Counter-Currents
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 21
Greg Johnson Interviews Mark Dyal, Part 1
Counter-Currents Radio
59:17 / 157 words
Audio Version: To listen in a player, click here.
To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as.”
Transcript here
To subscribe to our podcasts, click here.
Dr. Mark Dyal is an American scholar and writer. He has an M.A. in black studies and a Ph.D. in anthropology. His dissertation is on Italian “Ultras” — soccer hooligans and skinheads — focusing on their “agonistic” subculture and its roots in Italian fascism; in Counter-Enlightenment thinkers like Friedrich Nietzsche, Julius Evola, and Georges Sorel; and in the indigenous European resistance of globalization, liberalism, and immigration.
Topics include:
- His upbringing and relationship to his Southern roots
- His youthful engagement with black American culture
- His experiences as a white American pursuing graduate degrees in black studies
- His decision to pursue a Ph.D. in anthropology
- The influence of Nietzsche on his thinking
- The political biases of the anthropology profession
- His experiences in Rome living with and studying Italian Ultras
- His discovery of the North American New Right
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
61 comments
It is not an apology for historical relations with non-Whites nor anything like a commitment to pacifism to state that it is not the goal of the White left to lord ourselves over and to exploit other races. It is simply not our ultimate purpose. Our ultimate purpose is to be separate.
Nor is it our goal to assist these races beyond what help they may need to get out of our way; to harvest resources for trade; or to avoid overgrazing and destroying what environment they do impact.
It is rather to assert our moral grounds, which are more than valid. It is our goal to be separate.
Nietzsche pandered to the perspective of puerile girls in admiration of impervious (insensible) men. This is why he rather admired Negroes: they were a form of evolution which had quantified and maxed-out masculinity, creating an aggressive, presumtuous, hyper-assertive kind of people.
When does Nietzsche ever talk about the value of feminine attributes? Cooperation, compassion, concern for relations, etc? He doesn’t. His view is toxic and lacking an appreciation for the more optimal and distinctly human evolution of Europeans. An evolution which has balanced off and tempered masculine characteristics in favor of some sublimation, intelligence and forethought – cunning in methods of war, even. This makes for a more creative and reasonable man, in the White man, not to mention a finer kind of woman in the White woman.
His pandering to puerile females is partly an expression of modernity itself, and has an upshot of mulatto supremacism. By contrast and by whatever means necessary for victory, The White Left organizes the distinct way of European peoples as an organic whole.
“Nietzsche pandered to the perspective of puerile girls in admiration of impervious (insensible) men. This is why he rather admired Negroes: they were a form of evolution which had quantified and maxed-out masculinity, creating an aggressive, presumtuous, hyper-assertive kind of people.”
He admired certain attributes that negroes possessed. He wasn’t a “mudshark” like you’re trying to imply, here.
“When does Nietzsche ever talk about the value of feminine attributes?”
Have you ever actually read Nietzsche? He talks about compassion, nay, *TRUE* compassion (not to be confused with modern liberal “compassion”) quite a bit. Are you not familiar with how the left loves to quote him on the basis of this misunderstanding? In “Thus Spake Zarathustra,” it’s pretty obvious that Nietzsche is trying to separate true compassion from liberal opportunism that has been labeled “compassion.”
“Cooperation, compassion, concern for relations, etc? He doesn’t.”
Yes, he does. This is just false.
“His view is toxic and lacking an appreciation for the more optimal and distinctly human evolution of Europeans.”
Actually, I’d say it’s because he understood that Europeans were uniquely sensitive that he also understood their inherent weaknesses and wanted to correct them. If you read Schopenhauer, he talks about how Northern Europeans are a more sensitive race of people. I find it hard to believe that Nietzsche didn’t have this in mind when he was trying to tough the moral ethics of the civilization he lived under.
“An evolution which has balanced off and tempered masculine characteristics in favor of some sublimation, intelligence and forethought – cunning in methods of war, even. This makes for a more creative and reasonable man, in the White man, not to mention a finer kind of woman in the White woman.”
Sure. In the interview Bowden gives with Richard Spencer he talks about how Nietzsche’s sense of morality is hierarchical and sublimated. In fact, “sublimation” was a word Bowden, who was a Nietzschean himself, used more than once during the course of the interview to refer to Nietzsche’s ethical sense.
“His pandering to puerile females is partly an expression of modernity itself, and has an upshot of mulatto supremacism.”
Now you’re just throwing around wild charges anyone with half a brain who’s read Nietzsche knows you cannot substantiate.
UFASP
Posted September 20, 2012 at 8:16 pm | Permalink
“Nietzsche pandered to the perspective of puerile girls in admiration of impervious (insensible) men. This is why he rather admired Negroes: they were a form of evolution which had quantified and maxed-out masculinity, creating an aggressive, presumtuous, hyper-assertive kind of people.”
“He admired certain attributes that negroes possessed. He wasn’t a “mudshark” like you’re trying to imply, here.”
I did not imply that he was a mudshark and it is wrong of you to suggest that I did.
“When does Nietzsche ever talk about the value of feminine attributes?”
“Have you ever actually read Nietzsche? ”
Yes
He talks about compassion, nay, *TRUE* compassion (not to be confused with modern liberal “compassion”) quite a bit. Are you not familiar with how the left loves to quote him on the basis of this misunderstanding? In “Thus Spake Zarathustra,” it’s pretty obvious that Nietzsche is trying to separate true compassion from liberal opportunism that has been labeled “compassion.”
“Cooperation, compassion, concern for relations, etc? He doesn’t.”
“Yes, he does. This is just false.”
Well, I would not mind being proven wrong. But thematically, that is what I gather of his perspective.
“His view is toxic and lacking an appreciation for the more optimal and distinctly human evolution of Europeans.”
“Actually, I’d say it’s because he understood that Europeans were uniquely sensitive that he also understood their inherent weaknesses and wanted to correct them. ”
I believe he over-corrected and was toxic.
“If you read Schopenhauer, he talks about how Northern Europeans are a more sensitive race of people. I find it hard to believe that Nietzsche didn’t have this in mind when he was trying to tough the moral ethics of the civilization he lived under.”
“An evolution which has balanced off and tempered masculine characteristics in favor of some sublimation, intelligence and forethought – cunning in methods of war, even. This makes for a more creative and reasonable man, in the White man, not to mention a finer kind of woman in the White woman.”
“Sure. In the interview Bowden gives with Richard Spencer he talks about how Nietzsche’s sense of morality is hierarchical and sublimated. In fact, “sublimation” was a word Bowden, who was a Nietzschean himself, used more than once during the course of the interview to refer to Nietzsche’s ethical sense.”
Good we can agree on that much – I’ll take it a step further. So far as I know, Nietzsche is largely responsible for coining the term sublimation.
“His pandering to puerile females is partly an expression of modernity itself, and has an upshot of mulatto supremacism.”
“Now you’re just throwing around wild charges anyone with half a brain who’s read Nietzsche knows you cannot substantiate.”
Not at all. I can substantiate this indeed. Nietzsche’s stance on behalf of sheerly powerful male individuals, against nationalism was of itself antagonistic to classification of our people. This would promote disorder and increase the one up selective position of females as they are pandered to from more angles, men from formerly out-groups. More, females are pandered to by Nietzsche. This disordered situation and pandering to female predilections leads to a situation favoring Black males as they are of an older, more primitive and more masculine kind of people. This disordered situation is less accountable to the group and less civilized, favoring African male abilities and puerile White female selection = mulatto supremacism.
UFASP
Posted September 20, 2012 at 8:16 pm | Permalink
“I did not imply that he was a mudshark and it is wrong of you to suggest that I did.”
I apologize. I didn’t mean to put words into your mouth. My point is that your post is implying in some way that Nietzsche had some sort of thing (whatever you want to call it) for black people.
“Well, I would not mind being proven wrong. But thematically, that is what I gather of his perspective.”
Have you ever read Ludovici’s Who Is To Be The Master Of The World? (It’s on the internet.) There’s a passage where he talks about Nietzsche’s idea of compassion or charitable behavior and cites passages written by Nietzsche. I’m too lazy to search for them now but I will if you press me on it. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, Zarathustra has all sorts of passages that deal with compassion but it’s also been a while since I’ve read that book. If you really think I’m being disingenuous, I will provide quotes.
“I believe he over-corrected and was toxic.”
“Over-corrected”? So this disagreement is going to devolve into little handles and semantics already?
“Good we can agree on that much – I’ll take it a step further. So far as I know, Nietzsche is largely responsible for coining the term sublimation.”
Yeah, I’ve heard this. I don’t know how to verify if that’s true of not but it seems that that term would have had to have come out of the nineteenth century and no earlier given the scientific advancements and intellectual climate at the time.
“Not at all. I can substantiate this indeed. Nietzsche’s stance on behalf of sheerly powerful male individuals, against nationalism was of itself antagonistic to classification of our people.”
Actually, you can look at it another way. That European nationalism worked against the concrete classification of our people– European people– WHITE people. In addition, he rejected the modern state for reasons that should be obvious to a Counter-Currents reader.
“This would promote disorder and increase the one up selective position of females as they are pandered to from more angles, men from formerly out-groups. More, females are pandered to by Nietzsche. This disordered situation and pandering to female predilections leads to a situation favoring Black males as they are of an older, more primitive and more masculine kind of people.”
I don’t think this is a fair charge at all. I don’t think we have any idea what Nietzsche would have thought about multi-culturalism. Considering that it is a tool used by Jews to destroy the noble fruits he defended so fiercely, it’s not a stretch to say that your interpretation of Nietzsche in this respect is fallacious.
I do think there are some grounds for believing that Nietzsche would have thought that if white men today cannot be bothered to fight for their own inheritance (as most of them have shown that they will not), that they are unworthy of it and do in fact deserve to die off. At the same time, he was no mere Darwinist who thought that survival of the fittest made “right,” either. Nietzsche, like Stoddard after him, realized that the modern world had created a safety net for women to pair up with inferiors and outproduce the noble man who could give rise to the Superman. But at the same time, the noble elements have to possess a fierce vitality that is sublimated over time. If whites prove over time that they’ve just simply lost this vitality, then it’s a genuine tragedy for the biological world; but if that turns out to be true (we won’t know if it’s true or not until all of this white survival stuff has played itself out), perhaps it is better that a new race with vitality is constituted (just as the older barbarians replaced the domesticated Romans) instead of having some artificial edifice (such as a false morality) propping up a weak and ineffective race destined to languish and watch Monday Night Football and HBO until the end of time.
Yes, black men have masculine traits that Nietzsche admired. They were probably traits that stood out to Nietzsche because he saw them lacking in European man and this applies to white men more than ever today. How often have you looked at how white men interact with black men and just been totally disgusted? I know I’ve been disgusted by the groveling of whites towards blacks on many occasions. So instead of being defensive, why not try to see constructive criticism for what it truly is? I think it’s a stretch to say that Nietzsche saw negroes as the bridge to the Superman INSTEAD of white men. That specific consideration is below the scope of his philosophy altogether.
“This disordered situation is less accountable to the group and less civilized, favoring African male abilities and puerile White female selection = mulatto supremacism.”
I agree that the situation has lead to this sort of fetish for race mixing. But you’re doing a lot of simplistic inferring to get from Nietzsche’s philosophy to Nietzsche’s philosophy as an endorsement of the race-mixing status quo we see today.
* Nietzsche pandered to the perspective of puerile girls
Part of that pandering is toxic incitement to competition.
UFASP you are obviously a big fan of Nietzsche. His work is voluminous and you can go and pluck out things in his defense, as you wish. Nietzsche was a genius, far ahead of his time and made many important contributions. He is eminently worth reading. However, I am satisfied with my characterization of his work and its implications for the purposes of White advocacy. I do not agree with your characterization of my characterization of his work and its implications. I am not interested in debating Nietzsche.
Can anyone explain Nietzsche’s break with Wagner and what it should mean for us?
A inspiring inverview!
Mr. Dyal, if you like Nietzsche, you would probably like William Gayley Simpson. A substantial part of his book “Which Way Western Man?” deals with Nietzschean thoughts. Ludovici is another philosopher you might like: he was one of the first to translate N. to English.
https://counter-currents.com/the-lost-philosopher/
Ciao Ulf,
Let’s start a campaign to get Counter-Currents to re-publish Ludovivi’s Who Is To Be Master Of The World? It is the best summary of Nietzsche ever written. Ecce Homo aside, I suppose!
Sure. I already have an edited edition somewhere. Introduction by Mark Dyal.
I haven’t read that one (and I see that a bohemian like myself can’t afford the available editions), so I really do hope it will be published by C-C soon!
Ludovici is the man who really got me to understand the aim of Nietzsche’s message before I began diving into Nietzsche’s actual work. “Who Is To Be Master Of The World?” is a great read and a great introduction into Nietzsche’s philosophy. Not long after reading it, I had heard that Kaufmann had some not too nice things to say about Ludovici. But then, not too many right wing Nietzscheans have glowing things to say about Kaufmann.
I would also like to add that I second Ulf Larsen’s recommendation of William Gayley Simpson’s “Which Way Western Man?”. His book is a magisterial work that I admittedly haven’t finished. (It could practically be a New Right/Alternative Right Bible of sorts much like Pierce’s “Who We Are” or Evola’s “Revolt Against The Modern World” or Nietzsche’s own “Thus Spake Zarathustra.” Although I haven’t read his leviathan cover to cover, I have read his section on Nietzsche. The man seems to have understood Nietzsche intensely and his evolution AWAY from Christian moral ethics is probably something any sincere, well-adjusted white man can identify with on a very deep level. And he connects Nietzsche’s philosophy to the white racial cause in a way that is virtually impossible to dispute.
It is good to know that there are people who have transcended the academic asslicking that is so prevalent today. For me with the added dis/advantage of being female and having five male professors screaming conform or we will not graduate you(ie say what we want to hear) made me realize that these guys thought I could not regurgitate, so I did it for the piece of paper. My singular triumph was when they turned their back on me on graduation day. ( This was before feminism and postmodernism; forget graduate school.) I have been self-educating ever since.
Sorry, I forgot, I am supposed to be in the supporting role. So support it is. (go guys)
Ciao Rhondda,
If I hadn’t been in Rome when I truly discovered Nietzsche I wouldn’t have bothered finishing the PhD. By the time I came back from the Eternal City I was writing only on behalf of my subjects. I knew it was not the type of work that would get me a professorship. Self-teaching is the only path to wisdom.
I must confess I was very curious about the development of this most interesting thinker, and I was not disappointed: it is a very inspiring interview!
The question Mark Dyal poses towards the end of the interview is intriguing indeed: Is our professed goal of separate nation states for different ethnic groups not a bit disingenuous? Do we not implicitly pay homage to the idol of equality if all ethnic groups are just different but equally valuable, and therefore have an equal right their own state?
It may be that this point of view can hope for more acceptance in our society. We might convincingly argue that this solution has the biggest chance of creating peace between the peoples of the world. But don’t we actually believe that the white peoples are superior?
Maybe at a subjective level this belief is inevitable and even necessary. Otherwise we might never fight tooth and nail to save our peoples from destruction. The demon of equality would sap our strength.
This valuation may have dangerous implications, however. Hitler’s fatal crusade against the Slavs comes to mind. The supposed superiority of the Germanics meant that replacing the Slavs was good for the development of humanity.
Maybe we should honestly recognize our supremacist convictions, but refuse to draw the ultimate consequences from it. We could just wait and see what happens after the separation of the ethnic groups.
Or is fighting for your own people not dependent on thinking your people are superior? Maybe the family model is applicable? Most people will chose the side of their family in a conflict, even if they recognize that their family members are not superior people, even if they are guilty. In that case, your people is like an extended family. The bonds of the blood prevail over any other spiritual or intellectual loyalty. The neo-pagan cults with their gods of the blood seem to point in this direction.
Probably Nietzsche could not accept such a viewpoint, and neither could Evola, but what about Heidegger?
Nobody needs to believe that he is superior to love and fight for his own.
The problem with putting much store in supremacy is someone better will always come along. Joe Sobran once mocked American supremacism. And not simply because America is not #1 by most objective measures of well-being. Instead, he said that no other country linked patriotism to superiority. The Swiss did not need to think they were #1 to love Switzerland. Their national mission was nothing more than to remain Swiss, comfortable and inglorious though that may be. (And I have no doubt that Switzerland beats the US on a wide range of measures of national well-being.)
Racial supremacism has the same problem. I do not love my race because we are the best. I love my race simply because it is MINE, with all its imperfections.
When we break it down and look at objective measures of achievement, Whites rank very high indeed. Yet we are also inferior to other races in ways that count for survival, and if we do not correct these problems, we will perish from the earth.
As for dominating other races: I am afraid that I am a bit of a moral absolutist here. I really believe in the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have others do unto you. In my case, I learned it from Homer. If you are considering an act, ask yourself how you would like to be on the receiving end. Would you like to be a slave? No? Then perhaps there is something wrong with it. Would you like to be bullied by some status-seeking nitwit? No? Then perhaps you should not BE that nitwit. It is really that simple.
Contrast that to the moral contortions of Hunter Wallace, who is now trying to justify the institution of slavery. (Would you like to be kidnapped from your home and family, transported across the ocean, and whipped and starved and made to toil in the hot sun so some Yankee capitalist south of the Mason Dixon line can shaft his racial kinsman and ape the gracious living standards of an English lord? No? Then don’t to it to others, or defend it either.)
I don’t apologize for the crimes of my kinsmen, NOT because I don’t regard them as crimes, but because I don’t regard them as MINE. But I will not repeat those crimes, either.
Is this an egalitarian view? To some extent, as it is premised on the true notion that no agent is so powerful that he is immune from being on the receiving end some day. We are not invulnerable. We can be made to pay. Which means that we are human, and we should regard other humans as humans too. Over the last century, whites have learned that we are human. We have undergone the greatest reversal of fortune any race has suffered. Yes, it was engineered by our enemies. But we allowed them to, and we continue to allow them to.
I want my own people to survive, and I can understand the desire of other people to want their people to survive. Fortunately, the world is (still) big enough for all of us.
As a former seminarian, your insistence on the Golden Rule touches a soft spot with me. Yet, it is hard not to lose all empathy and start thinking mainly in terms of supremacy when reading all day about ideals like the Übermensch, or “the cultured thug” of Bowden, though this may not be justified by their theories.
I must admit however, that whites do an incredibly louse job of ensuring their survival. From a supremacist view, it would therefore only be just if whites are destroyed. Just as Hitler seems to have thought about defeated Germany.
From your answer I gather that you are a radical localized thinker? After all, it a universalist endeavor to create an overview of all peoples, accord them points on a universal scale, and then decide who is more worthy of living space.
Maybe your criterion “Are these my people?” can also solve the issue of defining “whiteness”. Instead of focusing on genetics, we might define as whites those people whom other whites see as “family”, as fellow Europeans. As a starting point, we might take Germany.
Why not let the still-youtful Nietzsche speak on this:
For the time being, at least, let’s stick to the idea that benevolence and beneficence are what constitute a good person; only let’s add: “provided that he is benevolently and beneficently disposed toward himself.” For without this – if he runs from himself, hates himself, causes injury to himself – he is certainly not a good person. Because he is rescuing himself from himself in others: the others had better see to it that they don’t end up badly no matter how well-meaning toward them he appears! – But here’s the point: to run from the ego and to hate it and to live in others, for others – has, heretofore, been called, just as unreflectedly as assuredly, “unegotistical” and consequently “good”! (516, Dawn – Stanford U)
If I had any verbal sense, I would’ve said that none of our enemies/other peoples will ever believe we mean them no harm. So, I leave them out of the equation. We’ve lived for others far too long, anyway.
I have slight difference with this. We ought to look toward the Golden rule for Whites, but the Silver rule for non Whites.
The Golden rule would be obsequious when applied to non Whites – we would be doing to them as we would have done unto ourselves. That’s too much. That’s Bill Gates giving millions to Africans, etc.
The Silver rule: do not do to others what you would not wish done to yourself.
That is the more reasonable and practical rule with regard to non Whites, in my estimation.
Thank you for this excellent interview. Counter-Currents Radio is off to a great start!
Interesting that you would notice that in Rome “the kids” are aware of their birthright. Quite the contrast to this side of the Atlantic where “the kids” are more aware of their birth-wrongs and birth-debts and of the misery to come. Birthright. Another piece of our history down the memory hole.
Birthright is one of my favorite concepts. I wish I had counted the number of anger and fear tinged tears I saw in the eyes of the Romans as they pondered a Rome without Romans. We in (white) America are millennia behind the Romans in consciousness of our value. But why wouldn’t we be? We’re products of a culture and civilizational ethos that is worthy only of being annihilated and forgotten.
One thing that almost brought my dissertation to a halt was the insistence of my advisor that I cut a vignette on looking at a gypsy camp with a Roman family. The look in the father’s eyes I will never forget, as he saw what multiculturalism was forcing upon his people. At that moment, my fate was sealed. Was I to sell multiculturalism for American corporations or fight to preserve something noble?
A spouse or breeding partner of relatively equal endowment could be looked upon as a birthright for White men and women as they are co-evolved through millennia. In one way or another, that birthright could be accommodated, even if just through institutional concern and assistance in putting appropriate matches together.
Greg, it might be a good idea for Counter Currents to develop a contingent project to organize a system for identifying appropriate and viable spousal matches or breeding matches for Whites.
However, the notion of birthright is not exactly supremacist, it is more an ecological concern. Obviously this would be an option. For those who would rather be free to pursue a spouse or breeding partner strictly on their own, by all means..
Some of us might be willing to leave what we have to White women who would have a child for us. I would consider that.
Seeing images of Italian and Greek nationalists and ultras singing, flags billowing in the night air, flares and fireworks blasting around them, is one of the most beautiful images I’ve seen and hope to experience personally one day soon. I wondered what it was that put that glow in their eyes, as the ecstatic spectacle that we never see in northern European or North American nationalists went on. You’re spot on: it was birthright.
Great interview. I hope there will be more to come. The whole description of your experience in Roma sounded fascinating, not to mention a turning point in your life. I wish there was such vitality, strength, and awareness of identity among the white youth of America today, as you found among the Ultra’s of Roma. If anything this will be a struggle of ideas and worldviews. Hopefully resulting in a creating or reaffirming of a different kind of being-in-the-world, one antithetical to the deracinated consumerism that prevails at this time. I think Nietzsche has been a facilitator for the freeing of a great many from the bonds of this brand of modernity; I having been on one of them.
Daniel expressed eloquently the ideas that I share.
“Optimal and distinctly human evolution of European,an evolution which has balanced off and tempered masculine characteristic in favour of some sublimation,intelligence and forethought…This makes for a more creative and reasonable man in the White man and a finer kind of White woman”.
And I would add, nobility,endurance,heroism ,exploration with a view to widen the horizon and scale new heights.
We need compilation of thoughts of many thinkers,of our glorious history ,culture and mythology to rise the pride of the White man and woman in order to survive.
Thank you, excalibur.
Very interesting interview.
As a southerner who once had a Texas twang in his voice as a child, I can really relate to your feelings about seeing your father as a sort of being a simplistic fool or even an oaf during your teenage years. My family all has Texas roots and sometimes “nigger” got thrown around (my uncles used the word more than my more reserved father) and I found it to be incredibly vulgar. I don’t really judge people who use it today IN THE SAME WAY I once did because now I know the anger that’s out there is so legitimate but I’d still rather be more like H.L. Mencken or even William Pierce in tone instead of some goofy redneck grand dragon down at the KKK lodge. Language is very important to me even if political correctness is not.
I went to schools that taught me that such behavior exhibited by my father and kin was beyond the pale. So something wasn’t adding up and I, like you, sided against my father and I even remember trying to instill PC into my father by trying to shame him for saying “nigger.” I remember my mother siding with me and although I think the world of my mother, I look back at that moment and realize that it illustrates just how bad PC has infected this society that even a normal woman like my mother would undermine her own husband in front of his children. It’s affected my views of women overall, really, as I can never remember my father EVER undermining my mother in front of me.
AT ANY RATE, these days I find myself debating my own father who sort of thinks so-called “civil rights” are basically okay because “the poor little black boy down the street couldn’t get a soda from the drug store before.” He’s racially aware but not anti-system. He’s too old and tired like so many other white men his age. Our movement is a movement for the young, I think.
Little did I realize during my younger preachy PC years that my family has had MULTIPLE encounters with various “people of color” that have nearly cost them their lives and livelihoods over the years. My father was one of those poor souls who had to go to a school that was like 80% black thanks to the federal government. As for my own experiences with “diversity,” I myself can remember two drunk Mexicans slamming into the back of our van (with all six of us inside) and then taking off on foot as my father chased after them while my mother, who suffered whiplash, screamed at him that they “could have a gun.” Incidentally, an off duty female officer ended up capturing one of the fleeing wetbacks. But that was very traumatizing. There’s a lot more stuff in my family’s past that makes that look like nothing but I won’t get into details; suffice to say that when I learned of some of them, they had such an effect on me that they were enough to get me to start asking questions about the whole damn system and my identity was in for a complete overhaul. The people in the mid-West who live in mostly white areas still just have no clue, I think. And not long after I began asking such questions, I remember I had some Mexican gangbanger threaten me because I wouldn’t buy him beer in a convenient store in once “whiteopia” where I grew up. Now the place is littered with these types. It was almost as if this event occurred to cement my conviction about “diversity.”
With respect to black music– Although I instinctively disliked virtually all rap (particularly “gangsta” rap) even as an “impressionable” teen and now detest the whole genre, I did gravitate towards old blues music (I still think Howling Wolf and Mississippi McDowell were good musicians) and an all black punk rock outfit (that I have to say to this day was a genuinely good band) called the “Bad Brains.” But I didn’t like them just because they were black because for years I had no records by any black artists and it never bothered me. The black music I found later on was genuinely good, I think. In fact, I still have a T-shirt with the Bad Brains’ band logo on it that my brother gave me that I don’t think I’ll ever have the heart to throw away. And like you, I’ve read Malcolm X. I read the Alex Haley biography cover to cover just about a year or so before becoming racially aware. I think a great deal of Malcolm X is hype; but I will say that I think he was the most interesting black person within the political arena that I’ve ever read about and I do have respect for him on some level. I think he was actually more interesting before he became a real Muslim even though his ability to admit “I was wrong” and move on to the next paradigm of thought is something I’ve never seen from any other black man and is an admirable quality.
However, because I am racially aware, I rarely find myself in the mood to listen to such groups or read the thoughts of such people at such length anymore. The exploitation of our race at the hands of blacks has really made it where I have a hard time stomaching even “good” black music. I much prefer Wagner or Beethoven or at least a white rock outfit these days.
What a great ending to that interview. Nicely edited. By the way, who does the intro/outro music?
Not much to say about the interview other than what a story. I can’t imagine being a white Black Studies major, especially at the graduate level. Sounds torturous. As if going through today’s politically correct liberal arts higher education isn’t grueling enough for any right thinking white person. Makes me wonder – wouldn’t it be cool to follow the fundamentalist Christian model and create our own colleges?
The music is by Jerome Deppe. The piece is called “The Vinyl Solution.”
These interviews should be hosted through youtube. Then when they get enough hits they can be monetized and become a source of direct revenue. Furthermore, it will make it easier for others to bump into them and then attract more people to the movement and the website.
Just look at all the success that of The Young Turks and Cenk Uygur. I’ve accidentally come across many of their videos and that’s what made them famous.
On the topic of a ‘Rome without romans’, in a sense, that’s what Rome is now. The original Latin tribes who founded Rome have long since been integrated and re-integrated into a new racial mix during the countless invasions of Italy. Recognizing that Mark doesn’t necessarily take a racial view of Romans or Romanitas, that is not necessarily a barrier to Roman identity, I suppose.
To Mark, do you think focusing on living and interacting mainly within our cities (the polis) is the most effective method of trying to redefine real values for living is the best strategy? Personally, I think the local and personal connections would be highly beneficial. I don’t know if Heidegger has factored in your reading, but his concept of Dasein, interaction in life and place as a way to develop one’s identity(ies) and inner life seems to tie in nicely with your Roman experience. This is what Aristotle means when he says that man is a “political animal.” The unity of the local in the transcendent idea provides the crown of Imperium to the whole thing. For those of us in North America, especially here on the west coast, where active cultural and artistic scenes where heretical ideas seem to find some outlets (Krafft, for example), that option seems especially relevant.
While your Roman comrade’s focus on the local is admirable, I do think they fall into error in overlooking the larger sphere. Corporate influence on population movements is an example. The immigrant coming to Europe is, after all, leaving their homeland to try and better their life and that of their family. A noble and human goal is what provides their motivation for coming to Europe, not some desire to destroy the blessed virginal purity of the white woman and destroy the European race. This makes it essential for Europeans and those in North America to question and critique the larger economic structure, trade, issues of sustainability, development and sovereignty, and also to enter into dialogue with nationalists of all nations, localists of all races. Casa Pound does this already, and AltRight has posted some articles by a filipino New Rightist.
To the extent that Europeans around the world are able to regain the values of identity and rootedness, I believe it may not in fact be necessary to attain the radical political separation that is the end goal of many in this movement, which might be something of a heretical statement ’round these parts. My city is populated by Chinese, Indians, and other non-white groups which are most certainly not going to be forced into a melting pot. The majority of whites do not ‘marry out’ and there are most certainly cultural peculiarities about whites in the city. If the values of rootedness can be regained, then the life of this polis may well be able to go on, shared in by proud races creating the life of the city, a “unity in diversity” which would make the corporate robber barons and the proponents of raceless globalism who throw that phrase around tremble in their boots.
There is no real morality without self sacrafice. And more: it is the essence of creation as well. Your sacrafice will bear fruit on higher levels than mere position and tenure. Careerism is the curse of our Civilization and the downfall of Academia.
I will comment on this, however, because it is even more off the mark than the rest of you comments:
I have made this point more eloquently at times, but I said here:
“This disordered situation is less accountable to the group and less civilized, favoring African male abilities and puerile White female selection = mulatto supremacism.”
You said:
“I don’t think this is a fair charge at all. I don’t think we have any idea what Nietzsche would have thought about multi-culturalism. Considering that it is a tool used by Jews to destroy the noble fruits he defended so fiercely, it’s not a stretch to say that your interpretation of Nietzsche in this respect is fallacious.”
IT IS NOT AN INTERPRETATION OF NIETZSCHE’S PHILOSOPHY, IT IS AN INFERENCE OF ITS IMPLICATIONS THAT I SPOKE OF
” If whites prove over time that they’ve just simply lost this vitality, then it’s a genuine tragedy for the biological world; but if that turns out to be true (we won’t know if it’s true or not until all of this white survival stuff has played itself out), perhaps it is better that a new race with vitality is constituted”
You only underscore another point His philosophy was not necessarily advocating Whites (Which I am).
I have seen enough of Blacks and Mulattoes to know that I do not need to participate in a criteria which would acquiesce to them.
Let’s write it another way: though of course not the only influence having this effect, Nietzsche nevertheless promoted a toxic emphasis on impervious, masculine individualism, which has the implication of rupturing classificatory organization of organic White patterns (within the life span and in evolution), creating a disordering effect, less accountable, which bumps up the one-up selective position of females, even puerile females, who are more pandered to than ever (from men formerly considered outsiders) absent classificatory bounds; the tendency to incite genetic competition (to test who is “best”), is all too open to the maxed out masculinity of Blacks, who are served well by this situation; Blacks and mulattoes tell White men what it means to be a real man; it is their specialty to tell us how to organize – right. Nietzsche is a dead metaphor for the purposes of White advocacy.
u mad bro
“I will comment on this, however, because it is even more off the mark than the rest of you comments:
I have made this point more eloquently at times, but I said here:
“This disordered situation is less accountable to the group and less civilized, favoring African male abilities and puerile White female selection = mulatto supremacism.”
You said:
“I don’t think this is a fair charge at all. I don’t think we have any idea what Nietzsche would have thought about multi-culturalism. Considering that it is a tool used by Jews to destroy the noble fruits he defended so fiercely, it’s not a stretch to say that your interpretation of Nietzsche in this respect is fallacious.”
IT IS NOT AN INTERPRETATION OF NIETZSCHE’S PHILOSOPHY, IT IS AN INFERENCE OF ITS IMPLICATIONS THAT I SPOKE OF”
You’re right. The word I was groping for was indeed, “inference.” But you act as though the fact that I mentally lunged for the wrong word somehow just undermines the whole point surrounding that word which is just childish.
“You only underscore another point His philosophy was not necessarily advocating Whites (Which I am).”
Why would any metaphysical philosophy necessarily advocate for or against the white race? It’s up to us to see or perhaps not see how Nietzsche’s thought can be of use to us just as it is up to us to see how Plato or Aristotle or Socrates can be of use to us as the Greeks weren’t necessarily “racists” or racialists or pro-Aryan or into whiteness per se, either. The last I checked, no major European philosopher within the common pantheon had whiteness integrated into their metaphysics. Schopenhauer talked about how he believed everyone was brown and how whiteness was a mutation; but if you think that makes Schopenhauer a “dead metaphor” for white advocacy than I don’t know what else to say except that perhaps I approach metaphysics in general differently than you do.
And really, the metaphysics of one philosopher or another can imply something that is either a boon or a burden to the white race depending on one’s perspective. That is why so much philosophy can be taught within liberal academia without any lying about the philosophy itself. Eudaemonia, utility, categories of reason, etc. can all have different implications for humanity depending on the racial or lack of a racial perspective one brings to the table when reading such writers. It’s some of these perspectives that one may carry with them going into a particular philosophy that are demonized and cause pro-white thought to be stifled.
“I have seen enough of Blacks and Mulattoes to know that I do not need to participate in a criteria which would acquiesce to them.”
Okay…
“Let’s write it another way: though of course not the only influence having this effect, Nietzsche nevertheless promoted a toxic emphasis on impervious, masculine individualism, which has the implication of rupturing classificatory organization of organic White patterns (within the life span and in evolution), creating a disordering effect, less accountable, which bumps up the one-up selective position of females, even puerile females, who are more pandered to than ever (from men formerly considered outsiders) absent classificatory bounds; the tendency to incite genetic competition (to test who is “best”), is all too open to the maxed out masculinity of Blacks, who are served well by this situation;”
This “impervious masculine individualism” is all taking place within the context of a post-modern society that I doubt Nietzsche himself would have approved of, though. The game today in which black men thrive is rigged because their “individualism” may not even exist in a way that is attractive to white women without white men pampering them to begin with. Do you really think blacks would be landing white women without the presence of the very liberalism Nietzsche decried? Perhaps they would; but what does that say about white men, then? Without the presence of the very slave morality within white men that Nietzsche devoted his life to trashing, I doubt white men would seem less virile to white women than negroes. Negroes are not natural born conquerors.
“Blacks and mulattoes tell White men what it means to be a real man; it is their specialty to tell us how to organize – right. Nietzsche is a dead metaphor for the purposes of White advocacy.”
Think what you want. But it would seem as though all of the great pro-white Nietzscheans like Dyal and Bowden and Simpson and Pierce never got your memo, there. Hell, I’m sure that one can even be pro-white and be a utilitarian (even though it’s a philosophy I despise) so I really don’t understand the how you deduce that a specific metaphysical view of the world can’t help whites or “the white cause,” as it were. I think Kant’s philosophy has been very damaging for European society; ditto for Locke’s philosophy. But I wouldn’t pretend that their philosophies are necessarily a dead end or a “dead metaphor” for white advocacy. I find that sort of sweeping claim to just be absurd for obvious reasons.
**I really don’t understand how you deduce that a specific metaphysical view of the world is a “dead metaphor” for whites or “the white cause,” as it were.**
“You’re right. The word I was groping for was indeed, “inference.” But you act as though the fact that I mentally lunged for the wrong word somehow just undermines the whole point surrounding that word which is just childish.”
It is not “childish”, the implication is exactly the important point. And let’s try to steer clear of ad hominem
“Why would any metaphysical philosophy necessarily advocate for or against the white race?”
Why wouldn’t it, if that (native Europeans) is what one is concerned about?
“Do you really think blacks would be landing white women without the presence of the very liberalism Nietzsche decried?”
Nietzsche’s endorsement of hyper masculine individualism only contributed to that liberalism and its context.
“I really don’t understand how you deduce that a specific metaphysical view of the world is a “dead metaphor” for whites or “the white cause,” as it were.”
In my estimation it is a dead metaphor because the context of Nietszche’s analysis is closed enough now and the context and needs of native Europeans are different now.
If a percentage of fat Whites are going to sit and watch negro-ball on Sundays and die off as a result, that is their problem. White advocates are sending “to whom it may concern messages.”
Perhaps some world beaters – White “over-men” – will rally to the cause, but my guess is that the most motivated to fight for Whites will be those Whites who are fairly good enough (not over-men, but normal men), but not good enough in a corrupt context; therefore they would be willing to fight to change the context and its enforcers, especially if given incentive – incentive which they will not have if they are going to be looked upon as discards from the get-go; if only those men who are impervious to the toxicties of this context are valued (mulattoes, etc); if they cannot see some support for their wish to have a fair White partner and children.
To start, we may assume that these White men and women who are being looked upon as dregs are qualitatively disbursed from but still closely related to more virile White forms; that they create White children, however awkward they may appear to the eyes of a mulatto.
None of this suggests that we do not evolve and foster our better forms and ways, but we do not do so in reckless manner but in a well reasoned manner.
This interview was one of the more genuine and humane things ever posted on CCP. Thank you GJ and MD. Please part 2 asap.
MD will be enriched by William G Simpson’s Which Way Western Man. WGS puts the Nietzsche into thought and practice and draws the necessary conclusions. A man of extremities, he is a man for our times.
Where can we read MD’s dissertation?
Mr. Dyal’s dissertation can be found here:
http://markdyal.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.191/prod.43
Daniel wrote in his latest comment, “Nietzche is a dead metaphor for the purposes of White advocacy”.
It is interesting that I have the same view.It is my feeling that he emphasized too much bestial masculinity,to lesser degrees other loftier attributes that White man possesses.
I am writing this with a caveat that I do not consider myself expert on Nietzche.
It was my impression that he was sometimes contradictory,disorganized.
Mark,
Did I understand you correctly when I heard you say that race is more than biological? What aspect of “race” do you not accept as being biological? Apologies if I misheard.
Curious that Italy was the original birthplace of fascism—in much the same way, gangs of redshirt youths haranging purse snatchers. I suppose that would be deemed racist here in the US, however..
Wonderful Podcast! Dr. Dyal is undoubtedly a treasure to us. I get the sense that there is even greater things to come from this man’s sparkling mind.
Bravo Counter Currents!
I’m no expert on him either having only read his early work The Birth of Tragedy from cover-to-cover. Beyond that, I’ve read selections from his other works and a great many interpreter essays since his name turns up so often in right circles. I think Nietzsche gets a lot of attention because of the style in which he wrote. Euro and American Rights who draw from Nietzsche tend to cherry pick his ideas. Nietzsche was in fact a philo-semite with a low opinion of anti-semites. Schopenhauer and Wagner were far closer to the truth than he was.
Perhaps on the eternal Jewish question Schopenhauer and Wagner were closer to the truth but if we’re actually talking about philosophy and not any one man’s private beliefs about Jews, I think the statement is not so easy to back-up (though I do have an affinity for Schopenhauer and Wagner). Spengler wasn’t crazy about “anti-semiticism” either, if I recall. He also based his ideas on race on Boasian anthropological data. No one is going to say Spengler is useful simply because we cherry pick his ideas. Not agreeing with everything a man had to say on every subject is necessarily “cherry picking.”
I mean, if we’re going to start judging PHILOSOPHERS and their usefulness to us on the basis of their political activity or how they felt about Jews or on this and that instead of in a more holistic way, then New Right/Alternative Right (whatever you want to call it) may as well just post article after article after article on Fichte. You’ll find no stronger nationalist than him yet his philosophy would probably not seem all that helpful to many of us (or at least it doesn’t to me). I believe I read somewhere that Schopenhauer found him to be rather dull (Schopenhauer had thought only he had truly grasped Kant) and he also routinely lambasted Hegel who was a staunch nationalist. But even still, thinking people can see why Schopenhauer’s philosophy or Nietzsche’s philosophy *may* be more valuable (while Hegel’s philosophy opened the floodgates to militant liberalism) despite the fact that they were the ones more inclined to pooh-pooh nationalism.
Fair enough. We, all of us, necessarily must look for ideas to add and ideas to remove from a person’s writings in order to adapt the relevant ideas to our circumstances. I agree disagreements with some ideas but not others isn’t necessarily cherry-picking. It was a poor way to put it. In a way, the whole point of these discussions is try to figure out what’s relevant and what isn’t.
I agree. I responded to you largely because you are one of the more reasonable people around here.
daniel: “Contrary to what UFASP might suggest, I would never say that his was the only or anything like the most important implicative force in effecting disordering of the White classification. Nevertheless, that would be one implication of his over emphasis on impervious, masculine individualism.”
Earlier:
daniel: “I didn’t say he was the only factor or even the largest.”
UFASP: “And I never said you said that. My point was that your attempts to link his philosophy to liberal strands of thought within the culture are very dubious.”
For someone who accuses others of straw man arguments, you sure *seem* to have no compunction against using them yourself for your own ends.
“It is not “childish”, the implication is exactly the important point. And let’s try to steer clear of ad hominem”
I realize the implication was the important point. It’s pretty obvious I was challenging the certitude of your interpretation of the implications of his philosophy rather than some direct interpretation of Nietzsche’s text as we have already both agreed that he didn’t talk about race directly. That’s all that has happened here with respect to this semantics mess regardless of how much you insist that by using one word over the other that I somehow distorted your argument or spoke right past what you were speaking to when I was not.
“Why would any metaphysical philosophy necessarily advocate for or against the white race?”
“Why wouldn’t it, if that (native Europeans) is what one is concerned about?”
Well, in the same way you can be pro-white and agree with Locke on some points (when most of us do not) or be pro-white and disagree with Machiavelli on some points (even though many in such circles are inclined to admire him on some level). It’s not as though there is only ONE possibility for a viable white society.
“Nietzsche’s endorsement of hyper masculine individualism only contributed to that liberalism and its context.”
That’s quite a stretch. You have to put the “hyper masculine individualism” in context with the rest of his philosophy. I say the English liberalism of Bentham and Mill (which he criticized) and the modernization of Christian moral ethics had much more do with today’s breakdown and the miscegenation that has followed than any sort of blame you want to pin on Nietzsche’s philosophy. People understand liberal ethics. They understand watered-down Christian ethics. Very few people understand Nietzsche at all so his influence on these MASS trends (pop culture manifestations rather than top down manifestations) seems dubious to me at best. Of course, some of the people he did influence in a far more tangible way (Shaw, Yeats, Ludovici, many National Socialists) would suggest to me even more that your assessment is very far off the mark, indeed.
“In my estimation it is a dead metaphor because the context of Nietszche’s analysis is closed enough now and the context and needs of native Europeans are different now.”
Well, if Nietzsche is indeed a philosopher and not just a cultural critic, then I doubt very much that his analysis is “closed enough” just as no other philosopher’s philosophy is “closed enough” simply because one can see how their philosophy fit into a certain time at a certain place within a certain stream of thought.
“If a percentage of fat Whites are going to sit and watch negro-ball on Sundays and die off as a result, that is their problem. White advocates are sending “to whom it may concern messages.”
Perhaps some world beaters – White “over-men” – will rally to the cause, but my guess is that the most motivated to fight for Whites will be those Whites who are fairly good enough (not over-men, but normal men), but not good enough in a corrupt context;”
Sure. Mankind is a bridge. Nietzsche never claimed that good men fight because they are Supermen, but rather, that good men fight for the Superman. It’s common for people to inappropriately use Nietzsche’s own idea of the Superman to straw man his own philosophy and this is a classic example.
“therefore they would be willing to fight to change the context and its enforcers, especially if given incentive – incentive which they will not have if they are going to be looked upon as discards from the get-go; if only those men who are impervious to the toxicties of this context are valued (mulattoes, etc); if they cannot see some support for their wish to have a fair White partner and children.”
There is no reason why Nietzschean philosophy forbids individual value judgments be it concerning race or any other perceived source of value. Indeed, tapping into a “Dionysian” sense of fury (which white racial issues are) and discovering this new value (in light of the old values dying off) is rather the point surrounding his metaphysical talk of “vitality.” But what Nietzschean philosophy refuses to do is say that those value judgments are metaphysically backed up by some definite form perceivable to human consciousness. But in a sense, this lack of a metaphysical reward for one’s struggle makes one’s struggle all the more heroic. Hey, if it’s not your thing, I understand. His philosophy wasn’t for everyone for obvious reasons and I say that without condescending.
“To start, we may assume that these White men and women who are being looked upon as dregs are qualitatively disbursed from but still closely related to more virile White forms; that they create White children, however awkward they may appear to the eyes of a mulatto.
None of this suggests that we do not evolve and foster our better forms and ways, but we do not do so in reckless manner but in a well reasoned manner.”
Again, who’s talking about evolving recklessly? The fact of the matter is that if white World of Warcraft nerds and domesticated white business men and professionals cannot be bothered to put their Socratic-like arguments about dragons and wizards and real estate and stocks on hold long enough to tap into some dormant virility that may still exist within them, then why should moral appeals about “right” and “wrong” be some pretense to stop miscegenation? If you confuse that for a pro-miscegenation argument rather than as a motivator for whites to rediscover some sense of devotion if they’re capable of it, than I really don’t know what else to tell you except that if you find value in some other thinker to supply your energy to pro-white causes, that’s just fine and dandy with me.
” I say the English liberalism of Bentham and Mill (which he criticized) and the modernization of Christian moral ethics had much more do with today’s breakdown and the miscegenation that has followed than any sort of blame you want to pin on Nietzsche’s philosophy.”
I didn’t say he was the only factor or even the largest.
“It’s not as though there is only ONE possibility for a viable white society.”
I didn’t say there was. That is why I advocate state and county options for Whites to have different kinds of White communities to choose from.
“Well, if Nietzsche is indeed a philosopher and not just a cultural critic, then I doubt very much that his analysis is “closed enough”
He is closed enough as far as I am concerned. If you want to go to lengths to defend Nietzsche be my guest. But I am not interested to defend Nietzsche, I am interested to defend Whites.
You make my point here, when you say:
“good men fight for the Superman. It’s common for people to inappropriately use Nietzsche’s own idea of the Superman to straw man his own philosophy and this is a classic example”
There is no straw man. I am not fighting for the superman. (notice he does not say the beauty of the White Aryan woman, by the way). I am fighting for White men and women.
“If you confuse that for a pro-miscegenation argument rather than as a motivator for whites to rediscover some sense of devotion if they’re capable of it, than I really don’t know what else to tell you except that if you find value in some other thinker to supply your energy to pro-white causes, that’s just fine and dandy with me.”
We’re back to square one. I don’t confuse Nietzsche for advocating miscegenation. I see it as an implication of his perspective in over-valuing hyper-masculine individualism, along with the resultant disorder and lack of accountability for that imbalanced valuation.
But I thank you for your permission now to attend to other thinkers and the pro-White cause.
“I didn’t say he was the only factor or even the largest.”
And I never said you said that. My point was that your attempts to link his philosophy to liberal strands of thought within the culture are very dubious.
“I didn’t say there was. That is why I advocate state and county options for Whites to have different kinds of White communities to choose from.”
Your insistence that Nietzsche’s philosophy is a “dead metaphor” for pro-white causes was what I was speaking to here not that you understand whites that can conceivably organize under different systems of government.
“He is closed enough as far as I am concerned. If you want to go to lengths to defend Nietzsche be my guest. But I am not interested to defend Nietzsche, I am interested to defend Whites.”
Oh, as far as YOU’RE concerned. Well, I’m sold! Way to make your case! You make these assertions and then seem to adapt an indignant tone when someone challenges your assertions. Take your ball and go home, then. That you are entitled to your own a opinion on the matter was never a point of contention between us.
“You make my point here, when you say:
“good men fight for the Superman. It’s common for people to inappropriately use Nietzsche’s own idea of the Superman to straw man his own philosophy and this is a classic example”
There is no straw man. I am not fighting for the superman. (notice he does not say the beauty of the White Aryan woman, by the way). I am fighting for White men and women.”
Well, good for you. So am I. But fighting for the Superman and white men and women do not have to be mutually exclusive; they can even be one in the same. I can’t believe that even needs to be stated.
“We’re back to square one. I don’t confuse Nietzsche for advocating miscegenation. I see it as an implication of his perspective in over-valuing hyper-masculine individualism,”
I know you do. I didn’t say that you said Nietzsche “advocated” miscegenation. Mentioning that you interpret the IMPLICATIONS of Nietzsche’s philosophy as “pro-miscegenation” is not the same as saying you said Nietzsche “advocated” miscegenation. I, again, was referring to the implications that you and perhaps you alone seem to have drawn from his philosophy within the pro-white space that exists here on the internet that his philosophy entails mulatto supremacy. It’s like you’re deliberately trying to obscure what I’m contesting at every turn when you put words into my mouth like this.
“along with the resultant disorder and lack of accountability for that imbalanced valuation.”
I don’t see any support here for these claims. I have supported my claims and even offered to go further and your response to that offer was rather patronizing. Like most of what you have written on this subject, the above just another unsubstantiated charge.
“But I thank you for your permission now to attend to other thinkers and the pro-White cause.”
Oh, sarcasm is a second language to you, no? You tell me to lay off the ad hominems but seem to reserve the right to be snarky and condescending when addressing me when I actually made in an effort in my last post to be as cordial with you as possible.
“It’s like you’re deliberately trying to obscure what I’m contesting at every turn when you put words into my mouth like this.”
That is a projection.
You put a quote around something, “pro-miscegenation”, that I neither said nor implied.
You have been using ad hominem from the start and have issued forth academic traffic – obfuscating significant points on behalf of trivia and straw men.
…really bad straw men such as this: “Mentioning that you interpret the IMPLICATIONS of Nietzsche’s philosophy as “pro-miscegenation” is not the same as saying you said Nietzsche “advocated” miscegenation”
You put a quote around something, “pro-miscegenation”, that I neither said nor implied.
More fundamentally, implications are not pro, they are not proactive, they are consequences.
You put a quote around something, “pro-miscegenation”, that I never said.
I am sorry that your posts are covering up relevant points, things that White people can use to defend themselves, with a poorly conducted (or cunningly obfuscating?) academic debate.
Who is the sarcastic one here?
“Oh, as far as YOU’RE concerned. Well, I’m sold! Way to make your case! You make these assertions and then seem to adapt an indignant tone when someone challenges your assertions. Take your ball and go home, then.”
I am saying that I do not care to get dragged into a debate about Nietzsche (but largely in order to defend myself against straw men and ad hominem). I am satisfied with my take on him for the purposes of White nationalism. Obviously, others can draw their own conclusions. I am sorry that I do not have your permission to move on to consider other thinkers and White advocacy.
“That is a projection.
You put a quote around something, “pro-miscegenation”, that I neither said nor implied.”
I was quoting my previous post to show how you took something I had written which was “pro-miscegenation” and turned it into the word “advocate” (YOUR WORD) when responding to me. In other words, you DID straw man me despite the fact that you deny it. Those words (“pro-miscegenation” vs. “advocate”) have different connotations. For example, there are many things that are pro-white that do not advocate whiteness. Just as this society is pro-miscegenation without even having to actually ADVOCATE outright that people miscegenate. Country music and NASCAR are two examples that come to mind of things that can be viewed as pro-white. Yet, no one in either crowd is advocating for white people outright. You’re the one using language to play a game of “hide the bean,” not me.
I never attributed the wording of “pro-miscegenation” to you but put the words in quotes to reference my previous post to which you were responding. Again, you interpret the IMPLICATIONS of his philosophy to be “mulatto supremacy.” I understand that’s not the same as you interpreting Nietzsche’s text to actually CONTAIN “mulatto supremacy.” I completely get it. I’ve always understood this despite the fact you keep responding as though I don’t. It seems you’d rather have an argument about an argument instead of support your original, unqualified and rather dubious claims that prompted this exchange that I have dealt with and that you ignore.
“You have been using ad hominem from the start and have issued forth academic traffic – obfuscating significant points on behalf of trivia and straw men.”
Well, give me something I can respond to.
“…really bad straw men such as this: “Mentioning that you interpret the IMPLICATIONS of Nietzsche’s philosophy as “pro-miscegenation” is not the same as saying you said Nietzsche “advocated” miscegenation”
You put a quote around something, “pro-miscegenation”, that I neither said nor implied.”
Again, I was not using the quotes to denote that those were YOUR words; we both know those were my words. I put quotes around the words I had used that you were responding to and then contrasted it with a word you had used “advocate” in your actual response to show how YOU are the one creating a straw man against what I’m saying to you.
What it really comes down to is that you’ve made some rather wild claims and I’ve actually taken the time to explain to you why I think they are wild. And I’ve called you on those claims. And you can’t seem argue any of my points. So you’re playing word games here instead of trying to defend your initial point that I took issue with.
“More fundamentally, implications are not pro, they are not proactive, they are consequences.”
The implications of Nietzsche’s philosophy, according to you, result in miscegenation or at the very least an attitude of indifference to it (which can even be viewed as de facto “pro-miscegenation”). Even with all these semantics you insist on wading through instead over having a debate on substance, my point to you about your implications being dubious still stand given that you haven’t responded to anything I have written that calls into question your claims in my previous posts.
But then, you’re the one who said that his philosophy had implied, again NOT ADVOCATED, but CONSEQUENTLY IMPLIED “mulatto supremacy.” So how does “pro-miscegenation” (something I’m perfectly aware I wrote and not you to characterize your interpretation of the implications of Nietzsche’s philosophy) differ from “mulatto supremacy” via implication? The word “supremacy” itself is pro-active and volitional.
“You put a quote around something, “pro-miscegenation”, that I never said.”
Again, please distinguish “pro-miscegenation” from “mulatto supremacy” and how my using the former as a descriptive completely misrepresented your view of the implications of Nietzsche’s philosophy in light of the fact that you insist that Nietzsche’s philosophy logically leads us to “mulatto supremacy.”
“I am sorry that your posts are covering up relevant points, things that White people can use to defend themselves, with a poorly conducted (or cunningly obfuscating?) academic debate.”
You righteousness knows no bounds, it seems. They’re big boys and girls; they can wiggle their index fingers and scroll past this exchange, if they wish.
“Who is the sarcastic one here?
“Oh, as far as YOU’RE concerned. Well, I’m sold! Way to make your case! You make these assertions and then seem to adapt an indignant tone when someone challenges your assertions. Take your ball and go home, then.”
Yeah, that was in RESPONSE to your post. The post before that was, as I said, cordial (even if it was critical of your views). But if you’re going to push, don’t be surprised (and certainly don’t disgust me with disingenuous indignation) if someone pushes you back a bit. Don’t expect others to play by rules you yourself are unable to hold to. You’re the one who accused me of an ad hominem even though I used the word “childish” to describe your ARGUMENT rather than to describe your ACTUAL CHARACTER. But I took it to heart that perhaps that word choice was verging on an ad hominem (even though it really wasn’t). Then you go and get snarky IN A SUBSEQUENT POST after I tried to be cordial and then you have the audacity to condemn any type of light sass you receive in return. Amazing.
“I am saying that I do not care to get dragged into a debate about Nietzsche (but largely in order to defend myself against straw men and ad hominem).”
Yes, you’d seem to rather have a debate about a debate, I understand that.
“I am satisfied with my take on him for the purposes of White nationalism.”
I’m not. And frankly, no one else should be satisfied with your take on him, either, because it’s a very large and unorthodox claim that you can’t defend very well.
“Obviously, others can draw their own conclusions. I am sorry that I do not have your permission to move on to consider other thinkers and White advocacy.”
I’m actually not the one who claimed any thinker was a “dead metaphor” for white advocacy around here. Who’s the one making sweeping claims about what’s good for white people’s heads, here, Daniel? If anyone is trying erect roadblocks on the intellectual curiosity and development of white thinkers around here, it’s certainly not me. Have a look in the mirror. What’s the word you used before? “Projection…”?
UFASP
I can defend all of my points, including my claims about Nietzsche, his implications, your accusations against me and my argument.
However, Nietzsche scholarship is a field in itself.
I said, and you quoted,
Obviously, others can draw their own conclusions.
I have also said that “Nietzsche is a genius with many important contributions and eminently worth reading.”
Then you say:
“If anyone is trying erect roadblocks on the intellectual curiosity and development of white thinkers around here, it’s certainly not me. Have a look in the mirror. What’s the word you used before? “Projection…”?
What road block have I erected to others?
He is not for me. That is my opinion but I am not alone in having a distaste for his predilections. In addition to not being WN (and no, not all influences have to be, but) I believe he was toxic and overly enamored of masculinity. That is among my opinions and reasons that I do not engage him. I have set limits on how I devote my time and efforts. I can defend everything that I’ve said but an elaborate debate about Nietszche is not something I’d really care to get into. I see his work as characterizable in certain ways and with certain implications.
These are patterns in his work. That means there are deviations – where he says the noble prefer the way of their grandfathers and so on.
The needs of Nietszche’s times were different than ours (particularly as White Nationalists) and circumscribed enough that I call his philosophy a dead metaphor – the twilight of yet another idol has befallen. That doesn’t mean he is not worth reading, especially for those who have not; people will draw interpretations of his interpretations and maps of his maps that can go on….
… mulatto supremacy can be a consequent; pro-miscegenation, which I never said, is more an antecedent.
“Because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth”
– Not Nietzsche
“That is my opinion but I am not alone in having a distaste for his predilections.”
You are alonehere.
“I believe he was toxic and overly enamored of masculinity.”
Probably because his sex life was unsatisfactory. A different symptom of dissatisfaction in that department is idealization of women, or frowning upon masculine attitude.
Calling something ‘toxic’ is cheap therapy-speak. I don’t know who you think you’re trying to preserve from nietzschean toxicity, nor why it matters.
“You are alonehere.”
I wouldn’t mind being alone here even if I was, but just so happens that I am not – excalibur has expressed large agreement.
I went a bit off the mark in trying to be done with this debate, when I said:
“That is my opinion but I am not alone in having a distaste for his predilections”
There is evidence enough, not just my opinion, that Nietzsche emphasized individualism, a hyper masculine version at that, at the expense of cooperation and group, organizational interests. Contrary to what UFASP might suggest, I would never say that his was the only or anything like the most important implicative force in effecting disordering of the White classification. Nevertheless, that would be one implication of his over emphasis on impervious, masculine individualism.
The result of these disordering effects (which have other, more important sources than Nietzsche, but which are not helped by Nietzsche) is difficulty in organizing the White race/the White class, and accountability thereof. The one up position of females in mate selection increases to an imbalance as they are not only pandered to by Nietzsche’s unidirectional appreciation of impervious men, but pandered to from men who used to be out of bounds, outside the White classification; while White men marginalized for any reason, have little or no recourse to the class backing.
“Calling something ‘toxic’ is cheap therapy-speak. I don’t know who you think you’re trying to preserve from nietzschean toxicity, nor why it matters.”
No, toxicity is a biological metaphor and goes back to Aristotle’s observations that we, as biological creatures, are dependent upon optimal, not maximal levels of need satisfaction. A superman individual would imply maxima – therefore heading toward toxicity. Hence, with classification, I’m trying to protect normal, well balanced White people, their organic patterns, from toxicity and systemic runaway.
“I believe he was toxic and overly enamored of masculinity.”
It is a well applied criticism of Nietzsche.
“UFASP
I can defend all of my points, including my claims about Nietzsche, his implications, your accusations against me and my argument.”
My “accusations” are simple observation. You have chosen not to defend your rather large claims too well. And you even said you don’t wish to yet you keep repeating them like a mantra. It’s like the very notion of someone challenging your claims on an intellectual subject within an intellectual setting is upsetting to you.
“However, Nietzsche scholarship is a field in itself.
I said, and you quoted,
Obviously, others can draw their own conclusions.
I have also said that “Nietzsche is a genius with many important contributions and eminently worth reading.”
Then you say:
“If anyone is trying erect roadblocks on the intellectual curiosity and development of white thinkers around here, it’s certainly not me. Have a look in the mirror. What’s the word you used before? “Projection…”?”
I already answered this. You said he was a “dead metaphor” for white advocacy. Simply because you say he is “worth reading” doesn’t mean that what comes out the other end of your mouth couldn’t potentially discourage people from reading him. That being said, you’re obviously entitled to your own opinion. (I’m getting tired of saying this but you don’t seem to understand that I understand this.) But if you’re going to air your opinion here and a Nietzschean thinks it’s bunk, don’t be surprised if you get an ear-full telling you so.
“What road block have I erected to others?”
I wouldn’t want to read an author that someone described to me as having “toxic” views or as being a “dead metaphor” or as not really relevant today or as “closed enough” or whatever even if they semi-contradicted themselves somewhere else and said that he is “worth reading.” Again, I challenged you not because your view offends me or because I insist that you become a Nietzschean like some Christian fundamentalist who’s prone to pushing “Jesus” on every person with a pulse but because this is an intellectual site and you have put forth a view that could influence others. I challenged your views because you put them forward to be challenged if you posted on this site. If you don’t want people ever challenging anything you write on here, fine. I’ll skip over your posts in the future and make a note that you’re the one exception around here.
“He is not for me. That is my opinion but I am not alone in having a distaste for his predilections.”
Again, whether he was for you or not was never the source of contention, here. You keep reverting to this line as though I’m trying to force his beliefs on you when all I have done is challenge your assertions. There are many writers on this site who do not think like I do philosophically; but I still value their opinions.
“In addition to not being WN (and no, not all influences have to be, but) I believe he was toxic”
Of course he wasn’t a “white nationalist”! If you want to fault writers from Europe’s past for that, we may as well dump the whole European legacy and start from scratch.
“and overly enamored of masculinity.”
Again, I don’t know what this means.
“That is among my opinions and reasons that I do not engage him. I have set limits on how I devote my time and efforts. I can defend everything that I’ve said but an elaborate debate about Nietszche is not something I’d really care to get into. I see his work as characterizable in certain ways and with certain implications.”
That’s fine. I don’t care for Locke and Mill. But if I go onto a site where many of the readers there DO, what I think about how well their views WORK FOR ME is irrelevant to any sort of debate about THEM and their writings themselves. And if someone challenged my assertions about Locke and Mill’s philosophy, I wouldn’t confuse that with ad hominem and become defensive, particularly in light of my own unwillingness to expand upon a thesis I willingly chose to air within such a setting that could influence others’ thinking.
“The needs of Nietszche’s times were different than ours (particularly as White Nationalists) and circumscribed enough that I call his philosophy a dead metaphor – the twilight of yet another idol has befallen.”
I have already addressed this. This criticism applies to every philosophy/philosopher so is this some standard you apply across the board or just to Nietzsche?
“That doesn’t mean he is not worth reading, especially for those who have not; people will draw interpretations of his interpretations and maps of his maps that can go on….”
And when people discuss these ideas and I think they are mistaken, I might just say so just as anyone is free to challenge any assertion I may make about his work.
“… mulatto supremacy can be a consequent; pro-miscegenation, which I never said, is more an antecedent.”
You still want to keep doing this dance with words so you can claim I committed a straw man when it’s clear that I understand what you’re saying (it’s really not that difficult of a message to digest) and still think it’s bunk, with all due respect. I get it– you’re spelling out what you think are the consequences of his philosophy and how you think that conflicts with the interests of white nationalists who care about race. I took the time to explain why this is wrong to me and you’ve ignored that explanation so we’re kind of stalemated.
““Because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth”
– Not Nietzsche”
–Not Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Spengler, or Heidegger, for that matter!
I used the word earlier and it upset you but the above merits such usage again.
That really is a childish criticism.
I’m done. I’ll let you have the last word, if you’d like as I do realize this as gone on for too long. Take care.
Sorry some things got repeated in the last post. I’ve deleted the repetitions here:
“I’m done. I’ll let you have the last word, if you’d like as I do realize this as gone on for too long. Take care.”
Thank goodness!
“Of course he wasn’t a “white nationalist”! If you want to fault writers from Europe’s past for that, we may as well dump the whole European legacy and start from scratch.”
I am faulting him for implications and applications of White nationalism as I’ve noted.
“It’s like the very notion of someone challenging your claims on an intellectual subject within an intellectual setting is upsetting to you.”
No, it is because it is clear to me that an elaborate debate about Nietzsche was being invoked whereas I am interested in implications for White nationalism. I’m interested in discussions which are intent on defending Whites, not those intent on defending Nietzsche.
“That’s fine. I don’t care for Locke and Mill”
Neither do I.
“I wouldn’t want to read an author that someone described to me as”..
I must be very powerful that I could discourage people from reading Nietzsche.
“this some standard you apply across the board or just to Nietzsche”
I don’t apply it just to him.
Because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth
– Not Nietzsche
“–Not Plato, Aristotle,”
… I think they would be a bit more concerned with form, balance and optimality.
“Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Spengler, or Heidegger, for that matter!”
Straw men. I didn’t say that the 14 words was their thing. But I do claim that Nietzsche was particularly enamored of masculine individualism while ignoring feminine qualities. Therefore, the second version of the 14 words stands in a marked contrast to Nietzsche that they do not to the others.
“You are alonehere.”
I wouldn’t mind being alone here even if I was, but just so happens that I am not – excalibur has expressed large agreement.
I went a bit off the mark in trying to be done with this debate, when I said:
“That is my opinion but I am not alone in having a distaste for his predilections”
There is evidence enough, not just my opinion, that Nietzsche emphasized individualism, a hyper masculine version at that, at the expense of cooperation and group, organizational interests. Contrary to what UFASP might suggest, I would never say that his was the only or anything like the most important implicative force in effecting disordering of the White classification. Nevertheless, that would be one implication of his over emphasis on impervious, masculine individualism.
The result of these disordering effects (which have other, more important sources than Nietzsche, but which are not helped by Nietzsche) is difficulty in organizing the White race/the White class, and accountability thereof. The one up position of females in mate selection increases to an imbalance as they are not only pandered to by Nietzsche’s unidirectional appreciation of impervious men, but pandered to from men who used to be out of bounds, outside the White classification; while White men marginalized for any reason, have little or no recourse to the class backing.
“Calling something ‘toxic’ is cheap therapy-speak. I don’t know who you think you’re trying to preserve from nietzschean toxicity, nor why it matters.”
No, toxicity is a biological metaphor and goes back to Aristotle’s observations that we, as biological creatures, are dependent upon optimal, not maximal levels of need satisfaction. A superman individual would imply maxima – therefore heading toward toxicity. Hence, with classification, I’m trying to protect normal, well balanced White people, their organic patterns, from toxicity and systemic runaway.
“I believe he was toxic and overly enamored of masculinity.”
For all those who have not read Nietzsche (he is worth reading – Zarathusra is a wonderful book, like an ongoing poem that keeps asking questions and answering them before the questions unfold); please read Nietzsche for your own good; come to your own conclusions and go to Counter Currents to debate him with UFASP.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment