web analytics
Newspeak Philosophy

The Story of Philosophy, 1

Stupid and evil intellectuals
Just as the American Democratic and Republican parties have been described as ‘the evil party and the stupid party’, in my humble opinion theologians are evil and western philosophers stupid. Next week I will resume Deschner’s chapter about three evil theologians among the Church Fathers. But concurrently I’d like to start a new series about what in the academia is labelled ‘philosophy’.
As I tried to tell Greg Johnson, who has a Ph.D. in philosophy, in a comment he did not let pass six years ago, ‘No single so-called great philosopher of the Western tradition that I know figured out that all the great events of history have a racial basis’. Responding in my site to Johnson’s censorship, and having in mind the artificially obscure language of German philosophers I added: ‘Know my golden rule before I decide whether or not I’ll spend precious time reading a heavy intellectual or a heavy philosopher: If he writes in opaque prose, forget it; he probably is a base rhetorician!’ (for an explanation of the term ‘base rhetorician’ see my full response).
A critical series on a popular introduction to the field of philosophy, for example Will Durant’s 1926 The Story of Philosophy, will reveal that the so-called great philosophers have been stupid, insofar as they largely ignored the hard fact of western racial and cultural preservation—race.
Durant himself was a normie. Had philosophy made Durant wise, he would have written about eugenicist Madison Grant and historian Lothrop Stoddard, and later about the Jewish Question, National Socialism, and the Hellstorm Holocaust. Instead, when Hitler moved to Germany he married Ariel Durant, born in Ukraine as Chaya Kaufman to Jewish parents…
I would say that philosophy (from Greek, philosophia, literally ‘love of wisdom’) does not exist. What exists is the pretention of some academics to love wisdom. However, Durant, who lived from 1885 to 1981, was a highly gifted writer. Some of his observations in The Story of Philosophy: The Lives and Opinions of the Greater Philosophers are worth quoting. In the preface to the second edition he made astute observations against the obscurantists of language. But the windy verbiage in philosophy is only one of the features among western philosophers that moves me to call them stupid:

______ 卐 ______

No apology is offered for the neglect of epistemology. That dismal science received its due in the chapter on Kant, where for forty pages the reader was invited to consider the puzzles of perception. This chapter should have pleased the young pundit, for it came very near to obscurity. (However, one professor of philosophy, in a Midwest university, sent in the information that he had been teaching Kant for fifteen years, and had never understood Kant’s meaning until he read this elementary chapter.) For the rest, the book suggested unamiably that the nature of the knowledge process was but one of the many problems of philosophy; that this single problem was unfit to absorb the attention which the savants and the Germans had lavished upon it; and that its weary exploitation was largely responsible for the decadence of philosophy. The French have never yielded to this craze for epistemology to the exclusion of moral and political, historical and religious philosophy; and today even the Germans are recovering from it…
The Chinese philosophers were not only averse to epistemology, they had an almost Gallic disdain for prolonged metaphysics. No young metaphysician could admit that Confucius is a philosopher, for he says nothing about metaphysics, and less about epistemology; he is as positivistic as Spencer or Comte; his concern is always for morals and the state. Worse than that, he is disreputably intelligible; and nothing could be so damaging to a philosopher. But we “moderns” have become so accustomed to windy verbiage in philosophy that when philosophy is presented without the verbiage we can with difficulty recognize it. One must pay a penalty for having a prejudice against obscurity.
The Story tried to salt itself with a seasoning of humor, not only because wisdom is not wise if it scares away merriment, but because a sense of humor, being born of perspective, bears a near kinship to philosophy; each is the soul of the other. But this appears to have displeased the pundits; nothing so hurt the book with them as its smiles. A reputation for humor is disastrous to statesmen and philosophers: Germany could not forgive Schopenhauer his story of Unzelmann, and only France has recognized the depth behind the wit and brilliance of Voltaire.

11 replies on “The Story of Philosophy, 1”

As much as I love Nietzsche, I think that he was a Normie, too. He once
called anti-semites “an abortion. ” His sister colored his writings after he died. I am more of his sister’s school!

He said stupid things when he was becoming mad, in the late 1888 and January 1889.
In my library, I use editions untouched by Nietzsche’s sister.

“I would say that philosophy (from Greek, philosophia, literally ‘love of wisdom’) does not exist. What exists is the pretention of some academics to love wisdom.”
There’s some truth here. In the philosophy departments of academia, what is pursued isn’t wisdom. If they were doing that, they’d have to live like philosophers and seek their own path. Instead, they study philosophy. Their discipline might be more accurately termed philosophy-ology. In other words, rather than trying to discover wisdom on their own, or teach their students to do so (which itself would take a real philosopher to do), they study the thought of philosophers, usually specializing in one or two. The teachers are all phonies, academics who call themselves philosophers and may be referred to as philosophers by people who don’t know any better, but they’ve actually hijacked an honorable name. Only those who do original work in philosophy should rightly claim the title of philosopher. Otherwise, it’s the same difference as that between an art critic and an artist, or a butterfly collector and a butterfly.

“all the great events of history have a racial basis”
The average mindset of a race is also racial in nature and isn’t Christianity a mindset? So giving it up might only be possible with a drastic culling that shifts the racial mindset to one that has the necessary in-group altruism.

But Christian ethics is a fairly recent phenomenon. The Aryan Race sees an appeal in this ethical code as it is a perversion of the type of morality which could only stem from the Ice Age. The Nordid Races had to learn to rely on each other in the cold and harsh climate. There was neither a need nor a chance to live like the desert people: swindling and backstabbing.
Before Christianity, Aryans were not cucks and did not have such a strong out-group altruist nature that is so inherent among Christianised Whites.
Compare the effects that Abrahamic teaching has on Whites with the effects that it has on non-Whites (Rastafarians, NOI, ETC).

The Aryan Race sees an appeal in this ethical code as it is a perversion of the type of morality which could only stem from the Ice Age.
I doubt the climate our ancestors endured has much to do with present-day morality or, as is frequently argued, intelligence. If a harsh environment selected for altruism or intelligence, then Eskimos, Kalahari Bushmen, and Australian aborigines would be among the most altruistic and intelligent. But Australian aborigines and Bushmen actually rank at the bottom of the IQ scale.
The argument that harsh environment produces intelligence originated with Schopenhauer, and was repeated by Fritz Lenz, the latter of whom is cited by MacDonald in support of his ideas about “pathological altruism”.
Before Christianity, Aryans were not cucks and did not have such a strong out-group altruist nature that is so inherent among Christianised Whites.
True, but this is all the more reason to suspect the Christian worldview as a causative factor in “pathological altruism”. It’s probably not the only cause though. Some of it can be put down to state efforts. The state, for various reasons, can end up acting under motives that are ostensibly humanitarian, e.g., the current attack on Syria. In that sense, Christianity is just another tool in the box of tools the state uses to control its population and excuse its actions.

The ancestors of the Eskimos did not evolve where they currently live. They crossed the Bering strait and into Alaska and Greenland for whatever reason.
The ancestors of the Aryans only became Aryan through the Wurm Glaciation. Where else could the White Nordid get their grey eyes, golden hair, sculpted and angelic facial features, athletic build, and tall stature? You are probably not familiar with such a term as White Nordid. In which case, you should read the article by EUROPA SOBERANA called the New Racial Classification. Supposedly the White Race as we know it is split into 2 or more Races. The main Races which make up our Race is the White Nordid, the Red Nordid (Aryan, but actually evolved in Siberia, not Europe), and the Armenid (a disgusting bag of shit and a potential embodiment of Rape Culture).
Evolution in such grand scales takes such a long time, the Mongoloids have not spent long enough in their harsh habitats for them to become equal to the purest Aryans.
But what you say about Christianity is sound, though I think this is a chicken and the egg argument: What came first – Christian axiology or Aryan pathological altruism?
Question: Where do you think our Race’s morality and mind-set comes from if not the ice?

Where do you think our Race’s morality and mind-set comes from if not the ice?
As I said, it’s a combination of things, and has changed with the passage of time. Christianity has played a big role, but also state action over the centuries, i.e., the technical forces of “civilization”. Certainly, the broad secular trend toward a decrease in violence is due to both of those factors. In the West, Christianity provides the ideology of non-violence, but states all over the world, Christian or not, discourage violence among their citizens for technical reasons that have nothing to do with religion. As Cochran and Harpending note in their book The Ten Thousand Year Explosion, civilization itself changes our genetic structure. E.g., genes for lactose tolerance are of relatively recent advent due to the agricultural revolution c. 10,000 years ago, and our ancestors were probably, in terms of their genetics, far more disposed to violence than we are today. For instance, I think it’s Suetonius who tells of a notorious woman poisoner who was executed in the Colosseum in a spectacular manner. She was publicly fucked to death by a trained giraffe! But for the ancient Romans, death was just entertainment. Pairs of gladiators would regularly hack each other to death just for the amusement of the crowd. Hard to imagine anything like that happening today. Then too, for thousands of years the more violent among us have oftentimes been criminals who were executed. In genetic terms, they were culled. So civilization civilizes. No doubt this is a large part of the feminization of modern men that William Pierce liked to rail against. Technological civilization also may be raising the genetic basis of IQ. See the Flynn Effect, for example.
We do know that so-called “pathological altruism” didn’t exist in pre-Christian Roman times, so it can’t be primarily genetic. I don’t think they even would have understood the concept. Before Christianity, altruism wasn’t considered a virtue. They also practiced what could be termed a negative Zionism. The Romans under Titus sacked Jerusalem and expelled the Jews from their foothold in what today is Israel. Both of those things changed only under the influence of Christianity.

@Spahn Ranch
You do raise some interesting points. However, I think that there is a confusion.
I was never referring to pathological altruism. I was just referring to ordinary altruism. Of the healthy kind: Looking out for your family and your comrades, and their families. Busting your balls for your community. The Colosseum isn’t really a rebuttal of the fact that this is a very Aryan trait. Even though aristocracies and staunch hierarchies are common among Aryan nations, they still looked out for their communities.
I am only going to talk of Racial psychology, because I think we both agree that the Wurm Glaciation was responsible for the physical aspects of our Race if not the mental aspects – just as the near east was responsible for the present day Semite.
What you say about the culling of violent types seems to be correct. I think this took place during the Middle Ages. And it is also true that not all violent types were fully culled. The stories of the rapes depicted in Greco-Roman mythology always provided some sexual arousal for me… True story. And there was always this one Roman legend, concerning a married woman named Lucrece whom was raped in her bed by her husband’s cousin, Tarquin. I would be called mentally ill by mainstream society for admitting this. If this gets me all mad, who knows how it made the Greeks and Romans feel: Those who actually believed in these tales.
I think you should read the New Racial Classification. It speaks in depth about the evolution of the Aryan Race and our psychological make up, and what could have caused the mind set of the three main Races.
Essentially, I think that Christianity brought up all the bad and ethnosuicidal parts of us. These residual sides of our psyche were never a problem until Christian teaching came along. But I ask, why do you think that this religion only works this way on us? Why are the other Race’s untouched by the negative effects of this teaching?
Second question: Why do you think that Aryans have a propensity for naturalist art, and for the naked figure? Why do other Race’s seemingly detest it, while Aryans have venerated it? And why do you think that the other Race’s have a tendency for expressionist art, while the Aryan is concerned with realism?

“…for example Will Durant’s 1926 The Story of Philosophy, will reveal that the so-called great philosophers have been stupid, insofar as they largely ignored the hard fact of western racial and cultural preservation—race.”
Did Durant, even with his liberal inclination, actually acknowledge the absence of a racial gnosis in the works of these so-called “great” philosophers?

I read his book in the 1990s and as far as I remember, no. But now that I’m rereading it for this new series I guess I will corroborate this initial impression.

Comments are closed.