A common misconception is that morality is "caring for your fellow man," but if in our time together I could persuade you of only one thing, my friends, I would have you realize that the most WICKED people are those who overindulge in the wine of compassion

The fallacy of the compassion moralist is to imagine that the opposite of compassion is selfishness, and though he may not have glimpsed the treachery of the self against the self, he has at least noticed enough to be repelled by a short-sighted and selfish character

Especially in his formative years, a compassion moralist meets a person whose character is repulsive, and attributes that repulsion to selfishness, and swears to become the antithesis of his hated antagonist.

Back and forth he totters in his narrow moral rut, disgusted by the mere idea of the apotheosis of the self, looking for moral weight in his “fellow man.” He desires to free them from their physical torments so that they might join him in his mental prison

The moralist derives a truly voluptuous pleasure from his compassion, from his “selflessness” — indeed nothing brings him more base enjoyment than his feeling that he is righteous. That altruism is deeply rooted in selfishness collapses this seeming polarity into a unity

This was Nietzsche's great thought: to realize that resentment--a powerless envy, a hatred--drives the "moral" man. His desire to help the downtrodden is his secret revenge against his betters. It's a secret he keeps even from himself!

Ah, but how did Nietzsche sniff out this resentment, which like so many horrors, CANNOT be unseen? Nietzsche's keen nose came from an intimate familiarity, like a pig who is a connoissieur of mud.

"The resentment of the moral against the strong" -- Does this not describe Nietzsche's own attitude towards Christianity? He manufactures an entirely new moral lense through which to condemn the objects of his resentment. And worst of all: he was not wrong

Instead of a moral axis from self to other, Nietzsche offered us a moral axis from slave to master, and if I to describe it to you, it sounds unbearably clichéd. Such is the power and the pervasiveness of Nietzsche's thought, it is now in the substrate of our culture

The slave wishes to see his weakness as virtue: “to be powerful is a vice, to be lower is my choice, to be persecuted is holy. Only evil men seek riches and power, good men renounce such things.” But riches and power are self-evidently good, the slave soothes himself with lies

The master is totally free of resentment; he has no memory for insults that are practised on him; he is incapable of forgiving only because he forgets. He conceives the idea of "good" spontaneously out of himself, he is incapable of self-abasement for morality's sake

Nietzsche was the world’s greatest apologist for moral relativism. The naive criticism of relativism is this: “without an absolute, nothing is truly wrong, and you have no way to condemn evil” This complaint is shallow, it means you lack imagination

There is no need for the weight of the universal to issue a universal condemnation: that YOU feel a thing to be evil is all the justification you need to condemn it, even “universally”. The font of morality in YOUR spirit is sufficient. https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1095534490078736385

But what did Nietzsche say about himself? "I am no man, I am dynamite." Dynamite builds nothing, it only destroys, and Nietzsche understood that his was a philosophy of destruction.

The average American (and we are all Americans, now, still) is naively Nietzchean: he "lives his truth," he speaks of his "values": whatever he does, he blesses. (Forgive me) he shits, he farts, he cums, and he pronounces it good. This goodness flows from him, the "master," no?

This transvaluation of all moral values is implicit in all of the stories we tell now, from the cartoons we show to children to the cartoons we show to adult children. Admittedly, it took a while for Nietzsche's theories to become our practices. https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1027980897033674752

Tolkien's morality was Christian; George RR Martin's morality is Nietzschean, and only an idiot would claim that Martin is greater (as a writer or as a moralist), but whose is the spirit of the age?

Our relativism (as we have learned!) does not mean tolerance for all, it means moral WAR for all, and war is the factory that manufactures holiness, and this is precisely what we see in the culture war, which is a moral war.

Nietzsche's philosophy is a harmful perception, a thing of great beauty and a thing of great horror. Fully grasped and fully explored, it is the decentralization of morality, and the dissolution of moral authority https://twitter.com/0x49fa98/status/1019264839422599168

Aristocratic morality exists in an eternal now, and slave morality, says Nietzsche, thus creates civilization, and this constitutes an argument against civilisation. Shall we then wallow in slave morality, like a pig in the mud?

Whether he is Jesus or Nietzsche, a man who creates a moral philosophy fashions a club to beat his hated enemies, which is to say, even the moral system which casts resentment as the greatest sin was born out of resentment

Sailer’s law of female journalism but for philosophy: the most heartfelt moral apologetics are always demands that, come the great awakening, the moralist in question will be considered to be hotter

There is no real escape from this vortex of morals. In the end one makes a choice to believe in some moral truth, or not, and the power of that belief is the strength that one is able to marshal to be willfully irrational, whether that will goes by "faith" or some other name

As a postscript to this, a more personal note: I have always resented (ha!) the peddlers of slave morality wherever I found them, and when first I learned the name of this thing that I hate, it was cool, crisp air to me.

We find a common thread between Christianity and the progressive left, and it is slave morality, a narrow moral imagination predicated on resentment of one’s betters. Individual Christians or lefties may not feel it, but from a mile up, we see it is the vessel that contains them

Progressivism is in many ways a hatred of one’s father, and it hates its own ideological progenitor most of all; and it is especially repellent when parents will take no responsibility for their children

The problem we now face is those revolting (in both senses) slaves who wish to tear down civilization as the consummation of their resentment, and they call this wickedness compassion. Christians can produce no answer to this love of the “marginalized” but Talmudic dissembling

Yes I know, my Christian friends, YOUR Christianity is more subtle, more studied, more principled, and it hearkens back to older forms... what Christians are tasked with explaining is why they have LOST the cultural war. Most wont even admit to defeat

Much as I wanted to reconcile master/slave morality with the left/right dichotomy, it just doesn’t quite fit. “The only morality is civilization” is both Nietzschean in its boldness and anti-Nietzschean in that slave morality is the tool that builds civilization

In terms of of ideology architecture, we need more of the master’s love of himself, and himself properly understood must include his civilization, his property, his works
Nietzsche praises chaos as vitality, but there is no such thing as chaotic good. Thus spake Mencius Moldbug