Nietzsche and the Trap of Slave Morality

Nietzsche and the Trap of Slave Morality

By J. Pound

Ressentiment, slave morality, inversion of values – Nietzsche’s concepts clearly define the predominating values of Western media, cultural institutions, academia, and subcultures. I first read Nietzsche’s 'Genealogy of Morals' as an undergraduate student, and the irony of it is that Nietzsche was loved and promoted by the people who represent these concepts perfectly. Discovering his works was a breath of fresh air in an epoch dominated by the weak and those who use the weak as useful idiots to further their own sinister agenda.

I still find it baffling that Nietzsche is not written off by the countless professors of such ontologically suspect fields of enquiry as gender studies and critical race theory, given that his values run completely counter to the mainstream discourse found in universities today.

In his work on ethics, we get an historical picture that is not strictly empirical but rather explores the foundation of specific permeating values and what these values were a response to. We discover an inversion that took place with the advent of Christianity and Christian values in the West: the good became the evil, while the bad became the good. What was the good originally? It was understood as ‘the noble, powerful, high-stationed and high-minded, who felt and established themselves and their actions as good, that is, of the first rank, in contradistinction to all the low, low-minded, common and plebeian’. (1)

This is what could be understood today as ‘privileged’; the able-bodied ‘cis’-male whites who must bow down before the curly-haired mulatto girl who uses phrases like ‘black bodies’ and ‘microaggressions’.

It was clear to Nietzsche that this inversion had been going on in the West for two millennia, yet its real amplification only began in the U.S. with the implementation of the Hart-Cellar Act of 1965. The will to power (as Nietzsche would have it), or realpolitik, of those who propagate slave morality has since become hegemonic and continues to intensify. ‘One may conceive of this victory as at the same time a blood-poisoning (it has mixed the races together)—I shan’t contradict; but this in-toxication has undoubtedly become successful.  The “redemption” of the human race (from “the masters”, that is) is going forward; everything is visibly becoming Judaized, Christianized, mob-ized’. (2)

Upon re-reading passages from the text, I noticed passages on race that did not stand out to me on my initial readings over two years ago. It is interesting that he pointed this out in the largely homogenous Germany of his day (I suspect his studies of Indian history may have provided him the required perspective).

We are relentlessly bombarded with miscegenation propaganda in the West.

Muslims in Germany are given pamphlets teaching them how to meet and seduce German women. Countless commercials, advertisements, and Hollywood films feature mixed-race couples and their children and encourage this practice.  

It seems as though they aim for what Nietzsche describes as ‘the total degeneration of humanity down to what today’s socialist fools and nitwits see as their “man of the future” – as their ideal! – this degeneration and diminution of humanity into the perfect herd animal’. (3)

We see words like ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism’ constantly in historically White nations, while there is a complete absence of this promotion in non-White countries.  Here I am reminded of a recent statement made by Barbara Lerner Spectre, an activist who is financed by the taxpayers of Sweden:

‘I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.’ (4)

Leaving aside the ethnic character of her comments, it is clear that this is an attempt to turn the good (monolithic societies) into the bad (multicultural), inverting the good into evil (racist, xenophobic, hateful, Nazis, white supremacists, etc.) and the bad into good (vibrant, tolerant, accepting, ‘humane’).

Being presented with similar points of view for as long as I can remember (contrary to the popular perception of boomer Leftists, we millennials were not taught some false, ‘racist mythology’ of the ‘red, white, and blue’ which reified Christopher Columbus and the founding fathers), I did not wake up from this until my twenties. It felt immoral, crude, and backward to acknowledge certain truths that I had been conditioned to shun and throw labels at. Following a growing awareness, I at times fell prey to engaging in the same kind of tactics that they themselves used (i.e., playing the victim, the weak, the oppressed). I noticed double standards and could not help but point these out in a nagging way when it was safe to do so.

For instance, regarding Spectre, herself a leader of a Jewish study group: If we replaced the word Europe with Israel in her passage, and Jews with Gentiles, there would be a barrage of backlash from shakedown ‘human rights’ organizations, the SPLC, the ADL, and other Jewish identity groups. In urban areas of America we see newspaper stands for La Raza, which literally means ‘The Race’, and advocates for the interests of mestizos and indios in this country.  They would not stand for an equivalent Anglo-Saxon display of ‘The Race’ in Latin America, or for such an organization to organize for influence in Hispanic countries.

Cesar Chavez himself described La Raza as racist and ‘anti-gringo’:

‘I hear more and more Mexicans talking about la raza—to build up their pride, you know […] some people don’t look at it as racism, but when you say ’la raza,’ you are saying an anti-gringo thing, and it won’t stop there. Today it’s anti-gringo, tomorrow it will be anti-Negro, and the day after it will be anti-Filipino, anti-Puerto Rican. And then it will be anti-poor-Mexican, and anti-darker-skinned Mexican. … La raza is a very dangerous concept. I speak very strongly against it among the chicanos.’ (5)

You could fill a library with all of the contradictions and double standards (most starkly seen when the champagne socialists and functionaries advocate for ‘workers’ yet act to their detriment with open-borders policies and slander them as backward, racist, and ignorant).

Racism itself is a nonsense word, as it is used only on whites to prevent us from doing the same things other groups already do: organize for our own interests, exercise an in-group preference over the out-group, and exercise freedom of association (the latter right also importantly entailing the freedom to disassociate, a right that HUD appears designed to violate, after whites have left the cities that they created for others to ruin and remake in their own image).

The word ‘racism’ also functions to exempt other groups from moral judgement as said groups take resources from whites, commit crimes against them, degrade their culture and take over their neighborhoods (note, however, that when whites take back what their parents and grandparents built, it is condemned as ‘gentrification’).

The lesson we can learn from Nietzsche is to not fall into this pattern of slave morality ourselves as we identify it for what it is. He points out, ‘the slave revolt in morality begins when ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge’. (6) I realized at a certain point that I had become the new slave, using their same slave morality. I imagined revenge myself, yet this was in proportion to how powerless I actually was to speak out and act.

Nietzsche describes this perfectly in the third essay of this work, where he describes the philosophers and scholars, the ‘men of knowledge’ who oppose the religious dogma of the Christian ascetic in word, but in their belief system and way of life show the same structure as that which they oppose. (7) They are not the opposite of those who spread slave morality; they push it themselves, but trade in religious scripture for science. They do not return to the original values of the good (strength, nobility, and power), but push a universalist doctrine of Enlightenment values, propositions without tangible realities, all-encompassing worldviews with a lack of proper distinctions; in essence, egalitarianism.

The question I am left with after going down this path is: what is there to do? How can I act, live, in a way that builds off of the old values of the good without succumbing to the slave morality which is virtually inescapable today?

It is important to establish an ethical foundation that is not dominated by egalitarian ideals (ideals which every ethics professor now takes for granted). The first five books of Aristotle’s ‘Nicomachean Ethics’ provide a solid foundation for this, as well as the present work discussed. Physical fitness and nutrition are important as well. The strong should not neglect the weak or disparage them, but nor should the latter be held up as the benchmark of virtue. We should look to the strong in mind and body, those with health, wisdom and power, and aspire to the same ourselves.

In addition to personal development, finding like-minded people of good character who also wish to ‘revolt against the modern world’ is absolutely essential. A harsh realism is also necessary: America will most likely split up; South African whites will continuously be robbed, murdered, and terrorized by their government until they leave or die out; thousands more European and American women will be raped and violently attacked by African and Middle Eastern migrants. If any hope is to be had, and true diversity to be maintained, whites will have to have an Israel of their own. In the irony of ironies, the state of Israel itself would function as an excellent model to aspire to in this regard. We will need strong individuals to bear the brunt of the inevitable hateful attacks of ‘racism’ and ‘white supremacy’ if our children and grandchildren are going to live and prosper, rather than suffer and die while we subsidize the breeding of resentful people who hate us, mock us, and laugh at our suffering. They will be called every ‘evil’ name in the book; sanctions will probably be put on them; perhaps entire nations will create reasons to go to war with them, but without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.


(1) Friedrich Nietzsche, 1967, ‘On the Genealogy of Morals: Ecce Homo’, 1st Edition, Random House: New York, p. 26

(2) Ibid., p. 36

(3) Friedrich Nietzsche, 2001, ‘Nietzsche: Beyond Good and Evil’, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, p. 92



(6) Nietzsche, ‘Genealogy of Morals’, Op. Cit., p. 36

(7) Ibid., p. 148