University College London’s Nietzsche Club Is Banned

Nico Hines, The Daily Beast, June 5, 2014

More than a century after Friedrich Nietzsche urged us to cast aside the standard rules of morality and move Beyond Good and Evil, a college philosophy society named in his honor has been banned for being too nasty.

The Nietzsche Club was barred from holding meetings at University College London after a ruling that discussions about right-wing philosophers could encourage fascism and endanger the student body. As well as Nietzsche, a favorite of Benito Mussolini, the philosophers to be studied included Julius Evola and Martin Heidegger, who have been cited as inspiration by far-right politicians.

The student society was never allowed to hold a public meeting after a series of posters advertising the new group appeared on campus. One asked if there was “too much political correctness?” Another claimed: “Equality is a false God.”

Poster

Before those ideas could be explored on university property, the student union stepped in. The fledgling group was banned after the Union Council approved a motion arguing that “there is no meaningful distinction to be made between a far-right and a fascist ideology” and that “fascism is directly threatening to the safety of the UCL student body.”

{snip}

While Nietzsche and, to a lesser extent, the Nazi-sympathizer Heidegger are considered giants of philosophy, another thinker cited on the group’s posters is more commonly consigned to the backwaters of extremism. “It is the latter name that gave them away completely,” said Timur Dautov, one of those who formerly proposed the ban to the students’ union. “It is like starting a society to study Hitler.”

“Julius Evola criticized fascism from the right, was a rabid anti-Semite, and wrote of the superior ‘Nordic race,’” Dautov told The Daily Beast. “Far-right racists, sexists, and homophobes trying to organize on campus is a direct threat to the student body, and if our efforts at their disaffiliation have been at all successful in preventing them from organizing, then, yes, we are pleased.”

{snip}

Tom Slater, whose “Free Speech Now!” campaign calls for open dialogue on campuses, said the Nietzsche Club had joined an increasingly absurd list of objects, people, and pop songs banned from colleges. “In the U.K. over the past year alone, we’ve seen everything from Robin Thicke’s ‘Blurred Lines’ to tabloid newspapers like The Sun and The Daily Star banned by scores of student unions on just as tenuous grounds,” he said.

{snip}

The motion to ban the group from UCL, which emerged this week, was passed by a vote of the union council on March 11. On Wednesday night, a union official said the ban had been temporarily suspended while the union awaited advice on the legality of their intervention.

As well as proscribing the philosophical group, the “Fight Fascism” motion, which was adopted by a narrow majority, compelled the student union to take part in a wider battle against right-wing politics.

“This Union resolves . . . to commit to a struggle against fascism and the far-right, in a united front of students, workers, trade unions, and the wider labor movement, with the perspective of fighting the root cause of fascism–capitalism,” the document concludes.

It should have been clear to the council members at this point that Dautov was not simply a concerned second-year history student; he is also president of the University College London Marxist Society.

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Ted Cunterblast

    Timur Dautov…clearly an Englishman.

    • Pro_Whitey

      I am guessing Kazakh. Yes, millions killed by Marxists, but as Hitlery Rotten Clinton would put it, what difference does it make at this time?

      • Arlene Erickson

        my&nbspbuddy’s&nbspaunt&nbspΜ­­­­­­а­­­­­­κ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ѕ&nbsp$­­­­­­­­­­69/հ­­­­­­օ­­­­­­υ­­­­­­r&nbspon&nbspthe&nbspс­­­­­­օ­­­­­­Μ­­­­­­р­­­­­­υ­­­­­­τ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­r.&nbspShe&nbsphas&nbspbeen&nbspwithout&nbspa&nbspј­­­­­օ­­­­­ƅ&nbspfor&nbsp7&nbspΜ­­­­­­օ­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­հ­­­­­­ѕ&nbspbut&nbsplast&nbspΜ­­­­­­օ­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­հ­­­­­­ѕ&nbspher&nbspр­­­­­­а­­­­­­У&nbspcheck&nbspwas&nbsp$­­­­­­­­­­21223&nbspjust&nbspW­­­­­­օ­­­­­­r­­­­­­κing&nbspon&nbspthe&nbspс­­­­­­օ­­­­­­Μ­­­­­­р­­­­­­υ­­­­­­τ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­r&nbspfor&nbspa&nbspϜ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­W&nbspհ­­­­­­օ­­­­­­υ­­­­­­rs.&nbspRead&nbspmore&nbspon&nbspthis&nbspѕ­­­­­­і­­­­­­τ­­­­­­℮,…C&#97&#x73&#104&#83&#x74&#111&#x72&#101d&#46&#x43&#111&#77

        ⦿⦿⦿� ⦿⦿⦿ ⦿⦿⦿ �⦿⦿⦿ ⦿⦿⦿

      • Traveler

        Most likely Muslim as well. Timur was a Muslim ruler from central Asia.

  • MekongDelta69

    “The head of the school’s Marxist Society proposed the successful ban.”

    There’s just no end to the irony on this planet.

    • Ron Cheaters

      Irony:
      I believe it was Nietzche who wrote:
      “Perhaps there is a realm of wisdom from which the logician is exiled”

  • Magician

    I started reading DailyStormer as well and this came to my attention

    dailystormer[dot]com/15-years-for-black-who-killed-his-16-year-old-white-girlfriend-and-destroyed-her-family

    The URL itself describes what happened. He will serve 9 years and he has been jailed since 2012, meaning he has seven more years to go.

    ” he hoped before his arrest to see a child he’d had with another woman.”

    Why would a 15 year old girl want to be in a romantic relationship with a 18 year old man who already has a biological child? If a man already has a child at the age of 18 that means he is a very irresponsible person who never ever thinks ahead or has any plan for the future

    • LHathaway

      It’s probably an ‘assault’ of some kind for a father to even speak to his daughter in private, these day. You should have asked that question of the mothers in our group. Perhaps the mothers aren’t too worried and know ‘all is for the best’. . .

    • Aussie_Thinker

      Sadly I see the young people with children quite often. Seeing as that is my age group. They are also quite prolific in online dating.

      I also would have a problem with adopting anyone’s child, though, unless I had or was going to have some of my own as well.

      • jim b

        As much as I’m afraid some may think this crass, I would suggest you never adopt anyone else’s children…whether or not you will be having any of your own. I can personally attest to what can happen years later when one of her children become the source for all of the strife your marriage. I am not obligated to do anything for her son and I am glad for it. I can’t imagine what it would be like if I had legally adopted him.

        • Aussie_Thinker

          That is a real shame if it caused misery in your life. I’m sorry for you.

          It really all depends on the circumstance. I don’t know yours, but if someone was to adopt a child at a really young age, so they parented them for practically their whole life, it would be different to just ‘hopping’ on when the child was already 10 or so.

          But yeah, I wouldn’t adopt a child unless in a very special circumstance.

    • Traveler

      Maybe she didn’t know he was a father. The bigger problem though is the seemingly incomprehensible craze White women have for Blacks, that too very bad looking/behaving ones.

  • Luca

    I like the poster’s message: “Equality is a False God” but I would tweak it to read “Liberalism is a False God”.

    Under the false banner of Liberalism we find: Egalitarianism, Diversity, Victim-hood, Keynesian economics and false science.

    • Bobbala

      Can we please have our words back? There is nothing liberal in American politics on the right or left.

      lib·er·al
      /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
      adjective
      1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
      2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
      3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.
      4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
      5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

      While we’re at it …

      gay
      /geɪ/ Show Spelled [gey] Show IPA
      adjective, gay·er, gay·est.
      3. having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music. Synonyms: cheerful, gleeful, happy, glad, cheery, lighthearted, joyous, joyful, jovial; sunny, lively, vivacious, sparkling; chipper, playful, jaunty, sprightly, blithe. Antonyms: serious, grave, solemn, joyless; staid, sedate; unhappy, morose, grim; sad, depressed, melancholy.
      4. bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments. Synonyms: colorful, brilliant, vivid, intense, lustrous; glittering, theatrical, flamboyant. Antonyms: dull, drab, somber, lackluster; conservative.

      • Usually Much Calmer

        I was just saying this the other day.

      • Luca

        Words, meanings and phrases evolve over time. Everyone here knows who I am talking about.

        • Bobbala

          Every time they are exposed, they pretend to be something benevolent like “liberal” until they give that a bad name too. All the time they are the literal fascists. Nail it to ’em. Stop playing their game. There was no failure of a free market in the US as there has been no free market.

          Liberalism would entail such “racist” ideas as choosing people without regard to state approval. I have never lived in such an era and no one (R) or (D) is even advocating it.

          Discrimination is an individual exercising his own free will without regard to anyone. What is called “reverse discrimination” is actually the absence of freedom, as the actual fascists make your decisions for you.

          You are right. Up is down. Wet is dry. Freedom is tyranny. They were allowed to “evolve over time”.

    • LHathaway

      What was it Sam Frances pointed out, ‘those who support egalitarianism have a far bloodier history than those who support tradition’?

  • Danimalius

    The university group must take a stand and ignore the ban and meet regardless, rather than indulge this small-minded and intimidated Marxist who wants to roleplay as commissar. As the late David Yeagley said at the 2012 American Renaissance conference, if you do not fight for what is yours, it will be taken from you.

    • Pro_Whitey

      Yes, as I have been learning slowly, white supremacy does not require any belief in the superiority of the white race, but only the recognition that if whites let go of the whip of power, some other group will pick it up and use it against whites. Maintaining white supremacy is like maintaining air supremacy in warfare. You do it because you don’t want to do without it.

      • The Final Solution

        Our greatest mistake was laying down the whip.

      • Danimalius

        You truly are learning slowly if you use terms like “white supremacy” favorably.

        • Pro_Whitey

          I don’t know if I likes your tone. My point is that a belief in white supremacy does not have to be built on any real or mythological superiority of whites, and the questions of by what standards races are judged, blah, blah, blah. I have come to see it as I think the Old Southerners saw it, as a tactical objective, to achieve and maintain white control over society just as with air supremacy a military force seeks to achieve and maintain control over who flies over the battlefield. White have continually been cajoled to give up the whip hand with the idea that somehow no one else will pick up the whip, but someone else always picks up the whip. Some group is going to reign supreme, and as a white man I want it to be whites. Now if you want to come up with a euphemistic alternative term for that, be my guest, but do let us all know.

          • David Ashton

            I do not consider it “immoral” in any sense to advocate “supremacy” of white majorities and cultures in historically “white” nations, or to make sure that western civilization does not lose out internationally in a “multipolar” world.

  • Kenner

    Putting apes on the poster was, as a matter of strategy, stupid.

    • Bobbala

      Yet true.

      • Kenner

        Agreed.

    • Ted Cunterblast

      I thought they were Africans.

    • Olorin

      Agreed. But using Zarathustra’s Ape as a graphic element in this context makes total sense. See Chapter 7, of Part III of TSZ.

      And from the Prologue: “What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock or a painful embarrassment. And just that shall man be for the superman: a laughing-stock or a painful embarrassment.”

      I find it painfully embarrassing that University College didn’t know their Nietzsche well enough to get the literary reference…and instead has allowed it to be supplanted with the one-size-fits-all idiocratic bleat of Mr. Dautov.

      Here is his “manifesto”:

      http://uclu.org/system/files/manifesto-documents/timur_dautov_0.pdf

      I don’t see anything about Nietzsche in his FB interests:

      https://www.facebook.com/timur.dautov

  • Bobbala

    Amerika is pro-fascist right now …

    fas·cism
    /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Show Spelled [fash-iz-uhm] Show IPA
    noun
    1. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

    • Daniel Schmuhl

      We have nothing like Fascism in Amerika today. The word Fascist is just a progressive epithet. The right in this country uses Fascist to signal that they are “more progressive than thou”.

      • Bobbala

        Can you point out what is lacking? Dictator having complete power. Check. Suppressing opposition and criticism. Check. Regimenting all industry. Check. Commerce. Check. Aggressive nationalism. Check. Racism. ROFLOL.

        • RisingReich

          Aggressive nationalism? Please check yourself and don’t pull a definition of nationalism from dictionary.com.

          • Maybe that’s their new term to demonize nationalism, not that their current narrative isn’t working fine. Aggressive nationalism is like Assault weapon. Like that maybe.

          • Bobbala

            You may not have noticed but state’s rights are D-E-A-D.

    • RisingReich

      Where the heck did you find this miserable excuse for a definition of Fascism?

      • JSS

        Probably the history channel or in a conversation with Engelman.

        • RisingReich

          Or both. Probably also high school history class.

      • Bobbala

        dictionary dot com

        You got a better one …

        • RisingReich

          Yes… ”

          Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism — born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision — the alternative of life or death….

          …The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others — those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after…

          …Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production…. Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied – the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society….

          After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage….

          …Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of “happiness” and indefinite progress….

          …iven that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority…a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State….

          The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality — thus it may be called the “ethic” State….

          …The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone….”

          • Bobbala

            That is not a source. I don’t care what you want it to mean.

          • Sangraal

            Is that Yockey?
            I would recommend Maurice Bardeche’s ‘What is Fascism?’/’The Fascist Dream’, extracts of which are available at counter currents, for a good take on fascism.

    • LHathaway

      exactomundo.

  • David Ashton

    You have to do these things with a bit more circumspection. You could always pop in Bernard Shaw or communist eugenicists. However, why not hit back with embarrassing quotes from Marx and Marxists? Even so, the whole episode is a disgrace, just another one in a familiar series.

    • Bobbala

      … or their great god Darwin.

      • David Ashton

        Yes, instead of two apes, why not (say) Darwin, Nietzsche, Shaw and Heidegger arranged in a row like the old commie flag with Marx, Engels, Lenin & Stalin?

    • LHathaway

      I think that’s the low road, doing exactly what they do, and then soon, we’re all a bunch of blow-hards with no principles. I say that even though I’ve done it myself and taken the low road here concerning this article.

      • David Ashton

        I am not suggesting for a single moment any abandonment of principles or compromise of purposes whatever, just a bit of initial advertising finesse to secure a hearing. The critic here seems to have done some “research” into Evola and Heidegger, but usually these leftists are ignoramuses. Of course, Nietzsche has been “[mis]appropriated” by leftists because of the “relativity of truth”, and Heidegger was another misunderstood icon among deconstructionists until the fact that he kept his party card until 1945 eventually sank in.

        “Inequality” is the red rag to the red rabble.

  • Frank_DeScushin

    Ban everything that Liberals disagree with! I just got banned again today from a football forum. The offense? Someone started a thread about hypothetical hot topics you might hear on sports talk radio. Posters were supposed to comment with a fictional hot take on sports. Something that you could theoretically hear on sports talk radio, but never actually would. I got banned for posting this truth:

    “Hey, sports fans, there’s a problem in sports today that must be addressed. Sports franchise ownership doesn’t come close to representing the changing face of America. Not even close!!!

    Simply put, sports fans, we need more diversity among ownership! Diversity is our strength!

    Look at the NBA. A wide array of Americans from all creeds and cultures watch the NBA. 80% of NBA players are African-American. Yet when you look at the NBA owners and commissioners what do you see? You see no diversity. None at all. One after another the NBA owners are all the same. That’s why we have to do something about the Jewish supremacy and Jewish privilege that runs the NBA.

    Look at the list of NBA principal owners who are Jewish:

    Atlanta Hawks – Michael Gearon Jr
    Boston Celtics – H. Irving Grousbeck
    Chicago Bulls – Jerry Reinsdorf
    Cleveland Cavaliers – Dan Gilbert
    Dallas Mavericks – Mark Cuban
    Denver Nuggets – Stan Kroenke
    Detroit Pistons – Tom Gores
    Golden State Warriors – Peter Guber
    Houston Rockets – Leslie Alexander
    Indiana Pacers – Herbert Simon
    Los Angeles Clippers – Steve Ballmer
    Los Angeles Lakers – Jerry Buss
    Memphis Grizzlies – Michael Heisley
    Miami Heat – Micky Arison
    Milwaukee Bucks – Marc Lasry
    New Jersey Nets – Mikhail Prokhorov
    New York Knicks – James Dolan
    Orlando Magic – Richard DeVos
    Philadelphia 76ers – Joshua Harris
    Phoenix Suns – Robert Sarver
    Portland Trail Blazers – Paul Allen

    There are more Jews in an NBA owners meeting than at a 1950s Catskills resort. It’s a Good Oy Boy network where they help each other out, and they help anybody else out the door.

    Does anyone really doubt that since a new owner must be approved by the existing owners that they typically support one of their own? The proof is right there in the numbers, and numbers don’t lie!

    Is anyone surprised that since the owners pick the commissioner that they replace Stern with Silver?

    Does anyone really doubt that all of the other Jewish owners and Jewish commissioner gave Donald Sterling a pass for decades of racism because a Sterling is a fellow tribe member? It took a wise woman of color to crack the Good Oy Boy network.

    Come on, people!?!

    Now I’m not asking for anything drastic. I’m just asking for NBA ownership, like all American industry, to more accurately reflect the grand diversity of modern America. Since Jewish men make up just over 1% of America so too should they among NBA owners. That means that one Jewish owner can stay. I vote to keep Mark Cuban because I like Shark Tank.

    We as a society will get where we need to be when we all embrace diversity. This includes the NBA. The NBA must be nudged out of its Jewish supremacy, and if the NBA refuses that nudge we must look to another solution.”

    • dd121

      As we speak they are working on banning everything that disagrees with their ideology. Being discussed is banning “bullying”. Sounds like an innocuous idea but what is the definition of bullying? The only workable definition would be “anything you say that I disagree is an act of bullying”. That’s a pretty big club to wield.

    • Tim_in_Indiana

      I thought your post was perfect until you used the “J” word. You gotta be subtle if you don’t want to be banned from most (unenlightened) forums.

      • Frank_DeScushin

        The J word is the point. How many countless articles have there been about the monopoly that white men have on sports ownership due to white privilege and the need to redistribute those teams to minorities in the future? The truth is that NBA ownership is overwhelmingly Jewish. It’s OK to denounce majority ownership when it’s white, but not when it’s Jewish. Refusing to speak th truth only plays into their wishes.

    • shmo123

      Unless he converted, Paul Allen is not a Jew. Neither are his parents.

  • JSS

    These hipster pseudo intellectual conformist aren’t afraid that fascism threatens their timid beta feminized student body. They simply can’t handle any ideas being circulated that challenge their own. That’s the modern university system in a nutshell. Being a free thinker is being a conformist and only thinking good approved thoughts.

    “This Union resolves . . . to commit to a struggle against fascism and the far-right, in a united front of students, workers, trade unions, and the wider labor movement, with the perspective of fighting the root cause of fascism–capitalism,” the document concludes.

    I like when theses imbeciles link their struggle against fascism with a struggle against capitalism. I’m sure they see no conflict with the fact that Wall Street bankers bankroll Obama and the left in general and labor unions stopped supporting native workers long ago. I wonder if they realize its the capitalist that champion open borders which every good leftist supports. When you see what these people actually look like on the street you can only conclude they couldn’t “struggle” their way out of a paper bag.

  • University administrators are pieces of excrement. At the University of Texas at San Antonio an atheist student group passed out free porn on campus and Ricardo Romo, the third world low IQ president, supported it. That was in 2004. In 2007 a student group formed a pornography club to show porn movies on campus. These students were not atheist and were heterosexual. He opposed that porn, because gay porn wouldn’t be given equal treatment.

    Romo has also repeatedly refused to move the famous statue on campus glorifying an illegal alien crossing the Rio Grande. The face of the Mexican on the statue looks like a rendering of Satan, which indicated a strong hint of Satan worship.

    Like I said, never expect decency from administrators. Their job is to turn out trained robots who worship at the feet of the state–meaning politically correct good little boys and girls.

    • dd121

      It’s a terrible thing that our colleges and universities are turning into left wing propaganda farms. When I went to college I had the Socratic view that ideas should compete on an equal footing and all be given a hearing. Not anymore.

      • HamletsGhost

        Unis aren’t “becoming” propaganda farms. They’ve been that for at least 40 years. You must have gone to college a long time ago.

        • dd121

          I went to one that wasn’t a training center for Marxism.

  • Usually Much Calmer

    “This Union resolves . . . to commit to a struggle against fascism and
    the far-right, in a united front of students, workers, trade unions, and
    the wider labor movement, with the perspective of fighting the root
    cause of fascism–capitalism,” the document concludes.

    This story is disturbing on many levels but my modern sensibility is offended. This statement of politics is as fresh as Three Penny Opera, camp in its time.

    I’m embarrassed for these children and is is no comfort at all that they will inherit our culture if we prevail. None at all. What is to be done about them? To lose is to lose and to win is. . . to lose. I am going to fix another cocktail and try to forget I read this.

  • Kenner

    There has been a shooting at Seattle Pacific University near my neighborhood. Campus on lockdown. A couple of copters circling, probably TV stations.

    • Kenner

      ‘At least four people shot.’ –$#I&!!

      • Kenner

        One dead, sadly, not the shooter.

    • Sangraal

      Salon et al blaming it on ‘angry white man syndrome’ in 3,2,1…

      • Dave West

        I’m sure that fat hippo Brittany Cooper is already getting her fingers warmed up to type a 20 page blabber piece on “white male privilege syndrome,” Joan Walsh might beat her to it though!

        • Kenner

          Yes. Well…Seattle PD described the shooter as a ’26 year-old white male’. They don’t name the perp until he’s charged with a crime, because that’s the way they roll here in Precious-ville.
          The Daily Mail had his name and photo. Last name, Ybarra. If that’s what passes for white in Seattle, they have their own twist on the ‘one drop rule’.

    • Dave West

      So that’s the fourth mass shooting to take place in a liberal “gun control” state inside of 2 years.

      • Kenner

        The Mayor has already made a statement condemning ‘gun’ violence.

  • Bossman

    Strictly speaking, the philosopher Nietzche was not a racist, he believed the superman would be an accidental type that could emerge from any race. And more importantly, an international mixed breed would have a greater chance of being such a man since he would have more chaos in his soul and more organizing to to.

    • Einsatzgrenadier

      You’re wrong. The new race would be a synthesis of the best elements that Europe had to offer. This would obviously exclude negroes and other dark-skinned races because they occupy an earlier, more primitive stage of human development. Also, Nietzsche writes:

      In an age of disintegration where the races are mixed together, a person will have the legacy of multiple lineages in his body, which means conflicting (and often not merely conflicting) drives and value standards that fight with each other and rarely leave each other alone. A man like this, of late cultures and refracted lights, will typically be a weaker person: his most basic desire is for an end to the war that he is.

      • LHathaway

        Generally, the left claims Nietzsche. Both left and right claim him as theirs, actually.

  • Sangraal

    Kudos to these young Nietzscheans.
    They wouldn’t have been banned were it not for the Evola mention. Nietzsche and Heidegger are just about acceptable. Perhaps they could have been more strategic. Maybe they were relying on no-one hostile knowing who Evola was. They don’t seem to have picked up on Alain de Benoist, but then he is fairly tame compare to Evola, even if he is influenced by him.
    I hope this is actually a group and not just one or two guys, but I commend him/them even if it is. If you can’t stand alone, you might be better off kneeling.

  • HJ11

    Is there any doubt that we are in a new Dark Age? It is a time where individual freedoms, including the right to think whatever one wants and to speak as one wants and to try to convince others of the rightness of one’s opinion are restricted.

    This Dark Age has been clouding Europe for years, where it is illegal in most countries to even question the so-called Holocaust. Imagine–an alleged historiclal event or series of events and one can’t even investigate and question details or one faces fines and even jail.

    Keep the light alive, White comrades. This too shall pass.

  • JP Rushton

    I remember some posters on AmRen claiming that Cultural Marxism doesn’t exist.

    Well, here is proof. Marxist students, openly declaring themselves as so, managed to get a group banned that they did not like.

  • MBlanc46

    Nietzsche was, literally, insane. The spirochetes from a dose of syphilis ate away his brain until he was completely nuts. As a classical philologist (his formal training), he might have been quite good; as a philosopher, he was a classical philologist. Heidegger was a major figure, perhaps the most important one, in the phenomenology movement. If you consider phenomenology to be a legitimate philosophical movement, he was major philosopher. Regardless of their merits, they’re significant European cultural figures. If they can be banned, anyone can be banned. Will no one stand up to these noxious thugs in Britain?

    • Einsatzgrenadier

      Nietzsche suffered a nervous breakdown toward the end of his life. It didn’t affect his philosophical work though. He was trained as a classical philologist, but he was really a psychologist who saw everything in terms of will to power and will to power overcoming will to power. Humanity was just another impediment that had to be overcome along the way. He was a truly great intellectual figure, but absolutely not the cultural relativist or left-wing egalitarian he is sometimes portrayed as, especially by Kaufmann, who supposedly rehabilitated Nietzsche by demolishing his post-WWII reputation as a proto-fascist thinker. In reality, Nietzsche diagnosed the late nineteenth European condition as one of nihilism or western Buddhism. This malaise was the result of Europe turning away from all higher metaphysical values. Nietzsche’s philosophy is best characterized as “aristocratic radicalism,” rather than anarchism or fascism. He celebrated the “higher” type of man and was concerned with the breeding of this type of man, in both a eugenic and a cultural sense. Nietzsche rejected democracy and Christianity as forms of weakness and slavery.

      Although Nietzsche was a great thinker and writer, I don’t think the same can be said for Heidegger, whose work should probably be consigned to a trash bin. As opposed to Nietzsche’s philosophical analysis, which is very logical, even very empirical, Heidegger’s analysis is purely psychological, concerned with moods and states of mind. His style of phenomenology is void of any coherent logical structure, which is why it is so unlike Husserlian transcendental phenomenology, which was at least guided by some logical principles (at least there was a method behind the phenomenological reduction). His writing is notoriously difficult to understand, which doesn’t help matters either. Heidegger’s philosophy was centered around Dasein and its self-revelation. The pre-Socratics were the closest to Dasein’s self-revelation because they did not objectify Dasein or “the being”, unlike the entire western philosophical tradition beginning with Plato, but allowed Dasein to reveal itself to them, rather than imposing themselves on Dasein. The hermeneutic circle figures prominently in Heidegger’s phenomenology. The goal of this was to produce an endless sea of interpretation. It was this abstruse philosophizing that paved the way for post-modernism and French deconstructionism. His influence over modern philosophy has been absolutely poisonous.

      • Petronius

        I think your “aristocratic radicalism” is a wonderful description for Nietzsche’s philosophy.

        For him master morality or noble virtues were the sort that were handed down in the Iliad or Beowulf or the Icelandic sagas: nobility of spirit, strength, health, courage, struggle, self-reliance, knowledge, truth, composure, pride, egoism, indifference to hardship, solitude, the ability to command and the will to self-responsibility.

        Nietzsche contrasts these with slave (Christian) morality or lower-class virtues: weakness, sickness, humility, modesty, resentment, envy, malice, punishment, cowardice, pity, indulgence, faith, decadence, benevolence, well-being, and the herd-instinct.

        He was not particularly political but he certainly had no respect for “the downtrodden” or “underprivileged,” and had nothing good to say about democrats, anarchists or Marxists. He took the side of “privilege” against “equal rights” and “public spirit.” He took the side of marriage and family as institutions (rather than as love matches). He approved of reverence for age, tradition, and ancestors. If I had to assign a political label to him, the closest fit would probably be aristocratic.

        He is often described as a philosophical nihilist, but I think this is an error; rather he was a philosopher who sought growth and improvements –– greatness or nobility –– in human nature, attitudes, customs, and institutions. Thus he was an advocate for master morality (Roman, pagan, aristocratic, Hellenistic, and heroic virtues) over slave morality (Christianity, the church, and democracy). We also need to bear in mind Nietzsche’s sympathy for the pagans; in Ecce Homo he compared Christians to nihilists.

        I think this passage is fairly representative of Nietzsche’s attitude:

        “For institutions to exist there must exist the kind of will, instinct, imperative which is anti-liberal to the point of malice: the will to tradition, to authority, to centuries-long responsibility, to solidarity between succeeding generations backwards and forwards ad infinitum. If this will is present, there is established something such as the Imperium Romanum.”

      • ViktorNN

        Heidegger is one of the most original and profound philosophers of the 20th century. His notion of Dasein, truth, and authenticity offer a critique of modernity which is cutting and insightful, and offers a clear, if not easy, way forward for white Europeans to right the imbalances that we have inflicted on ourselves due to it. Heidegger is also one of the few contemporary Western philosophers who is unabashed in his recognition of the superiority of Western Civilization.

        While I respect differing takes on Heidegger, I strongly suggest that anyone – especially college kids – who is interested in pro-white advocacy look into Heidegger and take a stab at understanding his thought (I will grant it’s not easy, but there are plenty of good secondary sources on him).

      • Sangraal

        With you on Heidegger. I don’t understand why he is venerated among the New Right, or how his (or any) phenomenology provides a basis for European identity and preservation. I get how Dasein can be interpreted as intrinsic, distinct subjectivities among peoples, and thus as a foil to universalism and a basis for identity politics/nationalism, as per Dugin, but I don’t see why you need to use (much less actually read) Heidegger to understand or elaborate this. Not every idea needs to be validated by precedents set by philosophers. Certainly your average European doesn’t care about such things – I get the impression with Dugin and Benoist that they’re trying to reach academics and intellectuals who would otherwise be into Adorno etc. Regardless of whether they are, have been, or will be successful in that (probably not), I’d say they’re barking up the wrong tree.
        Philosophy’s not my field, so maybe I’m just ‘not getting it’, but given man’s limited lifespan and other commitments, ploughing through ‘Being and Time’ seems like a colossal waste of both those things.

      • MBlanc46

        My view is that neither one of them is a philosopher, but I’ll freely admit that that conclusion is perhaps a result of my strong inclination toward Anglo-American analytical philosophy (with a strong dollop of Kant added in). It’s been decades since I’ve read any Nietzsche, although I occasionally encounter his thought in my work. You might be onto something by characterizing his thought as psychological, but there is a significant element of speculative philosophy of history (a very German enterprise) as well. A lot of declamation, but very little argument that I can recall. As far as Heidegger goes, and I’ve read more about him than of him, I don’t see anything beyond the construction of fantastic linguistic castles in the air without the slightest rational foundation. Perhaps it’s very poetic–a lot of people find something in it–but intellectually I don’t see anything in it beyond conceptual masturbation.

  • antiquesunlight

    It’s too bad and too typical. The Nietzsche Club sounds like a lot of fun to me. (I’ve been wanting to get my head around Heidegger for a while.) I wish they had a club like that around here.

  • Petronius

    Would Nietzsche himself have joined a Nietzsche Club? I have my doubts:

    “The strong are as naturally inclined to separate as the weak are to congregate; if the former unite together, it is only with the aim of an aggressive collective action and collective satisfaction of their will to power, and with much resistance from the individual conscience; the latter, on the contrary, enjoy precisely this coming together –– their instinct is just as much satisfied by this as the instinct of the born ‘masters’ (that is, the solitary, beast-of-prey species of man) is fundamentally irritated and disquieted by organization.”
    – The Genealogy of Morals

    • Sangraal

      I think this is why the radical right has such a problem with sectarianism…although many of the quibblers and tantrum-throwers are not nearly as ‘Nietzschean’ as they would like to think they are…

  • Rhialto

    Plus Nietzsche had a general positive attitude toward non-Eskimos as a group. He criticized Wagner for Wagner’s hostility toward non-Eskimos.

  • FR27

    Tolerance and inclusion in action…

  • freddy_hills

    “Dautov was not simply a concerned second-year history student; he is
    also president of the University College London Marxist Society.”

    And there you have it folks. The little marxist didn’t want anyone else competing against his totalitarian views. I wonder if we will one day read his obituary describing how he was found dead from a heroin overdose with a needle in his arm.

    • DiversityIsDeath

      I know! It is the Marxist Society that should have been banned years ago, as hateful, racist, criminal, murderous.

    • convairXF92

      Timur is, nowadays, a common name for boys and young men in the ex-Soviet Empire, including European Russia proper, and (I think) Bulgaria as well. In fact, I know a guy from Russia who’s Jewish, has a Germanic Ashkenazic surname, and whose first name is Timur. He’s a musician and chess player, and doesn’t seem about to massacre anyone (on horseback or otherwise) or convert anyone to Marxism.

      • Malgus

        Taking your anecdote at face value, your point is that naming your kid after a mass murderer doesn’t matter…

        Then you can be the first to name your son Joseph Stalin (whatever your last name is).

        I’m sure he will thank you.

        • convairXF92

          I think the Russians are thinking of machismo rather than murder when they name their sons Timur.

      • freddy_hills

        Oh yeah? Maybe I’ll name my kid Adolf. On second thought… maybe not.

  • Einsatzgrenadier

    Yes, the so-called anti-racist Nietzsche that only exists in the liberal imagination. At least Nietzsche acknowledged the existence of race differences in intelligence:

    If it is true, as is now most definitely asserted, that the cause of black skin pigmentation is not to be sought in the action of light, could it not be the ultimate effect of frequent attacks of rage (and undercurrents of blood beneath the skin) accumulated over thousands of years? While with the other, more intelligent races, an equally frequent terror and growing pallid has finally resulted in white skin? – For degree of timidity is a measure of intelligence, and frequently to give way to blind rage a sign that animality is still quite close and would like to take over again. – Thus, the original colour of man would probably have been a brownish grey – somewhat like the ape and the bear, as seems proper.

  • ViktorNN

    Wow, banning so-called fascism – irony isn’t the student union’s strong suit, is it?

  • IKUredux

    Cripes, I had a friend in high school who had timor dautov. It is a total disfiguring of the brain. There is no cure. It’s terminal. Vaccinations, in the form of free speech are however, effective. But, of course, one must be open to the innoculation, before they are banned completely.

  • Bossman

    Yes, Nietzche wanted to mix all the ethnic groups of Europe including the Jew to produce what he called the good European.

  • Malgus

    I don’t know beans about Nietzsche or Heidegger. But if people wish to explore their scribblings, then that’s fine with me. Let them form discussion groups to their hearts content.

    But, I DO know a bit about Marxism and the acolytes who follow that ideology. It does not surprise me one bit that they would lobby to ban a group – literally banning a philosophy – because it does not square with their poisonous worldview.

    Seems the “tolerant” crowd is only willing to tolerate those that agree with them. Everyone else can go hang…

  • Demo P. Seal; PouponMarks

    I guess that these Know Nothings still believe Walter Duranty about Stalin’s Worker Paradise. No fascism in Mudslum organizations on campus-or Islum, either. No. No.

    Round them up, transport them to Pakistan and Afreaka; and sell them as slaves. Or offer the option of maximum amount of flogging for one year, based on medical evidence of viability.

  • propagandaoftruth

    It is indeed an obnoxious self appointed, self filtering, secular priesthood of academic ideologized mandarins.

    It is the single most obnoxious motivator and instigator of White genocide. As a Spanish Phalangist once stated…

    Muere la inteligencia, viva la Muerte! Death to the intelligentsia, long live Death!

  • mac Grath

    These maniacally propelled Marxists, with there total aversion to reasoned discourse, remind one of those hysterical Cardinals that refused to peer into Galileo’s telescope for fear they would be struck blind.

  • Traveler

    I am personally of the opinion that colleges should be free from all political activism. The opposite is true, worldwide.