You responded (and I quote): You’re getting self-righteous, Lloyd. I’m addressing your use of “not-totally unjustified”. You are supporting the notion of race revenge. It seems extremely unlikely that this is a misreading, but if it is go ahead and explain the meaning of your words.

My words meant that white American radicals believed with some justification that the same white forces that terrorized Malcolm X and the Black Panthers would terrorize them, were they to continue to be as militant as they had been at the height of their identification of their problems with the problems which African American radicals were confronting.

There is nothing self-rightous about my words, Brian, and they neither say nor imply anything about “race revenge.” And if they denigrate anyone, it is white radicals/militants having the presumption to believe their situation could be compared with the situation of black radical/militants, in America.

Nothing comes easy, and it is all the more interesting because it doesn’t. It therefore takes a lot of work, determination to overcome what is thereby driven our way. It takes a lot of pondering and reading to grasp what is said and make up our ideas and thoughts.
The harder the assignment, the stronger we will have to be, the more effort we will invest to overcome it, and in the process become wider and deeper ourselves.
Closing our eyes and looking the other way, will not detract from this observation.

Nietzsche as an imperialist!
What about Marx as an imperialist: they cannot represent themselves, so they must be represented.
I take Marx, Nietzsche and Freud to be the radicals of the Western Culture, and therefore closer to me, my thinking than other mainstream figures, by the fact that they are harsh critics of Western Culture in general.

Western Imperialism is extremely entangled in Zionism… I can totally see how a guy who was extremely opposed to the Church and went around saying “God is dead” would be their poster child…

I’ll say it again…

“You preachers of equality, the tyrannomania of impotence clamors thus out of you for equality: your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue… Mistrust all who talk of their justice… And when they call themselves the good and the just, do not forget that they would be Pharisees, if only they had power.” – Zarathustra

You continue to advocate violence and oppression in the name of social justice. You want to trade one oppression (the oppression of the proletariat) for another oppression (the oppression of the bourgeoisie). How charmingly despotic…

Technological advancements of WWII? Nuclear Power would probably be the most obvious and greatest achievement of the war. It provides power to the masses of China because purchasing oil would be too expensive (due to how incredibly over populated China is) and would destroy their progressive economy.

Struggle and conflict give us problems to solve. Without problems to solve our society would stagnate. I’m not just talking about war… Women struggled for equal rights and our society progressed and made us stronger.

“or various handheld or home-based devices that have desocialized and atomized whole societies?”

Yes, Yes… let’s go back to sticks and stones in the name of gregariousness! I doubt even you in your profound fanaticism would be willing to do that…

I never even brought up Darwin, but whatever… I’ll go with it…

“Survival of the Fittest” is outdated. Now its more like “Survival of the economically fittest”. For example, look at the life expectancy of any third world country and compare it to that of a pro-western industrialized nation like Germany. Our take me for example, I don’t have health insurance and barely make enough money to pay my bills much less feed myself… I’ll probably die of some generic disease by the time I’m 30. Compare this to the life of Bill Gates. Survival of the economically fittest.

You’re getting self-righteous, Lloyd. I’m addressing your use of “not-totally unjustified”. You are supporting the notion of race revenge. It seems extremely unlikely that this is a misreading, but if it is go ahead and explain the meaning of your words.

“Not that I have any problem with violent resistance to capitalism… Morality is relative in my book… I just felt like calling you out on that…”

Whatever. Capitalists will recognize the structural decay and become more repressive, and there will be a moment(s) of great tension and great violence. This is a matter of self-defense as the State terrorizes innocents in the name of maintaining the status quo or in their terminology, “stopping terrorists”. Successful self-defense against the State is in fact, revolutionary, as the Black Panthers understood. Shifts away from capitalism always include corporeal deaths, as Venezuela and Bolivia are only the latest examples of. And despite the celebratory attitude of the left, those are fairly minor shifts away from capitalism, still fundamentally supporting the global capitalist system. A major shift would be far more violent. Another transition to examine is the one from communism to capitalism that the Soviet Union underwent in the ’90s.

You should worry less about the possibly upcoming short-lived “violent resistance to capitalism” and worry more about the second-by-second perpetual violence OF capitalism.

“Native American tribes were not perfectly peaceful, they got into conflicts just like any other civilization. This is because humanity thrives on conflict and struggle as do all living things, without it we would stagnate. Look at how many technological advancements came from WWII…”

You mean like nuclear weapons, “advances” in biology that can lead to a holocaust of man-made plagues, greater industrialization that has increased the rate of global warming, or various handheld or home-based devices that have desocialized and atomized whole societies? Please, tell me all about these “technological advancements from WWII”.

Humanity doesn’t thrive on conflict, but conflict is a necessary part of life in a world of varied desires and limited resources. That doesn’t mean that conflict should be glorified or put on a pedestal, as your corrupt “heroes”, including Mr. Nietzsche, too often do.

“That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” – Friedrich Nietzsche ;)

The words of every sado-masochist, spoken with more articulation. Reality is far different, as pretty much anyone can tell you, including disabled victims of the wars you glorify as “tremendous examples of the conflict that we thrive on”.

How about you ask Iraqis about Nietzsche’s phrase, and get back to me on the answer. Or are you going to use the handmaiden of the masochist with the phrase “survival of the fittest”?

What’s the matter, scared to ask Iraqis that question? Oh, but you’re surely not worried, right, because “what does not kill you only makes you stronger” and if that doesn’t work, it’s “survival of the fittest”.

Nietzsche and Darwin – they justify pain, violence, and death at every turn. It’s no wonder they are two of the major heroes of Western Imperialism. Where would the 20th century have been without such luminaries?

I love how you say: “Certainly some humans will die as part of the structural destruction of capitalism, and to quote a popular military phrase that will be “collateral damage”. It will be a minor part of the process.”

…and then go on to criticize Nietzschean morality. I think you are the one that is “contradictory” and “corrupt”

Not that I have any problem with violent resistance to capitalism… Morality is relative in my book… I just felt like calling you out on that…

Brian,

Native American tribes were not perfectly peaceful, they got into conflicts just like any other civilization. This is because humanity thrives on conflict and struggle as do all living things, without it we would stagnate. Look at how many technological advancements came from WWII…

“That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” – Friedrich Nietzsche ;)

… and critics of Nietzsche almost always claim he is a corrupt psychopath. This is because they approach his philosophy with enough moral biased and idealistic bigotry to fill a vacuum. Nietzsche was a hedonist. I hardly think there is anything wrong with that… Unless, of course, you are a Christian Fundamentalist.

It’s pretty obvious to me that you have not read his work, and if you have it was something translated 50 years ago. (You have to remember that most of his works were corrupted by his sister for the Nazis and that only now are people actually beginning to understand with new unbiased translations, etc.)

Howsoever, you may email me at glrowsey@gmail.com….but don’t expect a reply, soon if ever.

Your argument is that blacks (or non-whites in general), once they attain power, will do something varying from small-militant violence against (like lynch mobs) to genocide of whites. This is nothing other than the justification for bourgeois and elite whites to perpetually maintain capitalist brutality which terrorizes and enslaves the world. In effect this argument says – if we take blacks off their leash, they’ll kill us. Therefore we must maintain the leash. This is the fear of the criminal – if I stop committing the oppressive crime, the victim will kill me.

Your argument that race revenge will be carried out has no basis in fact. Global socialism is by nature a peaceful project, which has nothing to do with “nonviolent resistance”. Also, any effective form of socialism is highly likely to incorporate white support, which means assuring them that revenge will not be enacted. Also, the capitalist system is a set of structures, not a set of DNA. Certainly some humans will die as part of the structural destruction of capitalism, and to quote a popular military phrase that will be “collateral damage”. It will be a minor part of the process.

Both King and Malcolm X, to the extent that they advocated violence at all merely advocated it in self-defense.

Bourgeois whites always project what *they* would do to what others would do. They love their revenge so they assume everyone else does as well.

“…and please do not tell me that you are so naive as to believe that brutality is not normal and perfectly commonplace? Humans are animals with delusions of grandeur. Don’t believe me? Pick up a history book.”

That’s wrong. Recent history (the past couple thousands of years) has been terrible, due primarily to concentrations of power (it’s monarchs and ruling elite who go to war). Prior to this Age of Centralized Power human life was not particularly brutal, no more so than that of other species.

The reason Indigenous Americans didn’t have much brutality wasn’t their DNA or their culture – it was their decentralized political system.

The only people with “delusions of grandeur” are those with the possibility of fulfilling those monstrosities. Hence the solution is to create and maintain a system of decentralized power, and whatever humans exist who would have “delusions of grandeur” would simply not be able to realize them. A few Hitlers running around aren’t a big problem. A few Hitlers running around who control vast armies are.

“He gave us a new way of thinking about the world, and it only appears to be an “immoral” or “corrupt” vision to people who really don’t understand his writings.”

According to this argument there can be no criticism of Nietzsche, because any such criticism merely implies a lack of understanding. Defenders of Nietzsche almost always use this argument.

Nietzsche is contradictory, and the reason for that is that Nietzsche is corrupt. To put it in Marxian terms, Nietzsche was both bourgeois and proletarian. In Christian terms, Nietzsche was both good and evil. One day Nietzsche worshiped the warrior and the next day he worshiped Jesus. Throughout this whole process Nietzsche merely claimed to be “exploring” the world of ideas. For Nietzsche everything was allowed – everything was permitted. He self-exulted this process as being a form of intellectual bravery – he was the most masturbatory of all philosophers. Most of his philosophy, including the concept of the inner war between opposites, that of the eternal return, that of the will to power, that of having “no regrets”, were done to make himself feel better about himself. He was always doing a form of self-therapy. The time is soon coming when Nietzsche will be seen for what he is. That is not to say that good things cannot be extracted from Nietzsche, just as good things can always be extracted from the corrupt.

…and please do not tell me that you are so naive as to believe that brutality is not normal and perfectly commonplace? Humans are animals with delusions of grandeur. Don’t believe me? Pick up a history book.

-Kevan J Giffen

To answer your last question – I was nearly apolitical prior to 2002

“Although the left was not even radical in the 1990’s, it was grasping at the same straws as it had been hoping would “ignite” the masses at least since Watergate. This hope, combined with a not-totally unjustified fear that real radicalism — a la Malcolm X and the Black Panthers — would subject them to the same treatment (as well as set back if not end their imagined progress with middle Americans), largely explains their contribution to the nihilistic nineties.”

Both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. were moving toward global socialism. Malcolm X made that explicit during his trips to Africa near the end of his life while Martin Luther King, Jr. made a less impressive display of such in his April 4, 1967 speech at Riverside. That is what the bourgeois left feared and still fear – the loss of their economic, political, and military dominance over the world. Your argument about “subjected to the same treatment” is a red herring, formulated by the bourgeois itself to justify their own monstrosity. What they don’t want to be subjected to is the sharing of their criminally-gained wealth with the exploited masses of the world.

The bourgeois left is racist and fully believes in Western Supremacy. This is why global socialism is not on the table for them, and why they support (while claiming to oppose) the assassination of any figure who emerges as a strong proponent of global socialism. This is also why they are feeble or nonexistent in their denunciations of the Class of Civilizations argument for Western expropriation of the Middle East.

“I like people like these… People that aren’t afraid to acknowledge the cold brutality and barbarism of mankind. People that have no delusions.”

What have people like these ever done for the world, other than justify and rationalize brutality under the name of “human nature”? These are the people who provide the articulated framework for mass murderers. Nietzsche may have had his good moments, but he was abusive and corrupt. Nietzsche’s bad conscience accurately reflected his inner morality or lack thereof.

It’s necessary to acknowledge brutality, but take care that the light shined upon such never glorifies or normalizes it.

Although the left was not even radical in the 1990’s, it was grasping at the same straws as it had been hoping would “ignite” the masses at least since Watergate. This hope, combined with a not-totally unjustified fear that real radicalism — a la Malcolm X and the Black Panthers — would subject them to the same treatment (as well as set back if not end their imagined progress with middle Americans), largely explains their contribution to the nihilistic nineties.

Or didn’t you, Brian my man, stand in amazed and thankful wonder when Bill Clinton beat George Bush?

Although the left was not even radical then, it was grasping at the same straws as it had been hoping would “ignite” the masses at least since Watergate. This hope, combined with a