The Moral Ontology of Feels: A Guide to Interacting with Last Men

The current year’s prevailing moral philosophy is moral realism rooted in the capricious emotional state of the moral agent. The deracination of morality has stripped modern man of the lens through which he may rationally attribute moral descriptors to behavior or attribute X. X is no longer objectively good or bad, nor does it have any inherent properties whatsoever. X is simply the subjective emotional state of the actor and those acted upon.

The “Enlightenment” is arguably the most Orwellian term ever conceived by man. Post-Enlightenment man descended from the sunny outdoors into a dark cave, shackled himself to the wall, and proceeded to worship shadows of what his ancestors experienced first-hand. His experience of love, friendship, sex, civic life, and the struggle for survival is limited silhouettes of the real thing cast onto glowing blue rectangles by the Cathedral/Synagogue (((elites))).


What modern man knows of love and friendship comes from sitcoms and social networking, of sex from internet porn and hookups, of civic life from cable news and media aggregators, and of the struggle of survival from the sterile, artificial environment of the air-conditioned gym.

The excesses of neoliberal capitalism have given the illusion of Whiggish historiography an emotional buffer. And in an age where emotion trumps everything, this buffer cannot be penetrated by the cold light of reason. At the peak of our civilization—the triumph of hundreds of years of industrial and technological progress—we have finally created Nietzsche’s Last Man:

Alas! there comes the time when man will no longer launch the arrow of his longing beyond man — and the string of his bow will have unlearned to whiz!

I tell you: one must still have chaos in oneself, to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: you have still chaos in yourselves.

Alas! There comes the time when man will no longer give birth to any star. Alas! There comes the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself.

Lo! I show you the Last Man.

What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?” — so asks the Last Man, and blinks.

The earth has become small, and on it hops the Last Man, who makes everything small. His species is ineradicable as the flea; the Last Man lives longest.

We have discovered happiness” — say the Last Men, and they blink.

They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loves one’s neighbor and rubs against him; for one needs warmth.

Turning ill and being distrustful, they consider sinful: they walk warily. He is a fool who still stumbles over stones or men!

A little poison now and then: that makes for pleasant dreams. And much poison at the end for a pleasant death.

One still works, for work is a pastime. But one is careful lest the pastime should hurt one.

One no longer becomes poor or rich; both are too burdensome. Who still wants to rule? Who still wants to obey? Both are too burdensome.

No shepherd, and one herd! Everyone wants the same; everyone is the same: he who feels differently goes voluntarily into the madhouse.

Formerly all the world was insane,” — say the subtlest of them, and they blink.

They are clever and know all that has happened: so there is no end to their derision. People still quarrel, but are soon reconciled — otherwise it upsets their stomachs.

They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health.

“We have discovered happiness,” — say the Last Men, and they blink. (Zarathustra, Prologue, 5)

Last Men fail to grasp the fact that their expressions of outrage, “can’t evens” and “wow just wows” are not metaphysically binding on us in any way whatsoever. The fact that “it’s 2016 for Christ’s sake” doesn’t somehow manifest hitherto unknown moral values and duties which invariably apply solely on whites, men, heteronormatives, and Christians. The moral ontology of the universe is not affected one jot or tittle by Trigglypuff’s, AIDS Skrillex’s, or Carl the Cuck’s emotional state. No amount of kvetching or oy veying rewrites one jot or tittle of the moral law (if one even exists—but such a debate can’t even take place with Last Men unable to conceive of a world beyond their whimsical feels).

When arguing with Last Men, the first and most important step is to demonstrate to them that their feelings are truly, deeply, profoundly unimportant to whether or not a given action is morally good, bad, neutral, or whether such categories are real in the first place. Maintenance of strong physiognomy—a universal language—is vital to the effectiveness of your message. Last men are easily cowed by superior physicality but generally immune to logic unless first broken emotionally.

Second, it is more effective to demonstrate the vacuous nature of their moral assertions than to call their motivation for said assertions into question by accusing them of “virtue signaling.” The truth is, we can’t know what drives someone to do something—only the actor can. And even if we’re fairly certain, they can simply lie and there’s no way we can prove them wrong.

By demonstrating the subjectivity of their morality, however, we free the minds of listeners from emotional bondage—which is, after all, they primary tool of Last Men. Just as the evangelist attempts to enslave our will to Christ (a phrase the Bible uses without pejorative connotation) by freeing us from the bondage of sin, Last Men attempt to enslave our will to their present subjective emotional state by freeing us from our traditional moral obligations to faith, family, and folk.

To this end they apply every means at their disposal to manipulate, cajole, guilt, shame, lure, and ultimately (if necessary and possible) force *their victims into adopting their subjective valuations. To this value scale the moniker “morality” is added *post hoc. The sole basis for the Last Man’s authority is the individual him/her/xe/xerself and the ever-shifting miasma his/her/xe/xer’s fleeting feels. When the truth of this proposition begins to seek in, it becomes easy to resist the disingenuous moralizing that has proven so destructive to our people and way of life.

Finally, our greatest enemy is not the Other, be it Jewish infiltrator, African rentseeker, or Muslim Jihadist. Our greatest enemy is our own unilateral, pathological altruism. It’s unilateral because it’s not reciprocated by our adversaries, it’s pathological because it’s destroying us, and it’s altruistic because it’s fundamentally self-sacrificial. This is the altruism preached by liberal Christianity and new atheism alike, urging us to sacrifice for nonwhites and welcome them into our countries despite their obvious existential threat to our people and our people’s values.

The fact that we’re our own worst enemies empowers us. Reframing our metapolitical struggle as an internal struggle against our own weakness shifts the responsibility to ourselves. You must shoulder the burden of improving yourself—no one else can undertake this task for you. The ideal Aryan man has strength, stamina, skill with arms, intellectual and practical knowledge, and—most importantly—a wife and children. All of these attributes are within your control within the parameters of your genetics. But they are meaningless unless we rid ourselves of the unilateral, pathological altruism that is destroying our people from the inside.