"If you believe in evolution, you've gotta be a Nazi if you think about it long enough." -*George Lincoln Rockwell
On the alt-right, debates over moral ontology are typically divided between (metaphysical) naturalists (or materialists) and theists. Naturalists believe (1) morality is the byproduct of sociobiological evolution selecting for advantageous, altruistic traits and (2) nothing more. Theists may or may not believe in (1). However, they necessarily disagree on (2), maintaining that God exists and is the source of moral values and duties. The existence of God bestows morality with the property of objectivity, meaning it exists independently of human cognition.
Under the theistic view, moral values and duties are the product of God's being and follow inextricably from His nature. A behavior remains good or evil regardless of whether or not every creature believed the opposite or ceased to exist altogether. In contrast, the naturalist maintains that morality is a culturally relative social construct—which is just another way of saying it's subjective.
One area of agreement on the alt-right is that unilateral altruism toward the out-group is pathological. The Christcuck tendency to pathologically self-sacrifice is the subject of much banter at our expense (yes, I am a Christian) and debate within our own camp over alleged doctrinal mandates to cuck. This is a disagreement among brethren—albeit a crucial one upon which the fate of western civilization and the the white race may hinge—and therefore outside the scope of this article.
A second area of agreement is that without God, there can be no objective moral values or duties. In contrast to new atheists, alt-right atheists are overwhelmingly Nietzschean. Theist and atheist alike, we recognize that the West abandoned Christian morality with the rise of positivism. Nietzsche articulates the consequences of this transition in the Parable of the Madman. The Nietzschean seeks to create his own values after emerging from the destructive transitional phase of positive nihilism:
The noble type of man regards HIMSELF as a determiner of values; he does not require to be approved of; he passes the judgment: "What is injurious to me is injurious in itself;" he knows that it is he himself only who confers honour on things; he is a CREATOR OF VALUES. He honours whatever he recognizes in himself: such morality equals self-glorification. *(BG&E* IX, 260)
Bertrand Russell, Auguste Comte, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Michel Foucault—none of whom were even remotely alt-right—reached similar conclusions. Existentialist Sarte attempted to create meaning for himself through Marxism. Positivist Comte determined that suicide was the only rational choice when faced with the meaninglessness of life. Postmodernist Foucalt self-actualized through pozzing his neghole in San Francisco bathhouses and deliberately infecting unsuspecting victims with philosophical AIDS before dying of the biological version himself. Atheist apologist Russel concluded, “Only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”
Finally, the alt-right agrees that, in the light of selfish gene theory, racism (by which the liberal simply means preference for one's own kin) is an entirely natural and beneficial adaptation. As we move out from ourselves to family, clan, nation, race, species, etc—genetic similarity declines. Accordingly, diversity + proximity = war. (See here and here.) Given that morality arose as a means of facilitating cooperation between the genetically similar for the mutual preservation of our selfish genes, it is difficult to see why, under naturalism, one is obliged to be a good Samaritan toward groups which hate him. To do so would be profoundly stupid.
Nietzsche conceives of a very different sort of moral schema in Zarathustra's mandate for the creation of an ubermensch:
I TEACH YOU THE SUPERMAN. Man is something that is to be surpassed. What
have ye done to surpass man?
All beings hitherto have created something beyond themselves: and ye
want to be the ebb of that great tide, and would rather go back to the
beast than surpass man?
What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just the
same shall man be to the Superman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame.
Ye have made your way from the worm to man, and much within you is still
worm. Once were ye apes, and even yet man is more of an ape than any of
Even the wisest among you is only a disharmony and hybrid of plant and
phantom. But do I bid you become phantoms or plants?
Lo, I teach you the Superman!
The Superman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: The
*Superman SHALL BE the meaning of the earth! *(Zarathustra's Prologue, 3)
By rejecting humanism, Nietzsche permits himself to posit man as something to be overcome, an “overgoing and a downgoing,” a bridge between the ape and the ubermensch—a vision both grander and more consistent than new atheist attempts derive ought from is.
Prolific Nietzsche plagiarist (((Ayn Rand))) attempted to Skype some crrredit for this vision with her heroic, Aryan archetypes and fascist imagery. John Galt and Howard Roark, for example, were obvious ubermenschen. Unfortunately, Rand fell far short of her source material due to the insertion of incessant libertarian moralizing (ironically termed Objectivism) complemented with the glorification of degenerate individualism.
A Jewess urging the goyim to accrue as many shekels as possible without regard to the well being of one's volk? A libertarian (whether she admitted or not) who cucks her greatest character, Henry Rearden, in a love triangle that reads like a lonely teenage girl's romantic fanfiction? Say it ain't so!
Literary criticism aside, Rand suffers from the same shortcoming as new atheists: her libertarian morality has no ontological foundation. She endlessly kvetches over those who would use superior physical force to expropriate the fruits of another's labor. Yet in the very next breath she proceeds to saw off the branch she's sitting on by denying the only possible reference point for objective moral law: a transcendent moral law giver.
Another commonality between liberal moralizers of all stripes is the complete rejection of classical, pagan morality, or the morality of he whom the Apostle Paul called the “natural man”—men who heed Zarathustra's teaching to “remain true to the earth.” Nietzsche describes the natural man's worldview in Beyond Good and Evil:
Here one must think profoundly to the very basis and resist all sentimental weakness: life itself is ESSENTIALLY appropriation, injury, conquest of the strange and weak, suppression, severity, obtrusion of peculiar forms, incorporation, and at the least, putting it mildest, exploitation. …
"Exploitation" does not belong to a depraved, or imperfect and primitive society it belongs to the nature of the living being as a primary organic function, it is a consequence of the intrinsic Will to Power, which is precisely the Will to Life… as a reality it is the FUNDAMENTAL FACT of all history let us be so far honest towards ourselves!(IX, 259)
Nietzsche contrasts the natural state of man with modern, liberal, Christian morality, arguing that the latter stems from the powerlessness of its adherents. This morality of *ressentiment *he branded “slave morality”:
In a tour through the many finer and coarser moralities which have hitherto prevailed or still prevail on the earth, I found certain traits recurring regularly together, and connected with one another, until finally two primary types revealed themselves to me, and a radical distinction was brought to light. There is MASTER-MORALITY and SLAVE-MORALITY…
Let it at once be noted that in this first kind of morality the antithesis "good" and "bad" means practically the same as "noble" and "despicable",--the antithesis "good" and "EVIL" is of a different origin. The cowardly, the timid, the insignificant, and those thinking merely of narrow utility are despised; moreover, also, the distrustful, with their constrained glances, the self- abasing, the dog-like kind of men who let themselves be abused, the mendicant flatterers, and above all the liars… (BG&E IX, 260)
Modern, secular liberals—including its most militant atheists—are categorically slave moralists. Unable or unwilling to accept the implications of their atheism, the “Cathedral” (what we'd call the “Synagogue”) has systematically deconstructed the only ontological (and psychological) foundation for its very own slave morality. Academic Chairs obliterate the faith of naive undergrads and somehow expect the moral framework of 21st century democratic liberalism to endure. As those of us with sufficient Will to Power to overcome the aforementioned transitional positive nihilism rise up against the Synagogue in preparation for the creeping return to state of nature, the elites are left clutching their pearls and wondering where it all went wrong.
Reductionist explanations of morality are ultimately self-defeating because they cannot be trusted within the naturalistic framework in which they were conceived. If our minds are the products of mindless, unguided processes seeking nothing but the replication of genes and perpetuation of memes, how can we trust their conclusions regarding what to have for breakfast, let alone moral ontology? How, under naturalism, can there be an “ought” if we can't even trust our minds' conclusions regarding what is? Why should we blithely accept the secular priesthood's deontological mandate for racial cuckoldry when it's clearly harmful to our people's interests, as any Right Stuff reader knows?
The fantastic irony of the modern western priesthood's proselytizing is that they're making the bed of Jihad, Google gibs, and general chimpery that they will have to sleep in. The evangelists of atheism denounce Christianity then immediately demand adherence to the very values given to them by the religion they so hate while making exceptions for Muslims and nonwhites. To be fair, Dawkins, Harris, and other atheist personalities such as Bill Maher recognize the greater threat posed to our values by Islam. Yet even this is only because Islam still retains elements of master morality.
One way of looking at their bizarre behavior is as a survival strategy for the weak and effeminate urbanite. Utterly lacking in martial prowess and therefore unable to ascend the traditional social hierarchy by feats of valor, the cosmopolitan radically inverts moral mores, thereby glorifying conspicuous cuckoldry and branding the strong “evil” for not living in subservience to the weak. In Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche identified the origin of this phenomenon in the west (and its most famous example) as having originated with—you'll never guess—das Juden:
…the Jews, that priestly people, who knew how to get final satisfaction from their enemies and conquerors through a radical transformation of their values, that is, through an act of the most spiritual revenge. This was appropriate only to a priestly people with the most deeply repressed priestly desire for revenge. In opposition to the aristocratic value equations (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = fortunate = loved by god), the Jews, with an awe-inspiring consistency, dared to reverse things and to hang on to that with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of the powerless), that is, to “only those who suffer are good; the poor, the powerless, the low are the only good people; the suffering, those in need, the sick, the ugly are also the only pious people; only they are blessed by God; for them alone there is salvation.—By contrast, you privileged and powerful people, you are for all eternity the evil, the cruel, the lecherous, the insatiable, the godless; you will also be the unblessed, the cursed, and the damned for all eternity!” (I, 7; Qtd. In Dalton, “Nietzsche on the Jews.”)
Check your Chad privilege, goy! Shoving Shylock in a locker isn't evidence of a lack of strength on his part, but rather toxic masculinity on yours. Someone needs to attend mandatory cultural sensitivity and anger management classes. Here, take this Prozac for your authoritarian personality disorder. Ten years old and unable to sit immobile in a chair for eight hours straight? Have some Adderal and Ritalin for your Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Daily ingestion of speed and sociopath pills wards off those pesky attributes of virtus, veritas, and dignitas that your ancestors have been meticulously cultivating for the past several thousand years.
Nietzsche's criticisms of Christianity are many orders of magnitude more applicable to the Synagogue than the Christianity of his day. Whether in the secular priesthood of political correctness—including, but not limited to, (((academics, psychologists, journalists, film/music producers, politicians, and lawyers)))—or the current year's church (and Church), it's hard to look around us and not conclude we're finally seeing the Platonic form of the Last Man, whose shadow Nietzsche saw growing on the cave wall even as he helped pave the way for postmodernity.
If we wish to find the antithesis of slave morality, we must return to an age before the subversion of the slave moralists—and therefore necessarily pre-(((diaspora))). We must return to Rome. Under the auspices of her mighty eagles we find the last and greatest embodiment of Aryan man's uninhibited Will to Power:
The two opposing values “good and bad,” “good and evil” have fought a fearful battle on earth for thousands of years. … The symbol of this battle, written in a script which has remained legible through all human history up to the present, is called “Rome against Judea, Judea against Rome.” To this point there has been no greater event than this war, this posing of a question, this contradiction between deadly enemies. Rome felt that the Jew was like something contrary to nature itself, its monstrous polar opposite, as it were. …
The Romans were indeed strong and noble men, stronger and nobler than any people who had lived on earth up until then or even than any people who had ever been dreamed up. Everything they left as remains, every inscription, is delightful… By contrast, the Jews were par excellence that priestly people of ressentiment, who possessed an unparalleled genius for popular morality... (Geneology I, 16)
Might was right when Romulus seized Sabine war brides for the men of his budding city-state. Might was right when Brennus cast his sword upon the scales measuring Roman tribute, declaring “Vae Victus”—woe to the conquered. Might was right when Scipio Africanus leveled Carthage and sewed the earth with salt. Might was right when Spahbod Surena poured molten gold down Crassus' throat at Carrhae. Might was right when Caesar humbled Vercengetorix outside Alesia. And yes, might was even right when Pontius Pilate crucified a certain Nazarene he knew to be innocent.
Unless there exists an ontic point of reference for moral law (i.e., God), there is no moral law higher than Might is Right. Nihilism follows atheism with the inexorability of a Roman legion. Liberals just don't have the balls to admit it.