Nietzsche’s theory in practice:
Part 1: Slave morality between the ideal demoted master equaliser and the real meek illusionary public to the hierarchical master: Christianity and democracy
Nietzsche despised slave morality as it archetypically promoted feeble-minded fools. Victimhood straggling bums who fed off off others work. A resentment to the powerful cultivated in negating their order. Instead of producing a revolution to overwhelm the strong, they instead desired a model that equalised the playing field. This archetypical layout attempted to add more resources by finding camaraderie with others to undermine the individual powerful master. To crush the strong, many weak joined together in an egalitarian bond. Unable to defeat the strong they decided to deceive them into their butt fumbling philosophy. To defeat the enemy is not through a bigger weapon but opening them to a new frame. The power of logic defeated the strong by crafting a new mindset that altered the mechanics of life to better the weak’s livelihood.
Metaphorically, the master asserts his dominance with his way of life. He is the daring leader who takes charge when others follow. The slave despises the master for inserting his will but the slave has failed to make a path for himself. He is a mere follower bereft of any charisma and backbone. The master takes charge because the slave repudiates any passion and motive. Subjugation is a consequence of inaction. His passivity and ignorance forced him under the whim of the master’s frame. The master innocently cultivated a life that the slave relishes in. Yet the master’s action was selfish for himself but selfless to include the slave. The slave grows tired of the master’s reign. Instead of changing the paradigm he gawks at the master’s model. The slave can become a master but instead he chooses to undermine him. In reactionary detail he displays true cowardice by demoting the master. Contriving a false narrative against the master. Asserting with conviction that the master took control of him. He was an innocent bystander who the master preyed upon. Sympathy lauds others feeling mistreated unhappy in their belated choice and push back. Instead of attempting to make any decisions let us derail your power and bring you back to weakness.
A classic critique of communism runs alongside this version whereby an inventor puts his heart and soul into a project and excels. His activity and exertion produce results. Yet upon his completion he is raided by others who wish to steal his product. How dare you keep that item to yourself. Don’t be selfish share it with us. Your invention is for everyone. The inactive unconcerned wishing to feed off others' successes demands compensation. The democratic response is the capitalist does not owe you anything. He worked hard so it is his private property, you cannot gain from another’s successes out of envy. Preying on the strong is the bottomless pit of share your success with those who did not try. While this is a pseudo-critique as it undermines the communal destiny, there is a large consideration in the capitalist theme. External variables are ignored and the outstretched prying of the bums are seeking to extort for their own foolishness. The master is not some greedy jerk but someone who takes charge and makes something of himself. The slave is someone who wishes to enjoy the successes of others. Everything must be shared, it’s a team effort even if those spouting are doing nothing.
Community is the harshest critique. A humanitarian pose to shift the burden on the master to assist his brethren even without recourse. Helping out the slave is helping out a friend. It is the right thing to do. The slave response hearkens to a brotherly dispute. Older brother works hard and saves up money to buy a new toy. He brings it home and is overjoyed to play with it. He is relishing in this experience. Laughing quite loudly, his younger brother curiously motions over to see what is so funny. He sees the new toy his brother is playing with. Jealous that he does not have it he asks if he can play with it. His brother happy to have it declines the offer politely. Younger brother asks again and big brother declines again. Younger brother begins to kvetch. Big brother not caring for the dubious reaction of his brother ignores him. Cries get louder and yells that he will go get mommy. Mommy waltzes into the room and demands an answer for the whining. Big brother tells the story discreetly conveying that this toy was bought with his hard earned cash. Mommy responds you can give your brother a try. Big brother says it’s his toy and he is playing with it now, maybe later. Younger brother begins to sob louder. How about a few minutes Mommy inquires. Big brother says it is his as he bought it and he wants to play with it. Mommy’s anger flares shouting well we gave you that allowance and you live under our roof. Give the toy to your younger brother. Big brother relents in anger giving over the toy younger brother smiles. Mommy seeing his animosity don’t be mad you brought this upon yourself.
Such a story is familiar to any older brother. The younger brother uses his weakness and sympathy to attain a higher power to strike down his overbearing brother. The egalitarian model is not simply equality, it is demoting the elder with a more powerful being above him. The older brother is in a place of power over his younger brother. He has the desired toy. The older brother is not seeking to oppress his younger brother just enjoy his share but the younger brother sees this as defiance. Recognising he cannot overpower his brother nor attain the toy, he uses his sadness as a victorious message. Bringing in a new power to the imbalance equalises the two brothers. Now instead of one luring over the other the parent is the overlord with two equal brothers. The younger brother does not even ask his parent to buy him the toy solely tries to steal his brother’s hard earned work. To Nietzsche, this is the slave immorality. The slave plays off that he is weak and therefore unable to take over. He then cunningly shifts the stage to place the master in chains. The master is categorised as a lecher and forced to pay homage for such sin. The parent will place the master in timeout for his relentless activity that is ignored for the benefit of the slave. The slave’s narrative becomes the truth.
The parent in the story is god or any ideological authority. Nietzsche focuses on Christianity as the root of this crime though it may have begun way earlier, even earlier than democratic Athens or the Exodus. Any ideological vision that upends the ruling power based on personal agitation seeks a slave morality in Nietzchean methodology. Yet there are some inconsistencies in the exodus scenario and Ancient Israel and Persia that stifle this ideal. On a technical level it was most probably hellenisation that created this mantra. Even in Ancient Greek democracy the classist divide was vivid. Nietzsche’s archetypes cannot operate in a system that rudely prohibits class growth. If paupers can never become kings then slave morality is non existent as slavish life is fated whether active or passive in life. Rebelling against rulership to shift the political order is quite the activity. Rome also in their republican efforts maintained a class difference with limits to the plebeians yet there is credible evidence that the peasantry did attain more rights. Unlike the former, plebeians maintained a stalemate whereby the gradually attained more rights all the while inferior to the patricians. There was more of an opening in Ancient Greece given its direct democracy. Still the aristocratic means held strong. Power was extended but consolidated.
Where Nietzsche may be correct is in Christianity’s seeming intoxicating poison. It was a rebellion of the weak over the strong that led them to victory via Jedi mind tricks. Nero killed many christians but years later Constantine converted upon a victorious battle. The Roman Empire fell from lack of concern for the empire. What mattered was faith in Jesus not the Emperor. Gaul sacked a defenceless Rome since soldiers did not protect the gates nor the money. Christianity had stifled the intent on procuring material excess. None of that mattered. What mattered was Jesus’ salvation. Rome undermined its traditions and beliefs confusing the public and painting a new direction. The battlefield turned internally. Instead of the stoic mindset of establishing oneself, it was all in the hands of Jesus. The whispers of a new tradition. A new model that brings a new light. The mother figure entering shoving the idol toys to the side. Reprimanding the pagan emperors to desist from hurting their christian younger brothers. Firmly changing the narrative that it was not the younger brother who was demanding change but the mother figure who was. Mommy was demanding the older brother take a hot shower to purify and share his toys. A sneaky non-violent rehearsed lie to capture Roman hearts away from their passionate zeal for the empire—though imperial overpowered lunacy did not help with citizenry perception.
At least with the Exodus story there is a battle. God takes the Israelites out of bondage quite viciously. The master was not going about his own business but ruthlessly torturing the foreigner. Afterwards the Israelites fight albeit with divine aid in the desert and during the monarchy. Additionally, ancient Israel was a fated existence based in tribe ethic of who could be king or priest. The egalitarian mind was under God but the brutish deception was more prophetic polemics lest the parental figure punish them. To an extent, David and Bathsheba and Ahab and Naboth do demonstrate the prophetic outcry and consequence for harming a fellow man. Yet the post-slave ordeal even if hierarchical does hold those with power accountable. There are legal limits under the divine word given by the most powerful leader. Emerging from a family there are differences even if similarities arise. Still, Christians were persecuted by the empire notoriously by Nero. The persecuted for their beliefs and divergence are killed. This is not a master polity but envy at the possibility of a younger brother. An older brother who dismisses his adopted younger brother because he looks different or acts different. Dismissing a younger brother for their decisions. Countless analogies warrant a congruency. The master’s envy at difference lashes out in phobic obscurity. The master creates the exclusive bubble administering his communal hub to pile-drive the other down to the lowest class.
Ancient Israel can be accused of becoming the beast they deplored by conquering the seven nations. Though for them, the land was necessary not the thought process. If they left peacefully there would be no bloodshed but those residing weren’t going to go so they fought and won. A battle for land honourable in ancient warfare. What is dishonourable is backstabbing the ideology. Christianity sought peace and then became exclusive. The persecutions that followed and the universalist echo chamber that haunted the Middle Ages led to a diminishing possibility for otherness. Seeking egalitarianism and equality for all men was for those who accepted Jesus. Those who rejected him were targets. Only Jesus followers could live peacefully. The slave became the master attesting to the same cruel measures enforced on him. Nietzsche’s model is theoretically correct but contextually off. Christianity like Hellenism prior were liberally enlightened to those who bought into the ideology. Those who disagreed were banished and tortured. The Jews fit both categories forbidden to learn Torah under the hellenic Greeks and murdered by Christians. Jews were an easy target displaced and weak they could be trampled easily without batting an eye. Either the slave became the master or the slave invented a new master.
Both of these are correct. Nietzsche’s version of the nice jolly master is dead wrong and his brutish style is uploaded by the former slave. Now with power he exerts it on all those who made him suffer. He torments those that displease him. Yet moreover it’s the new hub that garners the most attention. Hellenism brought a new ideal that subsequent ideologies followed, the ability it to choose one’s destiny. While many couldn’t change their birth identity they could change personhood via conversion aka adopting ideals. Escaping the master morality by cultivating an equal society sounds more Persian than Christian. While Persia ran the Empire it permitted diversity. As long as taxes were paid, there wasn’t more that was demanded. Hierarchies maintained by fated existence with little attempt to universalise drama. To go back to the biblical example it’s Babylon that defeats Israel. A flawed hierarchy defeated by a raging logistical empire. Morals were less ethnically demanded. It is in the hellenised world that right and wrong are introduced. Even if hellenism was a metric of conquerers, only those who follow this specific regimen are in the right. Christianity doubled down and spiritualised this notion. On a metaphysical level those who refused the christian doctrine were enemies deserving what was ever coming to them. All damage done in his name.
The grand irony is that it created a whole new monster. Equality to those who believed. The masterful life was for everyone in a specific circle. Yet even in that circle there was a hierarchical system. The former slaves created a new ideology that classified those who were the closest to the deity. Hellenistic priests were weak but maintained much power—though the feeble priesthood derives from Mesopotamian times. Strong warriors were inferior to the mighty priests. (King David and King Uzziah were lambasted by the divinely selected prophet who lawfully berated them for their sin against God. As loner brazen protesters the prophets were chased out and flacked numerously. Yet the prophet was a man wishing to not be there, a pagan priest desired the role). With the all consuming power over the monarchy, the church was able to orchestrate the reality they wished. Moulding it into a neo-master morality. A model akin to the old but with much better livelihood for those under its flag. The slave is the rejector. He can choose to be a part of the team and join team master or he can reject it and be on team slave. The morality chain becomes a choice. The master does as he pleases under his banner in the name of his god while the slave searches for hope. Yet finds little aid as his salvation awaits in the shadows. The emancipation was the hope.
Unfortunately for the internal Christians, it was not all fun and games. Promised salvation and prosperity was brought with slavish attitudes and disgusting decorum. The church held sway but political bodies under the aristocratic shield belittled the peasantry. While the church had much power they could not save the peasantry from the sorrow. The master monarchies were at times Christian or Pagan or Muslim. The religious mantra either was unfulfilled or unsatisfied. Believers were promised an afterlife instead of the current materialistic joy. To cope with hardships incorporated by the classist religiosity underhandedly deserted their christian folk. The political nobility was favourable to the church and with its immense power the clergy reigned supreme and yet did little to evict the peasantry. Though the church did aid in certain measures to curtail noble violence and abuse. Yet the hierarchical order that the church professed only hindered the possibility of equitable relations. Peace with God was helpful but many believers saw their nobility as raising their prestige. With ties between the nobility and the clergy it only emboldened this truth. The wealth was between these two groups and charity aside remained in their hands. In a sense its ineffectiveness drew from its religious meekness. The clergy demanded reform but like the prophet were not soldiers. Damned to hell or not, the knighthood guarding the noble was the strong warrior who couldn’t easily be pierced. Generational branding only furthered their might against clergy interference. The mother figure was at work and the brothers fought it out.
Emancipation struggles fought back against the noble exclusivity. The fall of the religious kingdom empowered people to take charge. A will to power of the slave against his oppressor. A new model against aristocratic longevity. Beginning in the renaissance and fully endowing itself in the American revolution was democratic ideals. Each man to mark his own destiny without concern what he believed—though still limited in race and gender. The US revolution against the monarchy stapled rights for all men which gradually included all races and genders. In its youth though exclusive to many was a hope for all. The most progressive society and yet has its issues. While initially a slave revolt against monarchical overzealous annoyance, the colonial might together would lead to prosperity. Inalienable rights for all citizenry. Yet as democracy grew it began to cultivate an echo chamber. Only democracy can save the world. Communism was evil. Democracy must travel worldwide to ensure democracy for everyone. Invading other countries with hellish collateral damage for such a purpose. For all the visionary beauty the hierarchy still remains. While there is more mobility there is still a huge gap between the rich and the poor. Politicians in bed with corporations only caring for their own needs.
Democracy in all its amazing accomplishments added to the Christian gaze replacing God with the Leviathan. The democratic order will hold up society. It is the measure of ensuring peace and freedom. For blacks it has not. For the poor so often ignored. The slave becomes the master with nuances. A renewed oppressor with slanted progressivism to seem less shady. The same issue applies to Christianity as it does to communism and fascism. Each of these rebelled against a hierarchical order and imposed a new hierarchical order. One with diversified but central governmental power whether that be in the federal or local governments. There is no royalty or nobility named but they act as if they are. In these systems only those accepted into the frame enjoy the fruits of the system. While democracy happens to be the most open it the same illusion as Christianity. Promising equality and charity when it’s the same top-down nonsense continued for centuries. Preaching slave morality but really just adding a few slave nuances to the new and improved master morality. More people can oppress but then again it’s not equal. For some to reach the pinnacle and demoralise the weak but that is just progressive master morality. More people are given the opportunity to punch down. Slave morality by Nietzsche’s metric has crusaded and yet never integrated. A lie to bring about new power. Instead of holding onto the masters of old, democracy enabled new resource heavy people to become the masters. A new more liberal totalitarian regime but nonetheless totalitarian.
Slave morality is a cooked lie. Nietzsche was right about the slackers but it never adapted evenly into an actual slave morality. It is a lie of the weak to become strong and then oppress the actual weak. It is not about bums but deceptive individuals hoisting gatherings to place them at the helm so they can become the new masters. The peasantry are still the peasantry. A few break through those with access and resources while the others are still in the basement hunkered down and defeated. A nice idea to bring about equality but it’s always a physically violent push that usurps the former regime with the same demon with a different perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment