Nietzsche is the right wing Marx

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from self.debatealtright

https://twitter.com/mike323a/status/1541552778316845057

Both had generally wrong takes about the world but nonetheless had many fair points and interesting observations about the world. Technological determinism is one thing imo that Marx got right for the most part.

However, in both their cases, the followers and interpreters of their ideology proved to be an inexhaustible reserve of idiocy and midwittery.

all 46 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]asterias 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What is Nietzsche's wrong take about the world?

Nietzsche was a thinker and his views would be obviously different to the views of other thinkers and non-thinkers.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

False equivalence. You cant take Nietzschean philosophy and turn it into a cult that attracts every lower human type who openly represents the hatred and destruction of the West and its people while championing every non Western people which is basically what leftist socialism has become

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Are you serious? All the stuff the americans call "cultural marxism" is built upon nietzsche. Look at this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Deleuze

[–]NeoRail 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

Deleuze has a very selective reading of Nietzsche. Some leftists borrow certain ideas from Nietzsche, yes, but they rarely engage with the rest of his work. The left is not at all "Nietzschean". In fact, Nietzsche coined the term "The Last Men" precisely in order to describe leftists.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Deleuze has a very selective reading of Nietzsche

That's how philosophy works, otherwise there wouldn't be anything new.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

You make a valid point here, but everything I said earlier remains true.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

So yeah, Nietzsche isn't a systematic philosopher, so you don't have a general framework that you can apply to various stuff - unlike Aristotelianism, idealism and so on - so you either borrow stuff from him and use them for your own thing, or you plainly repeat what Nietzsche was saying - which is something no university is going to give you a tenure for. Deluze took the nihilist ontology and the concept of vital force, so I would say it's pretty legit, even if I don't agree with the conclusions.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

What exactly are you referring to? It is true that Deleuze has borrowed certain elements from Nietzsche. That cannot be doubted. However, it is similarly obvious that Deleuze is in many ways the complete antithesis of Nietzsche. These two thinkers are absolutely nothing alike, and as I noted earlier, Nietzsche despised leftists and egalitarians because their beliefs conflicted with his worldview on more or less every point.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Let's put this way: which are in your opinion the truly Nietzschean philosophers?

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

What are your criteria for that? I have a pretty good idea of what I would consider a Nietzschean worldview, but I am not sure if our definitions match up.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It's not about my definition, it's about philosophy. My point is that Nietzsche wasn't a systematic philosopher, nihilism is not a method. One can personally embrace Nietzschean nihilism of course, but if he is going to write something new he will necessarily need to extrapolate some parts, probably discarding the others, and build upon that. I was asking you which philosopher is actually Nietzschean because I hold as true that only Nietzsche was truly Nietzschean. But nonetheless, his work was indeed used to build postmodernism, and so is incorrect to say that

You cant take Nietzschean philosophy and turn it into a cult that attracts every lower human type who openly represents the hatred and destruction of the West and its people while championing every non Western people which is basically what leftist socialism has become

because is factually true the opposite.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Lol, imagine judging a person by his followers. By that logic, Schopenhauer would be a faggot, Hegel would be empty and vague person (considering everyone interprets him very differently), Darwin would be an atheist, Mussolini would be anti-racist shitlib, Varg Vikernes would be non-white, etc., etc.

Nietzsche's philosophy is relatively easy to grasp on a surface level, and that's why it attracts various spergs who think Nietzsche was anti-moral and shit. It doesn't change the fact that he's one of the most important thinkers in the world whose ideas are generally correct and well substantiated.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Darwin would be an atheis

He pretty much was by the end of his life.

Mussolini would be anti-racist shitlib

I don't follow...

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Paradox fascists IE spergs who are obsessed with map games and that's why they like Mussolini. They hate hitler and talk about how it's ok to be gay and a fascist, you can have capitalist fascism, jews aren't bad etc etc.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What a bunch of retards. Lol!

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not really, Darwin was always agnostic believer kinda, and he always went to Church regardless. But I remembered even better comparison regarding Darwin, many of his followers despite saying they're atheist believe in magic, i.e. they think evolution always has to be beneficial in the long-term, they're humanists, loathe eugenics, etc. Darwin was ubermensch-leaning while his followers are total untermensch.

About the Mussolini part, Markie has pretty much nailed it.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree that leftist followers of Darwin are deluding themselves. Whenever they deny the existence of race they're basically secular creationists.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Technological determinism is a really scary idea when you think about it. If it's true though there's really nothing we can do about it. Even though I can't easily disprove TD I'm weary to spend much time focusing on it. Assuming we could 'reset' and get rid of modern tech there's no point we could go back to that wouldn't still technically put us on the conveyor belt back to where we are today.

For example do you go back to horses and buggies? No? Ok walking around? Do we not wear shoes? What about farming and ranching? Do we go back to hunter gatherer culture? What happens when someone starts using obsidian instead of a sharp stick to hunt? Are we back on the cycle that can't be stopped? Another problem. If one group tries to go back but another group still has modern weapons of war doesn't that make it too easy for the tech group to dominate the group trying to reset? Seem like it only works if everyone in the world does it at the same time?

It's all so confusing and personally not a big concern. I take a middle ground slower approach. I think there's an 'edge' we should live on. We shouldn't allow tech that we haven't totally morally mastered. I think the Amish are living at the tech point that white humans should be at. We can go beyond Amish tech but should do it at a slower pace and seriously think about the real dangers of every tech we develop. Computers are an obvious example of a tech that too far ahead of our moral mastery.

The invention of plastic is a good example. It was really useful but we simply started putting it in everything without closely analyzing its dangers. It did a lot damage to humans: drove up oil consumption, drove up estrogen levels, created a throw away society, increased landfills, polluted oceans, etc. I'd like to mostly eliminate plastics and only use them very carefully in applications that they fit in logically, safely and morally. Could we hit a point where we can use plastic safely? Sure but it might take a hundred years and I'm ok with that level of slow pace tech.

Unfortunately I don't think we will every see that type of morally driven reset and revaluation of how we use tech. Mainly due to war and competition we are going to keeping advancing too quickly until we've created a dystopian hellscape like McCormac's The Road.

[–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The issue with technology is that everyone sees it as some kind of modern, secular black magic. Instead of a tool, people have been brainwashed to treat technology as if it is esoteric and superior, from decades of (((hollywood))) movies drilling such preposterous ideas into our heads. In reality, although unintentional fallout from technology is inevitable, it is more or less under the control of those who diligently seek to control it.

If we change this mystical and fearful view of subservience to technology, and once again treat ourselves as masters of it rather than vice versa, many of the issues with technology-assisted degeneracy would be able to be solved or at least mitigated. A strong government could easily control such things, simply look at North Korea for example. A strong state could quite easily sweep across the nation and destroy the tools of degeneracy, especially in Europe, and forbid their sale or production. If you really wanted to, you could restrict or destroy specific things like smartphones, computers, etc. in a variety of ways.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I couldn't agree more. You even see this nonsense with the energy debate. People seem to think that technology creates energy, which is of course totally false.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You cannot reverse technology but it would be definitely possible to control technology rather than be a slave to it.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You may enjoy reading Ernst Junger if you haven't already.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Or his brother who wrote philosophy on technology

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I am not familiar with the work of his brother. I know that technology featured prominently in Junger's works too, though.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I haven't read it yet but this book is very prominent in anti-tech, deep ecology etc discourse

PDF link if you want it

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Interesting. I wonder if Friedrich Junger is more pessimistic than his brother. Ernst considered technology as something to be mastered, the rise of which was neither necessarily good nor necessarily bad.

[–]TheJamesRocket 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Technological determinism is a really scary idea when you think about it. If it's true though there's really nothing we can do about it.

It isn't true. Technology does have a role in shaping the stage that the human drama unfolds on, but it doesn't determine the course of events or the final destination. Individual people, groups, and society at large does.

Even in warfare, technology often plays a less decisive role than you might think. Differences in weapons capability matters less than differences in military competence. General Norman Schwarzkopf once said that the outcome of the Gulf war would have been unchanged even if the Coalition had switched weapons with the Iraqis.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Civilization is a Faustian bargain in a sense.

It's race you have to run to the end. If any nation disavows technology they'll be destroyed by those that have not. However, the more immersed in technology a society becomes, the further it strays from the natural human state and the more deracinated and degenerate they become.

We see today that the more technologically sophisticated a society is, the lower the birth rate. East Asia>Europe>Middle east>India>Africa. And of course, the more advanced you are, the more you are plagued by things like seed oils, low sperm counts, low testosterone, high environmental pollution, more depression, more atomization, more sexual perversion, more draconian controls, and so on.

Maybe I'm a lunatic, but I think the best outcome for humanity would be if a nuclear war between China and the US broke out and both nuked each other to shit. Civilization would collapse for good and the world might never be able to restart industrial civilization as it has already exhausted the cheap and easily extracted reserves of fossil fuels.

There are no easy oil wells left. The new ones are increasingly in desolate places and require a higher and higher level of technical sophistication to extract them.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Maybe I'm a lunatic, but I think the best outcome for humanity would be if a nuclear war between China and the US broke out and both nuked each other to shit.

I think you should seriously reconsider your opinion. While it may be more difficult, it would be infinitely more rewarding to simply get technology under control. A nuclear collapse, on the other hand, would be an utter catastrophe.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How would you approach getting it under control?

I don't think it is possible solely because of how deeply ingrained technology is in our societies, and also how many people find it convenient.

For example, how deeply embedded it is in our lives was realized by me when I was forced to live without my phone for several days, many things can't be done without it, e.g. you can't order a taxi without your phone, you can't do remote banking without your phone, you can't easily (or in many cases, anyhow) communicate with your friends, etc.

Removing your phone from your life theoretically should be like the first and easiest layer to do, yet it still makes your life somewhat more difficult. Removing all computing devices even more so (I could do it, many people just lack agency for that).

And that's just on individual level, I have even more of a hard time imagining governments actively getting rid of technology, thus making themselves weaker.

I'm not nuclear apocalypse kind of guy either, I'd like to see a way how we could master it, but I simply can't, I think there is no solution at all.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How would you approach getting it under control?

That would depend on the political context and circumstances I would be dealing with, and the level of control I would have over the issue.

For example, how deeply embedded it is in our lives was realized by me when I was forced to live without my phone for several days, many things can't be done without it, e.g. you can't order a taxi without your phone, you can't do remote banking without your phone, you can't easily (or in many cases, anyhow) communicate with your friends, etc.

The last part that has to do with social relations is a different topic, but the more administrative stuff is not really an issue, in my opinion. I think it is natural and logical that various complex technologies will be simplified and centralised in order to increase the ease of their management by people. It is good to be able to do online banking on your phone. If there is a trusted authority, this is not a problem. The issue is when liberals control who can and cannot use what are today vital technologies.

And that's just on individual level, I have even more of a hard time imagining governments actively getting rid of technology, thus making themselves weaker.

I think responsible management of technology will necessarily involve the government. Admittedly, a lot depends on the international situation as well - for example, if the market for mobile phones makes up a considerable chunk of your economy and you need the taxes in order to compete with hostile states, it might be a bad idea to restrict the sale or the features of mobile phones too extensively.

Speaking more generally, the way I see it, I think any solution to the technology problem would necessarily require the involvement of both the government and the common man. On the government side of things, my preferred solution would be to select a group of high IQ people of good moral character and to essentially establish a caste of experts whose ability to work and own property will be legally regulated. The job of these people and their descendants would be to evaluate the usefulness and effects of technology both in its technical and social aspects - they would be neither required nor allowed to do anything else, or to receive any additional property apart from what they are legally entitled to, in order to avoid bribes. Similarly, outsiders would be prohibited from joining this group in order to prevent vested interests from taking it over, and the members of this group would be expected to almost exclusively communicate with each other and people that they approach for research purposes on their own initiative. In order for such a group to function correctly, it would also be necessary for the state to develop a well-articulated position on technology, and on what kind of technology is and is not desirable. There should be proper doctrines for these people to study and derive their worldview from, and these doctrines should emphasise the importance of linking technology with teleology. I realise that this might sound very strange, but I think it could work - of course, it all depends on the political possibilities. I think it could be useful to introduce other institutional safeguards in other parts of the government too, but there is no need to get overly specific at this point in time.

That would be for the role of government in managing technology. The other important element would be the promotion of a psychological revolution on the mass level. The vast majority of people are naturally passive thinkers, and we live in an age where mental passivity is further encouraged and conditioned. Ideally, people should instead be encouraged and supported in maintaining active, constant awareness of their own minds. If you are familiar with Buddhism, that is essentially the Buddhist ideal. If people are constantly aware, or barring that, if they approach the ideal of constant awareness as closely as possible, it will be much easier for society to handle technology and the enormous flood of information that is constantly conditioning people and competing for their shortened attention span. If people learn how to act actively, intentionally and with constant awareness of what they do and why, I think the technology problem would be completely resolved without the need for any additional safeguards or governmental intervention. Since this ideal would be extremely difficult to achieve at a mass level, however, it would be best if governmental restrictions of technology were also introduced.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Maybe I'm a lunatic, but I think the best outcome for humanity would be if a nuclear war between China and the US broke out and both nuked each other to shit.

If TD is true there will eventually be some event that resets us back to the stone age. Personally I don't want a reset that's so intense. If things get too out of control there's a danger that whites won't control it and some other racial group dominates the reset. There's even a danger that all humanity collapses. If I'm going to hope for a catastrophe it's something that favors white nationalism in the future. I don't want us to lose so much quality genetic stock the we emerge for the disaster as some permanently deformed and mangled racial group. I want us to emerge stronger.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There are no easy oil wells left. The new ones are increasingly in desolate places and require a higher and higher level of technical sophistication to extract them.

Peak oil already happened in 2006. The shale scam has just bought us an extra 15 years at best. The "long emergency" is here.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Peak oil is ahead of us. Oil prices fell repeatedly since 2006. Venezuela has a lot of oil im reserves and the black sea has untapped reserves still.

The issue going forward might be that as the 3rd world and China double their economies in the coming decades, oil demand is going to go through the roof and annual oil production might not be able to keep pace

Same for gas, coal and hydro. There would be real wars over control of oil and gas, high seas piracy of oil tankers by mercs and navies. Abd worst of all, wars over rivers and waters.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oil prices fell repeatedly since 2006.

That's because of shale oil, which is coming to an end.

[–]LGBTQIAIDSAnally Injected Death Sentence 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't believe that outright tech determinism has much merit. I do believe that technology advances far too quickly to the point that advances are essentially irreversible even when they need to be made. We simply don't have enough time to judge the pros and cons of any particular technology in order to rid ourselves of it if we later find that the cons outweigh the pros. Sites like OnlyFans and Tinder are examples of harmful things that grew far too quickly.

I'm marginally closer to a uses determinist position, although I don't find that particularly compelling either. For example, the Amish seem to be insulated from many contemporary problems not because technology simply exists, but because they simply avoid using it. The problem for urbanites is that we're too integrated into technology to simply quit. What happens when everyone is online banking and more and more physical branches disappear? You're just stuck with ATMs and the internet (both technologies) and have no way to avoid using them, which is where we become part of the problem.

I also believe that use of technology has a strongly degenerative effect on Man's psychology. Problems like delocalization and information overload are mounting up quickly, much like how Dutton and his followers believe that mutations are mounting up quickly in the human genepool. These problems in turn facilitate mental problems. Being bombarded with endless messages—about Covid, Monkeypox, and wars that doesn't concern the vast majority of us—obviously has all sorts of effects on us, especially relating to things such as stress, depression and anxiety, many of which we probably have absolutely zero idea about. In the past, we would have heard little or nothing of any of these things. Furthermore, Covid would have had a very hard time surviving in a detechnologized, unshrunken world, so we wouldn't even need to hear of it in most places. We were simply psychologically healthier, more stress-free, before the shrunken world came to be.

I imagine that people living in parallel detechnologized communities—as I imagine the 'Far-Right' will eventually feel is necessary to do—will largely be insulated from the effects of technology. As long as they don't give up advances in weapons, I don't think that it really matters if the wider society remain technologized: whether the pozzed mixed masses still have smartphones, Tinder, OnlyFans, etc. or not wouldn't have much bearing on their ability to 'shut it down'.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I actually kind of agree with the title, but what's wrong with that Tweet though? He's right.

Both had generally wrong takes about the world

How was Nietzsche wrong?

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

He was a moral nihilist. I believe that there is a natural law and a cosmic order.

Man has failed to create his own meaning. Heideggar was right. Only a god can save us.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He was a moral nihilist.

No, he wasn't.

I believe that there is a natural law and a cosmic order.

You can believe whatever you want.

Man has failed to create his own meaning.

I do it all the time. I create my own meaning without much effort.

Only a god can save us.

That's just slave mentality.