Why Nietzsche is a Philosopher of the (Alt?) Right

There are multiple streams flowing into the political right. The Right is really an overly generic term, and it may be better to identify political ideologies more specifically. There is a very big difference between a Burkean Conservative and a member of the Alt-Right for instance, but they are both classified as being on the "right". Even religious conservatism is hard to pin down because you have Traditionalist Catholics and protestant groups that have more in common with Classical Liberalism. If you doubt this distinction think about the American founding. Arguably, much of the resources for the American revolution and its civic nationalism come directly from a strong Protestantism. Traditionalists Catholics tend to be more aristocratic and concerned about top down rule. Then there are the various forms of secular right-wing groups, which are very different than religiously motivated Right wing movements.   That being said, Nietzsche is clearly a philosopher of what can be termed the radical Secular Right. The Alt-Right appeals to Nietzsche often, and he is actually one of the main foundations of its philosophy. I want to give one important example of where this is the case.  The Alt-Right's critique of the hard left as decadent because of their concern for social justice and equality maybe the best example that can be given of Nietzsche’s appeal to the radical Right. This comes out in the Alt-Right's tendency to defend markets on a nationalist level and traditional ways of life or hierarchies. Tradition provides values that help people thrive. Here is Nietzsche's comments on the psychology of Left-wing Anarchism:

When the anarchist, as the mouthpiece of the declining strata of society, demands with a fine indignation what is "right", "justice", and "equal rights", he is merely under the pressure of his own uncultured state, which cannot comprehend the real reason for his suffering-- what it is that he is poor in: life. A causal instinct asserts itself in him: it must be somebody's fault that he is in a bad way.
Also, the "the fine indignation" itself soothes him; it is a pleasure for all wretched devils to scold: it gives a slight but intoxicating sense of power. Even plaintiveness and complaining can give life a charm for the sake of which one endures it: there is a fine dose of revenge in every complaint; one charges one's own bad situation, and under certain circumstances even one's own badness, to those who are different, as if that were an injustice, a forbidden privilege. "If I am canaille, you ought to be too"-- on such logic are revolutions made.

It is clear that Nietzsche would despise much politically correct  culture. Also, his observations about indignation being a form of revenge that gives life meaning echoes many of the criticisms of the hard right toward the hard left and socialists. Nietzsche says explicitly there is no one to blame for our lot in life we must accept it and overcome by our will to power. He says about complaining,

Complaining is never any good: it stems from weakness. Whether one charges one's misfortune to others or to oneself-- the socialist does the former; the Christian, for example, the latter-- really makes no difference. 

For Nietzsche, the Christian and the anarcho-socialist place blame where there isn't any. No one is to be blamed for anything in Nietzsche's view because he denies free-will and moral responsibility [1], and once we realize that we will be able to truly live fulfilling lives, because we will see that life is a contest of wills and it is about developing strength of will.

People often claim that Nietzsche is not a Right-wing philosopher that the Right has misappropriated him. I think it is easy to see that this is not the case. Some of his philosophy, at least, is congenial to a Secular Right and, dare I say, fascist understanding of the world.

Nietzsche calls Christianity the "metaphysics of the hangman" if the other options involve the radical Right or the radical Left, then I will happily take the side of the hangman.

[1] Nietzche in "Twilight of the Idols" under his section The Four Great Errors 7: "The error of free will. Today we no longer have any pity for the concept of "free-will": we know only too well what it really is- the foulest of all theologians' artifices, aimed at making mankind "responsible" in their sense, that is dependent upon them. Here I simply supply the psychology of all "making responsible".
Wherever responsibilities are sought, it is usually the instinct of wanting to judge and punish which is at work. Becoming has been deprived of its innocence when any being-such-and-such is traced back to will, to purposes, to acts of responsibility: the doctrine of the will has been invented essentially for the purpose of punishment, that is, because one wanted to impute guilt. The entire old psychology of will, was conditioned on this fact that its originators, the priests at the head of ancient communities, wanted to create for themselves the right to punish- or wanted to create this right for God. Men were considered "free" so that they might be judged and punished- so that they might become guilty: consequently, every act had to be considered as willed, and the origin of every act had to be considered as lying with in consciousness (and thus the most fundamental counterfeit in psycholgicis was made the principle of psychology itself).
Today, as we have entered into the reverse movement and we immoralists are trying with all our strength to take the concept of guilt and the concept of punishment out of the world again, and to cleanse psychology, history, nature, and social institutions and sanctions of them, there is in our eyes no more radical opposition than that of the theologians, who continue with the concept of a "moral world-order" to infect the innocence of becoming by means of "punishment" and "guilt." Christianity is a metaphysics of the hangman.

No comments: