency and co-opted it for the ends of the white race, it would be useful. Otherwise it will be destructive, and I will have to agree with Yockey that Russia as a political unit must be destroyed and Europe must crush Russia as a cultural entity, and Europe must take its place over the eastern slavs. That's the problem. I'm looking for a solution.


Genius
I would say that the genius is above the craftsman, but he cannot dispense with craftsmanship. The genius must at LEAST be a great craftsman; but he must be MORE than that ALSO; he must be a unique creator and a fearless hero.

I would say the craftsman is essentially a technician, drawing connections between phenomena in his mind, then acting to bring things together so they work for his aims. His aims, as I have said before, have their depths in his own instincts, but his mind does not have the capacity to plunge that deep and see the currents that flow inside him, let alone bring those currents out and channel them into works. That ability is Genius. Genius does not draw connections between external phenomena and manipulate matter. Genius is self-generating, technical ability is not. I should like to put foward two types of Genius - Individual Genius and Social Genius. Individual Genius, I would say, reaches into the depths of his own spirit and instincts and creates art and poetry. His works and their effects are far stronger than the creator-technician, though the creator-technician may be said to be an Individual Genius of lesser ability. The Social Genius is something altogether different, and far more potent - he reaches not merely into his own depths, but the depths of his entire Culture, and brings out the strongest current and he becomes its living embodiment, unstoppable spiritually. The great Heroes of the Ages are Social Genius. Individual Genius - his fields are art, music, philosophy. Social Genius - his arena is high politics, philosophy, economics. The lines blur but distinctions can be made.

Moody
Tuesday, September 16th, 2003, 06:40 PM
Proactive/Reactive/Active/Deactive
Action is not only pro-active, it is also, for example, re-active.
Action must be seen 'in the round', philosophically speaking.
Power is just as much the power NOT to act, as it is the power TO act; restraint and discipline often requires more strength than just 'letting go'.

Tolerance
You introduce 'tolerance', and that too must be seen as neutral.
Self-proclaimed 'Tolerant' Leftists are 'intolerant of intolerance', for example. Therefore it is a question of who and what we tolerate [and by implication, what we inversely do not tolerate] that matters - this again comes down to perspective.

Common Values
We often talk too blithely of 'values'; those who believe that they hold to the 'same values' as others are often mistaken.
This is because;
i) They have not seriously defined what a 'value' means, and
ii) They have not seriously defined the values that they claim to hold.

The 'far-right' scene is a good example; when one looks at the myriad of often incongruous and sometimes, downright differing, values which are grouped together under this one value-heading, it appears laughable.

Splits occur within these factions because those within them WRONGLY assumed that they held 'common values'.

Analysis/Synthesis
I would say that both analysis and synthesis have to be used in order to arise at a truer picture. While rationalism alone is barren, so is mysticism alone deluding; we must harness both, allowing for flights of fancy when necessary, and for hard-headed analytical reasoning at other times.

Reason is a Late Arrival
Aryan Man has striven to shape and mould and thereby elevate his Dionysian Instincts by the subsequent application of his Apollonian reason.
However, instinct is primary, and so cannot be defined as "the reason that does not have to be thought into existance", as you put it, because instinct does not begin as reason which requires re-flection.
It is reason which works on the given material of instinct just as a sculptor works on a lump of stone - 'carve yourself!'.

Morality
You say;
"The question is: good or bad according to what (and who's) standard?"
That you have to ask that amply demonstrates that morality is PURE interpretation.
One man's good is another man's evil and vice versa.
This is true for individuals, couples, tribes, clans, races, nations and empires.

Man cannot apply his reasoning at any point without interpreting.

Language itself is VALUE-LADEN.
The very syntactical construction of English has a certain moral imperative, which differs from other languages. As soon as we start to think and speak, we are offering an interpretation [see how philosophy is often grouped according to language group - e.g., 'Anglophone Philosophy' etc.,].

It is rather fanciful to pretend to an absolute objectivity - we can only be relatively objective, but even here we are to an extent prejudiced.
Man is a most prejudiced creature - he is even prejudiced about his ability to be unprejudiced!

Philosophy versus Ideology
You say that "knowledge is nothing more than a framework for actions"; this is what I am criticising here in general.
You are only looking at the pro-active, and are forgeting that much knowledge has been gained in contemplation, and that much can be achieved by not acting, but by holding back.
There is much in avoiding temptation - why else do the Jews and their slaves bombard the culture with hedonistic sex and violence?
In such a culture as today, the Aryan is he who rejects much, closes his door, and makes time to think and to contemplate. He realises that Aryan man has made too many rash mistakes in the past, and has rushed pell-mell into the traps set for him. He has become an 'Action Man' to be dangled on a string to fight Jewish wars for the advantage of the Jew.
A philosophy needs to be complete, whereas an Ideology can get away with being one-sided. To make the transition from an 'Ideology of Power' to a 'Philosophy of Power', all aspects of the ideas expressed must be dealt with and expressed.

Genii
The Individual Genius requires genuine expertise just as the social genius requires Order. The genius without technique is the favourite of Modern Art, just as the society without Order and on the edge of anarchy is the favourite of 'democracy'.

Jack
Friday, September 19th, 2003, 11:07 AM
I'm not sure what to do with what you've said, so I'll take it bit by bit and discuss it.


Aryan Man has striven to shape and mould and thereby elevate his Dionysian Instincts by the subsequent application of his Apollonian reason.
However, instinct is primary, and so cannot be defined as "the reason that does not have to be thought into existance", as you put it, because instinct does not begin as reason which requires re-flection.
It is reason which works on the given material of instinct just as a sculptor works on a lump of stone - 'carve yourself!'.

I used a poor choice of words. By 'reason that does not have to be thought into existance', I meant motivation. People don't think an instinct into existance - it exists prior before all actions.


Tolerance
You introduce 'tolerance', and that too must be seen as neutral.
Self-proclaimed 'Tolerant' Leftists are 'intolerant of intolerance', for example. Therefore it is a question of who and what we tolerate [and by implication, what we inversely do not tolerate] that matters - this again comes down to perspective.

The leftist tolerates everything but intolerance, because he is essentially totalitarian, however 'liberal' he claims his motivations are. He will not tolerate traditional occidental morality (respect for women, fair play, strong families, hard work, nationalism etc.) because he feels he must control, and this infringes on his control. Homosexuality, environmentalism, internationalism do not conflict with his power (power as capability to act), and hence are tolerated. The reason the leftist is totalitarian is because he suffers from 'oversocialisation' - he suffers an inferiority complex because he was raised into a system that inwardly does not coincide with the weak instincts that he does have. He cannot cope being told that he must bend over backwards for left-wing suicide-morality and inwardly he knows he cannot do this, but cannot bring himself to rebel against leftist suicide-morality. His form of rebellion is taking on leftist suicide-morality as his own and then accusing society of violating that morality. The university leftist is generally of high intelligence but low instinct - which is why he is incapable of taking the lead against his own suicide morality. The street-leftist, in constrast, has moderate will to power, but does not have the intelligence to learn the true nature of his suicide-morality, and so he does not have the intelligence to peer into the depths of his own instincts and recognise the chasm between the two.

Anyway :D I would say people are generally tolerant of others who do not infringe on the power they have in relation to their own objectives. Where someone infringes on one's power in relation to one's own objectives, tolerance becomes irrelevant and politics begins.


I would say that both analysis and synthesis have to be used in order to arise at a truer picture. While rationalism alone is barren, so is mysticism alone deluding; we must harness both, allowing for flights of fancy when necessary, and for hard-headed analytical reasoning at other times.

The dangers of using famous words are illustrated :) Synthetic rationalism is both - rationalism as analysis (not merely of man's supposedly fantastic 'faculty of reason', but of his biologically grounded instincts), synthesis as fitting the analysed objects together to get the whole picture, with the inclusion of everything that seems, according to analytical rationalism, irrational (i.e. violence, force, and so on).


"The question is: good or bad according to what (and who's) standard?"
That you have to ask that amply demonstrates that morality is PURE interpretation.
One man's good is another man's evil and vice versa.
This is true for individuals, couples, tribes, clans, races, nations and empires.

Pure interpretation? I would say purely subjective. Please explain what you mean, if your meaning is different.


Man cannot apply his reasoning at any point without interpreting.

I agree. His interpretation depends on his motivations - he has selective vision, so to speak. Synthetic rationalism (my 'system') has no other motivations than to see the whole of the world as it is, because it's only after knowledge is aquired that it can be used as a framework for action.


You say that "knowledge is nothing more than a framework for actions"; this is what I am criticising here in general.
You are only looking at the pro-active, and are forgeting that much knowledge has been gained in contemplation, and that much can be achieved by not acting, but by holding back.

The point stands, actually. "Knowledge" in my use covers everything from military intelligence to scientific technique. It gives options - that's the only purpose of science. Not to 'make the world a better place' (as an idiot in my philosophy class put it), but to give us options - tools - power as capability to act. It gives us a framework - knowledge combined with our motivations (which ultimately arise out of instinct) gives us the reasons (conscious reasons) to hold back, to unleash, to research more, and so on.


A philosophy needs to be complete, whereas an Ideology can get away with being one-sided. To make the transition from an 'Ideology of Power' to a 'Philosophy of Power', all aspects of the ideas expressed must be dealt with and expressed.

Ideology of power...? My essay may be incomplete in so far as it does not delve into all of the aspects of power and society (obviously I've missed out on a few things), but I hope this discussion can keep going because I'm going to use it as notes for the (third) revised version. I'm trying, and I thought I did a good job so far :)

Moody
Friday, September 19th, 2003, 07:00 PM
Instincts
Our 'instincts' were probably inculcated into us by evolution hundreds of thousands of years ago in pre-hisory.
We've inherited hunter-gatherer instincts which are largely inappropriate in our settled domestic world.

Tolerance
I say that every model of 'tolerance' must include its opposite of intolerance to define it [and the opposite must be allowed into every philosophy].
Even the most intolerant person tolerates SOMETHING even if it is only his own intolerance.
Likewise, the most tolerant is also intolerant as we have recognised - even though he will no doubt deny it.

Leftism
As for the motivations of leftist/liberal 'toleration' ideology, I go along with Nietzsche's view to a large extent. He says that this is the re-assertion of the collectivist pre-Aryan culture of Old Europe.
As Aryan culture has progressively declined and been attacked by its Semitic enemies, so has this atavistic 'communism' re-emerged.
Essentially, it hates everything the Aryan culture stands for, and also seethes with revenge against its one-time Overlords.

I don't think that the leftist himself is suicidal, as he knows how to make his type and his ideology survive; rather I think that he is able to make the Aryan persue the path of suicide himself.

Morality
I would say that morality is either;
i) an interpretation of observed actions and behaviours; i.e., 'we do this because of this and that - we don't do this because of the other'. Such a morality is a description of what is done anyway [see instinct] and provides a rationale etc., Or else morality is -
ii) an attempt at a corrective - 'we do this, which has bad effects, therefore we must do the other to improve our situation'. This morality is a proscription of certain behaviours etc., This can be used as a means to aid survival or prosperity, or it can be used as a means to poison an adversary [see leftist morality].

In all cases, the varying moralities [and there are many] are based on interpretation - but not just 'subjectivity' as it is usually understood, unless a whole society or nation has a subjectivity and a self-hood.

Knowledge
If you define 'knowledge as a framework of action', as you say, then what of knowledge for its own sake? And what of the fact that most actions take place out-side the framework of 'knowledge' [see instincts, see chance, see fate, see faith, see blind obedience, see heroism, see morality etc., etc.,].

To me, a Philosophy of Power would have to look deeply into the hidden, instinctive and even mystical recesses of the Mind and Culture.

Jack
Saturday, September 20th, 2003, 12:49 PM
Instincts
Our 'instincts' were probably inculcated into us by evolution hundreds of thousands of years ago in pre-hisory.
We've inherited hunter-gatherer instincts which are largely inappropriate in our settled domestic world.

I know. That fits in well enough with what I've said.


Tolerance
I say that every model of 'tolerance' must include its opposite of intolerance to define it [and the opposite must be allowed into every philosophy].
Even the most intolerant person tolerates SOMETHING even if it is only his own intolerance.
Likewise, the most tolerant is also intolerant as we have recognised - even though he will no doubt deny it.

Tolerance is relative :) It is not dualism that should be focused on, but the key points the opposites are centered around.


Leftism
As for the motivations of leftist/liberal 'toleration' ideology, I go along with Nietzsche's view to a large extent. He says that this is the re-assertion of the collectivist pre-Aryan culture of Old Europe.
As Aryan culture has progressively declined and been attacked by its Semitic enemies, so has this atavistic 'communism' re-emerged.
Essentially, it hates everything the Aryan culture stands for, and also seethes with revenge against its one-time Overlords.

Here, I disagree. Modern Europeans are undoubtably heavily descended from the Barbarian tribes that overran the borders of Rome - the rest, from the Celts that were already there. I fail to see how leftism could be considered a reassertion of the pre-Aryan culture of Old Europe.


I don't think that the leftist himself is suicidal, as he knows how to make his type and his ideology survive; rather I think that he is able to make the Aryan persue the path of suicide himself.

By suicide morality, I mean a morality which tears apart one's own cultural origins and gene pool, no nessecarily a moral system which encourages personal suicide.


Morality
I would say that morality is either;
i) an interpretation of observed actions and behaviours; i.e., 'we do this because of this and that - we don't do this because of the other'. Such a morality is a description of what is done anyway [see instinct] and provides a rationale etc., Or else morality is -
ii) an attempt at a corrective - 'we do this, which has bad effects, therefore we must do the other to improve our situation'. This morality is a proscription of certain behaviours etc., This can be used as a means to aid survival or prosperity, or it can be used as a means to poison an adversary [see leftist morality].

How is interpretation morality? That is what I don't understand. If one judges another actions by the standards of the person that acts, on grounds of efficiency, I would not call that morality, I would call that logic. But when someone judges something based on their personal standards as 'good' (approve) or 'bad' (disapprove), that is what I call morality.


In all cases, the varying moralities [and there are many] are based on interpretation - but not just 'subjectivity' as it is usually understood, unless a whole society or nation has a subjectivity and a self-hood.

I disagree - individuals can have their own varying moralities, even within a nation - different objectives, different degrees of instincts, different behavioural refinement (i.e. intelligence). Possibly the best contrast I can give is the difference between a traitor-coward, and a hero-genius, of the same nation. Contrast the German Communist with the Waffen SS soldier, for example: both have different objectives and entirely different and contradicting perspectives, different moralities, and different ways of observing events, precisely because their mindsets are different - though I believe the Waffen SS soldier's mindset is far more native to his own instincts, and so, when taking his instincts and motivations into account, is far more 'correct' - that is, correct for his own sake.


Knowledge
If you define 'knowledge as a framework of action', as you say, then what of knowledge for its own sake? And what of the fact that most actions take place out-side the framework of 'knowledge' [see instincts, see chance, see fate, see faith, see blind obedience, see heroism, see morality etc., etc.,].

Knowledge includes everything - even the things we percive - the colour, the shape, the hardness, the position, the form of the objects that surround us. Science is mere refinement of this knowledge, a function of the mind that gives us more options. These objects, that knowledge, is required before instincts can even come into being as actions, wielding control and utilising objects of the environment around us for their own extension. All knowledge - idea, theory, technical, political, economic, moral - all knowledge is utility. The individual who searches for knowledge 'for its own sake' is driven to learn and compile knowledge about objects so that others may employ it for their own ends (indirect genetic expansion).


To me, a Philosophy of Power would have to look deeply into the hidden, instinctive and even mystical recesses of the Mind and Culture.

Ok. Moody, do you have any more ideas, or areas that I could/should cover in a revised version of the essay, apart from what we have already discussed?

Moody
Friday, October 3rd, 2003, 06:33 PM
Aloysha; " Modern Europeans are undoubtably heavily descended from the Barbarian tribes that overran the borders of Rome - the rest, from the Celts that were already there. I fail to see how leftism could be considered a reassertion of the pre-Aryan culture of Old Europe".

Moody Lawless; You've forgotten about the pre-Celtic populations, sometimes called Atlanto-Mediterraneans etc., These, and not the Celts were the builders of the Megaliths and the pre-Celtic substratum of Old Europe. There are suggestions that Goddess worshipping societies existed before the arrival of the patriarchal Aryans. On this basis is founded the suggestion that a tendency towards a collectivism in Old Europe pre-dates hierarchical Aryan Europe.

Aloysha; "If one judges another actions by the standards of the person that acts, on grounds of efficiency, I would not call that morality, I would call that logic. But when someone judges something based on their personal standards as 'good' (approve) or 'bad' (disapprove), that is what I call morality".

ML; All judging [whether to do with efficiency or with good and bad] is interpretation. As Nietzsche wrote;
"THere are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena".

Aloysha; "do you have any more ideas, or areas that I could/should cover in a revised version of the essay, apart from what we have already discussed?"

ML; The question of Race still begs itself.

Jack
Saturday, October 4th, 2003, 05:13 AM
Ok, it's moral. But not in the sense that an action immediately hits one's own biological and psychological interests and prompts a quick reaction to the situaton which hasn't been analysed properly. In short: it's not moral how the masses think of it, but if measuring an event against a standard is moral, then it is.

Moody - You've read Spengler's Decline of the West, you know of the Mary-cult, and I find your connection between matriarchial pre-Celtic European culture and 'collectivism' irrelevant. Please provide more supporting arguments/evidence.

The question of Race itself is not to be answered in this essay simply because I've bound it up under the notion of 'common identity', and I'm also having my non-racist (she doesn't even know my politics, but she is white) philosophy teacher helping me revise this essay.

Moody
Monday, May 10th, 2004, 04:06 PM
On the Mary-cult, and the connection between matriarchial pre-Celtic European culture and 'collectivism'.

I have made another thread on this called 'Matriarchy and the European Mythos'.

See the work of Marija Gimbutas, for example, for more on this perspective;

http://www.goddessmandala.com/gimbutas.html

http://www.telesterion.com/esotericbooks/gimbutas.htm

The connection between collectivist/socialistic ideals and Old Europe was made by Nietzsche in his 'On the Genealogy of Morals' and 'Beyond Good and Evil'.

Nuovo Vesuvio
Friday, December 24th, 2004, 03:46 PM
sorry i have not read the essay beacuz i cant be bothered. But reading a few replies, freedom is definately a good thing. It is an option, whether you choose it or not is up to you. Someone said that we have to learn from not trusting pure instinct. Actually it is the other way...you have to learn to trust pure instince. That is the MASSIVE mistake society makes. And you know who is to blame: you and your EGO. your ego is your ENEMY. It rules most of you if not all. In order to evolve as a spiritual being, you have to let it step aside

(or like I did - I had a boxing match with it then gave it the old 1-2, then punched it in the face, then i bit its head off so he was bleeding inside the ring. Then I got a pneumatic drill and drilled through his body then through it off an aeroplane into a pool of pyranas so it got eaten up, then chucked the bones in the most acidic acid so they disintegrated.)

"freedom inevitably leads to nihilism, the absence of all values". Uh-uh that is wrong. I cant be bothered to say why...maybe later...sorry! Im feeling a little lazy these days...outta gas i guess