Neo Nihilism | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » Main Forum » Media
blackshuck
blackshuck Jan 6 '14
FemaleSatan
FemaleSatan Jan 7 '14
This told me like nothing and I feel like I wasted 45 seconds. 


Anyway, since Neo Nazism was brought up, I'll ask a question: 


What does Neo Nazism provide in terms of meaningful philosophy? 

Hatepeach
Hatepeach Jan 7 '14
this is the video that should have been posted


I don't know if you're referencing another thread, FS, but the book in the video was about Neo-nihilism, not Neo-Nazism.  That said, I'll address your question anyway.  Neo-Nazis can be either moral nihilists or moral absolutists and present something coherently "Nazi."  Philosophically, the movement isn't bankrupt.  Martin Heidegger is kind of a "big deal," in his own right, and he was an outright Party member.  Let's break it down:  Nationalism+Socialism.  Many people instinctively feel that if the purpose of politics is to enhance human life, then this aim is best met through some form of socialism.  Nationalists feel that the most fundamental unit of civilization (and thus politics) is the Nation, and that the State should be subordinate to and defined by the interests of the Nation rather than the other way 'round.  For my purposes, the State is an administrative mechanism and the Nation is a people-group defined by a shared genetic AND cultural inheritance.  A state that is both Nationalist and Socialist would be predicated on the assumption that one's Nation is the political equivalent of their "extended family," and in demographically homogeneous societies this tends to provide a meaningful basis for political participation.  The impetus behind fusing nationalism with socialism was philosophical, and National Socialism was one attempt to carve out a "third way" between liberal-capitalist democracy and totalitarian communism.  At the heart of all similar movements is a philosophical struggle against Modernism (typified by both liberal democracy and totalitarian communism) and its dehumanizing characteristics. 


The National Socialist state was an experiment that attempted to fuse the traditional warrior ethic with Nietzschean Will-to-Power with the Modern State.  It would have been a radically conservative movement if not for its emphasis on that last element, the Modern State.  Tradition doesn't reinforce itself with secret police and brutal repression, it operates based on internal acceptance of shared values, and a legitimate (organically arising) State does not legitimize itself through these means.  Yes, I just criticized National Socialism from the "right".     


If you like Dan Dread and wonder what he might sound like if he was an over-educated little European woman in the mid-20th century, I recommend you anything written by Savitri Devi, but particularly The Lightning and the Sun.

The Forum post is edited by Hatepeach Jan 7 '14
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Jan 7 '14
Quote from FemaleSatan What does Neo Nihilism provide in terms of meaningful philosophy? 

*fxd.


I'd say, it's most likely the value of Meta-Ethics from an Atheistic stand-point.


If you're a non-believer, then it should be rather evident that Prescriptive Ethics deserves a blocking hand.  Whereas a disbeliever, needs to discover Descriptive Ethics, once the tenets that were once hammered into your head are scrubbed.  Though, the idea that an Atheist thinker is liberated, seems to infer that a person makes a discovery to free-thinking vs. exists as a free-thinker.  Free, is certainly up for debate in terms of Determinism arguments.  When I think of myself and how I came to this point, I can't say I've been liberated.  It's why I tend to use Implicit Atheism when conveying ideas.  Judging behaviors from young age, I could eye-witness the hypocrisy and contradictions, I didn't need to be liberated from them.


Describing human behavior and what is considered virtues is culturally fostered.  What you consider Ethical Behavior in the U.S. may be considered Un-Ethical in a different nation and Vice versa.


Behaviors are described based on cultural seeding and diaspora, often treated like an infectious disease.   The U.S. is full of immigrants and so they bring their Ethics with them.  


We Americans, have a tendency to criticize other cultures and the behaviors of people living in them because of our cultivated preferences.  It's highly subjective vs. factual and if we aim to offer criticism or critique we should at lest be intellectually honest about our vantage point.   


An example is the "subjugation" and "oppression" of women living in the Middle East.  Realpolitik is being honest about why we believe these women should be liberated, especially if they're not seeking it themselves (i.e. Femen and the reactions to it by women living within the culture).


Neo-Nihilism is an attempt at making Nihilism possible because in reality, the tweaks are a prescriptive vs. descriptive.  It also depends on the writer and/or interpretation by the reader of Neo-Nihilism writing.  I've engaged in my fair share of debates with people populating it on Facebook a couple of years ago.


"Following the death of faith in God non believers have become confused over the issue of ethics and morality. I shall seek to end their confusing thereby offering the honest answer to view on ethics to which a liberated atheist thinker would arrive. It is not humanism, but a qualified form of nihilism."


What qualifies it as Nihilism?  The speaker then goes on to clarify: Neo-Nihilism


Epistemological nihilism perhaps?  It would be like Post-Modern Satanism in relation to Satanism.  


In an occult context, it's even taken into Chaos Magic paradigms such as:


"Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted!"


Which isn't the same thing as suffering from the Cotard Delusion



Hatepeach
Hatepeach Jan 7 '14
Quote from SIN_JONES An example is the "subjugation" and "oppression" of women living in the Middle East.  Realpolitik is being honest about why we believe these women should be liberated, especially if they're not seeking it themselves (i.e. Femen and the reactions to it by women living within the culture).
I find it telling that her-storically, feminism has always faced a hostile majority on the part of the very people it claims to support the interests of-namely women.  Is this because feminists are crazy or is it proof positive that women as a class are psychologically battered and enslaved by male dominance?  My understanding lies somewhere in between, with the qualifying reservation that feminists are definitely crazy.

SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Jan 7 '14


Here's 9 minutes worth.  

SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Jan 7 '14
Quote from Hatepeach I find it telling that her-storically, feminism has always faced a hostile majority on the part of the very people it claims to support the interests of-namely women.  Is this because feminists are crazy or is it proof positive that women as a class are psychologically battered and enslaved by male dominance?  My understanding lies somewhere in between, with the qualifying reservation that feminists are definitely crazy.
I suppose that depends on what specifically is considered 'Feminism'.  In the case of Femen, in my observation it sparked a counter-movement by women living in the Middle East because they felt as though the women of Femen couldn't fully grasp their struggle in relation to the culture they live in.  In reality, Femen was harming their cause not helping it, according to these movement speakers.


If the women have been battered by male-dominance, I would think they also have a role to play in that, wouldn't you?



Hatepeach
Hatepeach Jan 7 '14
LOL, now we've both done it to one another, Ms. Jones!  I posted that exact video in the link that opens my first post.
Hatepeach
Hatepeach Jan 7 '14

Quote from SIN_JONES If the women have been battered by male-dominance, I would think they also have a role to play in that, wouldn't you?

Depends entirely on cultural context.  If you live in Boston and the man you decided to date is beating you, then obviously your decisions played a role in the situation you face.  It's pretty easy to pick out which guys would NEVER hit a woman they were intimately involved with, and some of them are actually attractive.  If we're talking about societies where women exist just above the status of chattel property, then the same statement would smack of victim-blaming.
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Jan 7 '14
Quote from Hatepeach LOL, now we've both done it to one another, Ms. Jones!  I posted that exact video in the link that opens my first post.

Dammit.  lol, ah well. We're even then!
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Jan 7 '14
Quote from Hatepeach Depends entirely on cultural context.  If you live in Boston and the man you decided to date is beating you, then obviously your decisions played a role in the situation you face.  It's pretty easy to pick out which guys would NEVER hit a woman they were intimately involved with, and some of them are actually attractive.  If we're talking about societies where women exist just above the status of chattel property, then the same statement would smack of victim-blaming.

What I meant was, in the beginning.  How else does an entire society allow for male-dominance?  To be a fly on the wall when the first guy stands up to say:  "I name myself King and YOU my loyal subjects!"  


Similarly, if a stronger Alpha rises what stops the the pack (strength in numbers) from taking him down?


My question always remains:  How did women become reduced to chattel?  Generation after generation it obviously becomes more difficult for Women to play the weakness card with a straight-face.


Men are stronger - Check

Men are war-mongers - Check

Women need Men to protect them - Check

Men turned on the Women because it was easy to do so - Check


These are not reasons, these are justifications for being victimized.  Population ratios show that there are more women than men, yet no hysterical mob of women killing men wholesale for being Sadistic fucks. 


Just a curiosity I suppose.  





Hatepeach
Hatepeach Jan 7 '14
Quote from SIN_JONES My question always remains:  How did women become reduced to chattel?  Generation after generation it obviously becomes more difficult for Women to play the weakness card with a straight-face.

Now that's a very, very simple one.  Legitimacy.  In the primeval human context, it was absolutely vital to family formation that the man knew that his woman's children were ALSO his children.  This gave the man a compelling reason, one which other men would understand, to lay a property claim on the woman and limit other mens' access to her.  This naturally extends itself to entail a paternal responsibility to keep one's daughters "fresh for the market", so to speak.  I'm sure I needn't mention that in the days before STD's were understood, a virgin would be OBVIOUSLY worth more than a woman who is known to sleep around.  That takes care of male dominance in the home.


In politics?  Well, your answer is war.  It wasn't all THAT long ago that politics was mostly the business between wars, and ancient politics were pretty much entirely war, even if it's just a price war over a staple commodity.  War defines the boundaries of the nation, and politics defines how we spend the spoils of war.  Since war is an inherently masculine activity, it's not immediately obvious that women should have *any* particular role in politics if politics is primarily a matter of readiness for and recovery from war. 


If you track recent history, the perceived status of women correlates pretty directly with a de-emphasis on "legitimacy" in children, marriage, and family formation altogether.  In Feminism 101 you learn that it's only mean white men who say that feminism is a direct attack on the family and on femininity.  In Feminism 301 you learn that---duh, we're totally out to destroy the family and problematize the notion of gender itself in every possible sphere of life.  Because Feminism 301 is revolutionary Marxism.  Spoiler alert.  Women weren't suddenly "liberated" in the 1970s,they just joined the corporate plantation like everyone else.  As a bonus to our male guardian/oppressors, they were encouraged to do so in skirts and shoes that would make a flapper faint.  Our lovely modern times have elicited new and ingenious means of controlling and undermining women, with porn culture as the flagship.  I don't mean porn itself, I mean of gradual pornographization of EVERYTHING.   


You say it's harder and harder for women to play the "woman" card with each generation, but I trust that sanity will return to Western civilization on these matters.  Alternatively, we will remain on our present course of any mention of the terms "Western" and "civilization" in the same breath will become a ludicrous absurdity.

The Forum post is edited by Hatepeach Jan 7 '14
SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Jan 7 '14
To reign it back to the topic of Neo-Nihilism, facts do not equate to values.  For example, as a woman, I can decide what value (if any) the pornographization of Everything really has.  Not just in relation to sense of self but how I will regard the behaviors of others towards me because I'm a woman.


It's taken  countless Generations of women in my family to block Prescriptive Ethics (i.e. you're born, you're raised to be a 'good woman' to become a good 'wife', to care for a Man, etc.) to cultivate an observant person, that decides the value of Descriptive Ethics.


Not that this alone qualifies as Nihilism but I can somewhat understand what the subscribers are looking at.



Quote from Hatepeach but I trust that sanity will return to Western civilization on these matters.  Alternatively, we will remain on our present course of any mention of the terms "Western" and "civilization" in the same breath will become a ludicrous absurdity.

I tend to see things much like the Hindus do, it's all cyclic.  It should be rather evident by the number of independent working women, dreaming about their Hero male and  housewifery.


Civilizations rise and fall, we just happen to be alive during this cycle. I think even if the 'West' experienced an Epoch and decline, something similar would rise eventually.  Even if the lines are blurred between 'worlds', man itself hasn't really changed much in several thousand  years.  The best we can hope for is some cataclysmic event that will force mankind into the next step of evolution.  A change in the species will certainly affect what it values.






The Forum post is edited by SIN_JONES Jan 7 '14

Issue Reporting

Report any issues to satanhimself@circleofdescent.com. He may, or may not, get back to you in a timely manner.