Moreover, this idea [no god, no purpose] is a poisonous one. It robs us of the will to take action. It leads us on a path to despair and apathy. It’s destructive and cheapens our life. It’s a dud. ("Andrew" @ OD)

I have a sense that this is a bourgeois difficulty.

Lower-class males have no problem forming gangs, arming themselves, and pursuing various aggressive activities that replicate the pre-historic behavior of mankind in small kinship groups.

Whatever superstitions arose/arise in these prehistoric minds were/are epiphenomenal, in that the motivation to exploit one’s environment was/is not dependent upon philosophical notions.

As it was then, so it is today - kill something to eat and fuck something so you can go to sleep. No need to worry about “the will to take action”.

Nietzsche had something constructive to say on the point:

[BGE] 257. EVERY elevation of the type “man,” has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society and so it will always be–a society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and differences of worth among human beings, and requiring slavery in some form or other. Without the PATHOS OF DISTANCE, such as grows out of the incarnated difference of classes, out of the constant out-looking and down-looking of the ruling caste on subordinates and instruments, and out of their equally constant practice of obeying and commanding, of keeping down and keeping at a distance–that other more mysterious pathos could never have arisen, the longing for an ever new widening of distance within the soul itself, the formation of ever higher, rarer, further, more extended, more comprehensive states, in short, just the elevation of the type “man,” the continued “self-surmounting of man,” to use a moral formula in a supermoral sense. To be sure, one must not resign oneself to any humanitarian illusions about the history of the origin of an aristocratic society (that is to say, of the preliminary condition for the elevation of the type “man”): the truth is hard. Let us acknowledge unprejudicedly how every higher civilization hitherto has ORIGINATED! Men with a still natural nature, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power, threw themselves upon weaker, more moral, more peaceful races (perhaps trading or cattle-rearing communities), or upon old mellow civilizations in which the final vital force was flickering out in brilliant fireworks of wit and depravity. At the commencement, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste: their superiority did not consist first of all in their physical, but in their psychical power–they were more COMPLETE men (which at every point also implies the same as “more complete beasts”).

[And Kasimir Petrenko seconds the notion:]

“I have a sense that this is a bourgeois problem.” - NN

It is. The ‘man of conscience’ has replaced the ‘man of instinct’ and our vitality is now far below what it once was. With that we find ourselves in the present predicament. Forced to search for some ‘moral justification’ for our own survival, where our distant ancestors knew what to do without asking any question.


The exchange with this liberetardian [Eric Dondero] shows just how worthless and hypocritical that ideology is. According to most libertarians, the ties that bind humanity are a desire for the free flow of goods, services, cheap trinkets, and even people across national borders. No great nation of civilization was every built on these principles and outside of the Western world you could probably count the number of adherents to libertarianism with both hands.

Libertarianism is anti-nation state and anti-race. Libtards often scoff at social Darwinism yet embrace it as it applies to the cutthroat marketplace. Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard are its two Jewish godfathers and if I had to guess libertarianism was probably devised as just another ideology which to distract and divide non-Jews.
("Mr. Dithers" @ OD)

I [NN] second the balance of your remarks, speaking to the issue of the origins of “terrorism”. But I believe that a mistaken imputation of motive is involved in the origins of Libertarianism/Objectivism/Austrian School Economics, as you would have it. These philosophical orientations rather appeal to those who feel themselves both cosmopolitan (Jew and North American Gentile alike) and inclined to the rational, science-inspired analysis of societal ethics and policy.

The classic gentile experience on this continent has been that of the perpetual elastic frontier in land and in evolving technology that have made laissez-faire/free-enterprise politico-economic policy a historically distinctive success in this singular demographic/geographic context. We North American gentiles remain, in part, the cultural heirs of that colonial success, abstractly formulated now as philosophical libertarianism - a worldview that idealistically encapsulates one’s personal absorption of the ethics and responsibilities of middle-class life, however removed from the unadvertised realities of the non-libertarian Realpolitik of the world above that class.

Deracinated from birth as we are, and taught, implicitly, the superior social status and employability of a culturally neutral persona, we naturally join the Jew in a cosmopolitan perspective, where we are not natively visceral racists (bigots) and have to reason ourselves out our youthful idealism and into a realistic confrontation with racial and class realities. There is thus no “hypocrisy” (though there are fundamental intellectual faults) in the majority experience of, and passage through, the various schools of individualist philosophy. So I caution against the misapprehension of the motives of opponents and potential converts.