The Nuremberg Moral ParadigmNicholas R. Jeelvy
We live under a regime of lies in the modern world, but the lies are not haphazard and random. Rather, they come from a specific place, and they have a specific story they tell which is internally consistent and point to a specific place where we should take our minds. In other words, these lies form a moral-epistemic whole which we are expected to accept and implement.
This moral-epistemic whole is something you come up against whenever you try to do a little revisionist history, or maybe defend the right of white people to retain their ancestral homelands. Thus, it is something the Dissident Right knows exists, even if we don’t have a name for it. You do not need to name something in order to understand it, but naming it makes transferring your understanding to others far easier. For those of us who watch Academic Agent on YouTube, this moral-epistemic whole has a name: the Boomer Truth Regime.
You don’t have to watch the whole linked playlist (although I recommend doing so); merely the first video. In it, Academic Agent outlines his idea of what the Boomer Truth Regime is, and I gotta say, he presents a pretty compelling case for it. Of course, I’d modify his by now 2-year-old video with some insights we (and he) have gained since it has been released. Specifically, one of his insights is that “culture is downstream from law.” He speaks of the Boomer Truth Regime as a cultural phenomenon, and it largely is. The consideration that individual self-expression is the ultimate good and that collective, in-group beneficial action, as inculcated in the National Socialists and personified by Adolf Hitler, is the ultimate evil has informed the entire gamut of culture since 1945. But it did not come into being spontaneously. Rather, it percolated into culture beginning in 1960, because it was enshrined in law in 1946.
There will undoubtedly be those who object to the name Boomer Truth Regime because it unfairly accuses baby boomers of creating it. While recognizing that boomers are not to blame for the Regime’s instantiation, it is so called because the boomers were the first generation to be completely molded by it, and the one where its conditioning is the strongest. They were subjected to this conditioning when the educational-media complex necessary for such conditioning was still fresh, young, and functioning correctly. Subsequent generations haven’t been properly programmed, and therefore lack the dual aspiration toward ultimate self-expression and the messianic fervor for stamping out collective in-group preference, as in the boomer. The name also works on a rhetorical level because subsequent generations have a well-founded resentment of the boomers. All I can say to boomers who protest that they are being unjustly accused, usually by appealing to their individuality, is that the horse has already bolted.
I object to calling the moral-epistemic whole the Boomer Truth Regime, however, because while the name is nifty and rhetorically useful, it fails to properly situate the moral-epistemic phenomenon it describes in space and time. As I said, the boomer culture of the ‘60s and thereafter was a product of law codified earlier, in 1946, in the bombed-out ruins of Nuremberg. The judgements in the Nuremberg show trials codified the rules by which politics would be conducted in the future world. As Maurice Bardèche put it:
The condemnation of the National Socialist Party goes much further than it seems to. In reality, it reaches all the solid forms, all the geological forms of political life. Every nation, every party which urges us to remember our soil, our tradition, our trade, our race is suspect. Whoever claims right of the first occupant and calls to witness things as obvious as the ownership of the city offends against a universal morality which denies the right of the people to write their laws. This applies not just to the Germans; it is all of us who are dispossessed. No one has any more the right to sit down in his field and say: “This ground belongs to me.” No one has any more the right to stand up in the city and say: “We are the old ones; we built the houses of this city; anyone who does not want to obey our laws should get out.” It is written now that a council of impalpable beings has the capacity to know what occurs in our houses and our cities. Crimes against humanity: this law is good; this one is not good. Civilization has the right to veto.
Veto what, exactly? Reading Bardèche, I am reminded that on the Continent we used to believe in flowery prose, even when writing non-fiction. Sometimes we will write in a certain way simply because it is beautiful. Anglo-American authors are terse and to the point, and Russians labor through sentences like a monk labors through a prayer, but the Frenchman acts out an entire Symposium on paper and somehow, even across vast distances of space, time, and language, I see the principles incarnated as men furiously debating in the salon. I read it somewhere and see it proclaimed with a sense of tragedy and poignancy by the man defending the German position, that in Nuremberg, man forever lost the right to obey orders.
When we think of being issued orders, we do not usually think we have a right to obey them, merely an obligation. This obligation in fact comes with the threat of court martial and execution, in the military context. To disobey an order is any one of various crimes in the military context, ranging from insubordination to treason. However, as we’ve been constantly reminded by the Boomer Truth Regime, “just following orders” is exactly what those Nazis did, and it’s no defense when accused of Crimes Against Humanity.™ Therefore, it follows that if a soldier receives an order which conflicts with “humanity,” he must disobey it, thus putting himself in danger of court martial and death. Similarly, a civilian who merely obeys the law will find himself guilty of these same nebulous Crimes Against Humanity™ if this law is retroactively proclaimed unjust.
Now we can see, after we’ve lost it, that men have a right to obey orders as well as an obligation. The right to obey orders lay in the secure knowledge that as long one obeyed orders in the military context, or refrained from breaking the law in the civilian one, that one would not be considered a criminal. This principle no longer applies.
This has profound political implications. As per Carl Schmitt, the state dominates the political realm because it has the power to determine the friend-enemy distinction. In practical terms, this means that the state has the right to grab you by the ear, put you in a uniform, put a gun in your hand, point at someone, and order you to kill him, because he is the enemy, and to disobey that order means you’re a criminal, i.e. an internal type of enemy. But consider that by obeying the order, thus avoiding criminal persecution as a traitor, you might enter the category of a war criminal who commits Crimes Against Humanity.™ The the Nuremberg Trials’ practical effect, the criminalization of the act of obeying orders, severs the state from the subject and denies the state the right to delineate between friend and enemy, whilst instantiating another friend-enemy distinction. Specifically, in the post-Nuremberg world, anyone who fits Maurice Bardèche’s description is deemed the enemy of “humanity” and “civilization.” Even before the Nuremberg show trials, Schmitt predicted this in Concept of the Political:
The concept of humanity is an especially useful ideological instrument of imperialist expansion, and in its ethical-humanitarian form it is a specific vehicle of economic imperialism. Here one is reminded of a somewhat modified expression of Proudhon’s: whoever invokes humanity wants to cheat. To confiscate the word humanity, to invoke and monopolize such a term probably has certain incalculable effects, such as denying the enemy the quality of being human and declaring him to be an outlaw of humanity; and a war can thereby be driven to the most extreme inhumanity.
The concept of the ultimate evil as described by the Boomer Truth Regime aren’t just morally repugnant — they are illegal under the post-Nuremberg legal paradigm. In many European states, it is illegal to express such ideas. It is also illegal to engage in revisionist history with regard to the historicity of events that are now touted as evidence that these ideas always and without fail lead to Crimes Against Humanity.™ To put it bluntly, anyone who raises the flag of ethnic in-group preference is prosecuted on the grounds that if he is left unchecked, he will start another Holocaust. If he tries to defend himself against this accusation by pointing out that the Holocaust was a combination of the Jewish persecution complex and febrile wartime propaganda, he is prosecuted for “Holocaust denial.”
Naturally, this persecution is not reserved only for political activists, but also for culture-creators: writers, thinkers, artists, philosophers, commentators, journalists, and dreamweavers. The law is the harshest of selection pressures, and culture is the most malleable bit of the human extended phenotype. This is the key reason why culture is downstream from law. Once expressing in-group preference was made illegal for white people, it was only a matter of time before the culture became a barren wasteland where individual self-expression — sometimes known as disobeying orders – came to be seen as the highest good, and self-effacement for the good of the ethnically-defined collective as the ultimate evil. The Boomer Truth Regime can only exist downstream from the wellspring that is the Nuremberg Moral Paradigm.
What’s to be done about this? Academic Agent quotes Jonathan Bowden and recommends we “step over” people still stuck in the Boomer Truth Regime rather than debate them. I’ve certainly done so, as in my own praxis I’ve found that it’s impossible to debate someone who doesn’t inhabit the same empirical universe as you. However, this does not mean we should not engage in a deconstruction of the Regime itself — and what better way to do it than to go upstream and start attacking the Nuremberg Moral Paradigm? First of all, unless we attack it, all our attempts to assault the Boomer Truth Regime can be deflected by simply pointing out that deviating from boomer truth will lead to Nazis, and inevitably, the Holocaust. Secondly, the Nuremberg Moral Paradigm is a target-rich environment. Revisionist scholarship shows Nuremberg was built on lies, manipulations, false confessions extracted under torture and blackmail, false testimony, and procedural mayhem. Lastly, the Nuremberg Moral Paradigm provides the basis for the legal prohibitions on nationalist political organizing, which means that we’ll be permanently locked out of power until we can countermand it. Even just sitting on the sidelines and commenting on current events is dangerous in a legal environment informed by the Nuremberg Moral Paradigm; after all, it runs the risk of proliferating an alternative way of looking at things, an alternative moral paradigm.
Many of the Right are concerned about revisionist history’s “optics,” and especially that of Holocaust revisionism. However, “optics” are a cultural artefact that is downstream from law. The laws on the books, both formal and informal, prohibiting nationalist political organizing and revisionist history are the barrier which holds back effective realization of our political goals as nationalists and white identitarians, and are informed by the falsehoods enshrined at Nuremberg. We can’t do much about the laws until we seize power, but we can problematize the vertical transition of these falsehoods — or in other words, deny our enemies the ability to infect the younger generations with these lies.
The proliferation of revisionist history will not ensure that the youth become pro-white, but it will at least prevent their infection with the Nuremberg Moral Paradigm — meaning that only old men will believe in it. If only old men believe in a paradigm, then time works against it. For this reason, we must carry on with our scholarship, and above all, our moral condemnation of the post-Nuremberg world.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 535 Ask Me Anything
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 534 Interview with Alexander Adams
Notes on Strauss & Husserl
George Friedman’s The Next 100 Years
The Dakota Territory’s Indian Wars During the Civil War, Part 2
The Dakota Territory’s Indian Wars During the Civil War, Part 1
Munchhausen: The Third Reich’s Wizard of Oz
Documenting the Decline
Very important points made in this article. I recall reading Irmin Vinson’s booking “Some Thoughts on Hitler and Others Essays” five years ago and coming to some of these realizations then.
Yes, that’s a good book, and this is a good article.
‘We can’t do much about the laws until we seize power….’
We don’t need to ‘seize’ power, we can earn it.
Also, at any given point in space and time, all we really need to be able to do is nullify the Boomer Truth legal regime (remember the CHAZ?).
Leftists – especially anarchists – have been theorizing around Calhoun without saying his name for a century.
Calhoun is Our Guy(tm), we should be using him more.
We don’t need to control the legal system, we just need to nullify the enforcement of the law.
They’re the same thing, though I will caution that the majority of white people will not break the law, even if it’s not enforced.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall 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.