Saturday, August 11, 2018


Tell me this isn’t spot on!


   by Theodore Kaczynski

213. Because of their need for rebellion and for membership in a movement, leftists or persons of similar psychological type often are unattracted to a rebellious or activist movement whose goals and membership are not initially leftist. The resulting influx of leftish types can easily turn a non-leftist movement into a leftist one, so that leftist goals replace or distort the original goals of the movement.

214. To avoid this, a movement that exalts nature and opposes technology must take a resolutely anti-leftist stance and must avoid all collaboration with leftists. Leftism is in the long run inconsistent with wild nature, with human freedom and with the elimination of modern technology. Leftism is collectivist; it seeks to bind together the entire world (both nature and the human race) into a unified whole. But this implies management of nature and of human life by organized society, and it requires advanced technology. You can’t have a united world without rapid transportation and communication, you can’t make all people love one another without sophisticated psychological techniques, you can’t have a “planned society” without the necessary technological base. Above all, leftism is driven by the need for power, and the leftist seeks power on a collective basis, through identification with a mass movement or an organization. Leftism is unlikely ever to give up technology, because technology is too valuable a source of collective power.

215. The anarchist [34] too seeks power, but he seeks it on an individual or small-group basis; he wants individuals and small groups to be able to control the circumstances of their own lives. He opposes technology because it makes small groups dependent on large organizations.

216. Some leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they will oppose it only so long as they are outsiders and the technological system is controlled by non-leftists. If leftism ever becomes dominant in society, so that the technological system becomes a tool in the hands of leftists, they will enthusiastically use it and promote its growth. In doing this they will be repeating a pattern that leftism has shown again and again in the past. When the Bolsheviks in Russia were outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police, they advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth; but as soon as they came into power themselves, they imposed a tighter censorship and created a more ruthless secret police than any that had existed under the tsars, and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least as much as the tsars had done. In the United States, a couple of decades ago when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today, in those of our universities where leftists have become dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away from everyone else’s academic freedom. (This is “political correctness.”) The same will happen with leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone else if they ever get it under their own control.

217. In earlier revolutions, leftists of the most power-hungry type, repeatedly, have first cooperated with non-leftist revolutionaries, as well as with leftists of a more libertarian inclination, and later have double- crossed them to seize power for themselves. Robespierre did this in the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks did it in the Russian Revolution, the communists did it in Spain in 1938 and Castro and his followers did it in Cuba. Given the past history of leftism, it would be utterly foolish for non-leftist revolutionaries today to collaborate with leftists.

218. Various thinkers have pointed out that leftism is a kind of religion. Leftism is not a religion in the strict sense because leftist doctrine does not postulate the existence of any supernatural being. But, for the leftist, leftism plays a psychological role much like that which religion plays for some people. The leftist NEEDS to believe in leftism; it plays a vital role in his psychological economy. His beliefs are not easily modified by logic or facts. He has a deep conviction that leftism is morally Right with a capital R, and that he has not only a right but a duty to impose leftist morality on everyone. (However, many of the people we are referring to as “leftists” do not think of themselves as leftists and would not describe their system of beliefs as leftism. We use the term “leftism” because we don’t know of any better words to designate the spectrum of related creeds that includes the feminist, gay rights, political correctness, etc., movements, and because these movements have a strong affinity with the old left. See paragraphs 227-230.)

219. Leftism is a totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position of power it tends to invade every private corner and force every thought into a leftist mold. In part this is because of the quasi-religious character of leftism; everything contrary to leftist beliefs represents Sin. More importantly, leftism is a totalitarian force because of the leftists’ drive for power. The leftist seeks to satisfy his need for power through identification with a social movement and he tries to go through the power process by helping to pursue and attain the goals of the movement (see paragraph 83). But no matter how far the movement has gone in attaining its goals the leftist is never satisfied, because his activism is a surrogate activity (see paragraph 41). That is, the leftist’s real motive is not to attain the ostensible goals of leftism; in reality he is motivated by the sense of power he gets from struggling for and then reaching a social goal. [35] Consequently the leftist is never satisfied with the goals he has already attained; his need for the power process leads him always to pursue some new goal. The leftist wants equal opportunities for minorities. When that is attained he insists on statistical equality of achievement by minorities. And as long as anyone harbors in some corner of his mind a negative attitude toward some minority, the leftist has to re-educated him. And ethnic minorities are not enough; no one can be allowed to have a negative attitude toward homosexuals, disabled people, fat people, old people, ugly people, and on and on and on. It’s not enough that the public should be informed about the hazards of smoking; a warning has to be stamped on every package of cigarettes. Then cigarette advertising has to be restricted if not banned. The activists will never be satisfied until tobacco is outlawed, and after that it will be alcohol, then junk food, etc. Activists have fought gross child abuse, which is reasonable. But now they want to stop all spanking. When they have done that they will want to ban something else they consider unwholesome, then another thing and then another. They will never be satisfied until they have complete control over all child rearing practices. And then they will move on to another cause.

220. Suppose you asked leftists to make a list of ALL the things that were wrong with society, and then suppose you instituted EVERY social change that they demanded. It is safe to say that within a couple of years the majority of leftists would find something new to complain about, some new social “evil” to correct because, once again, the leftist is motivated less by distress at society’s ills than by the need to satisfy his drive for power by imposing his solutions on society.

221. Because of the restrictions placed on their thoughts and behavior by their high level of socialization, many leftists of the over-socialized type cannot pursue power in the ways that other people do. For them the drive for power has only one morally acceptable outlet, and that is in the struggle to impose their morality on everyone.

222. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, are True Believers in the sense of Eric Hoffer’s book, “The True Believer.” But not all True Believers are of the same psychological type as leftists. Presumably a true-believing nazi, for instance, is very different psychologically from a true-believing leftist. Because of their capacity for single-minded devotion to a cause, True Believers are a useful, perhaps a necessary, ingredient of any revolutionary movement. This presents a problem with which we must admit we don’t know how to deal. We aren’t sure how to harness the energies of the True Believer to a revolution against technology. At present all we can say is that no True Believer will make a safe recruit to the revolution unless his commitment is exclusively to the destruction of technology. If he is committed also to another ideal, he may want to use technology as a tool for pursuing that other ideal (see paragraphs 220, 221).

223. Some readers may say, “This stuff about leftism is a lot of crap. I know John and Jane who are leftish types and they don’t have all these totalitarian tendencies.” It’s quite true that many leftists, possibly even a numerical majority, are decent people who sincerely believe in tolerating others’ values (up to a point) and wouldn’t want to use high-handed methods to reach their social goals. Our remarks about leftism are not meant to apply to every individual leftist but to describe the general character of leftism as a movement. And the general character of a movement is not necessarily determined by the numerical proportions of the various kinds of people involved in the movement.

224. The people who rise to positions of power in leftist movements tend to be leftists of the most power- hungry type, because power-hungry people are those who strive hardest to get into positions of power. Once the power-hungry types have captured control of the movement, there are many leftists of a gentler breed who inwardly disapprove of many of the actions of the leaders, but cannot bring themselves to oppose them. They NEED their faith in the movement, and because they cannot give up this faith they go along with the leaders. True, SOME leftists do have the guts to oppose the totalitarian tendencies that emerge, but they generally lose, because the power-hungry types are better organized, are more ruthless and Machiavellian and have taken care to build themselves a strong power base.

225. These phenomena appeared clearly in Russia and other countries that were taken over by leftists. Similarly, before the breakdown of communism in the USSR, leftish types in the West would seldom criticize that country. If prodded they would admit that the USSR did many wrong things, but then they would try to find excuses for the communists and begin talking about the faults of the West. They always opposed Western military resistance to communist aggression. Leftish types all over the world vigorously protested the U.S. military action in Vietnam, but when the USSR invaded Afghanistan they did nothing. Not that they approved of the Soviet actions; but because of their leftist faith, they just couldn’t bear to put themselves in opposition to communism. Today, in those of our universities where “political correctness” has become dominant, there are probably many leftish types who privately disapprove of the suppression of academic freedom, but they go along with it anyway.

226. Thus the fact that many individual leftists are personally mild and fairly tolerant people by no means prevents leftism as a whole form having a totalitarian tendency.

227. Our discussion of leftism has a serious weakness. It is still far from clear what we mean by the word “leftist.” There doesn’t seem to be much we can do about this. Today leftism is fragmented into a whole spectrum of activist movements. Yet not all activist movements are leftist, and some activist movements (e.g., radical environmentalism) seem to include both personalities of the leftist type and personalities of thoroughly un-leftist types who ought to know better than to collaborate with leftists. Varieties of leftists fade out gradually into varieties of non-leftists and we ourselves would often be hard-pressed to decide whether a given individual is or is not a leftist. To the extent that it is defined at all, our conception of leftism is defined by the discussion of it that we have given in this article, and we can only advise the reader to use his own judgment in deciding who is a leftist.

228. But it will be helpful to list some criteria for diagnosing leftism. These criteria cannot be applied in a cut and dried manner. Some individuals may meet some of the criteria without being leftists, some leftists may not meet any of the criteria. Again, you just have to use your judgment.

229. The leftist is oriented toward large-scale collectivism. He emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. He has a negative attitude toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone. He tends to be for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically “enlightened” educational methods, for social planning, for affirmative action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He tends to be against competition and against violence, but he often finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of using the common catch- phrases of the left, like “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” “capitalism,” “imperialism,” “neocolonialism,” “genocide,” “social change,” “social justice,” “social responsibility.” Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights, political correctness. Anyone who strongly sympathizes with ALL of these movements is almost certainly a leftist. [36]

230. The more dangerous leftists, that is, those who are most power-hungry, are often characterized by arrogance or by a dogmatic approach to ideology. However, the most dangerous leftists of all may be certain oversocialized types who avoid irritating displays of aggressiveness and refrain from advertising their leftism, but work quietly and unobtrusively to promote collectivist values, “enlightened” psychological techniques for socializing children, dependence of the individual on the system, and so forth. These crypto- leftists (as we may call them) approximate certain bourgeois types as far as practical action is concerned, but differ from them in psychology, ideology and motivation. The ordinary bourgeois tries to bring people under control of the system in order to protect his way of life, or he does so simply because his attitudes are conventional. The crypto-leftist tries to bring people under control of the system because he is a True Believer in a collectivistic ideology. The crypto-leftist is differentiated from the average leftist of the oversocialized type by the fact that his rebellious impulse is weaker and he is more securely socialized. He is differentiated from the ordinary well-socialized bourgeois by the fact that there is some deep lack within him that makes it necessary for him to devote himself to a cause and immerse himself in a collectivity. And maybe his (well-sublimated) drive for power is stronger than that of the average bourgeois.

Saturday, June 16, 2018

Real Atheology Is Cheap Sophistry.

1. Nothing “has” value. Valuing is what minds do not an in the world property. 
2. There are no “moral truths” with or without Gawd. Certainly no necessary moral truths. And I challenge you to put forth a single example of one. 
3. There are no such things as “intrinsic values” if by intrinsic you mean “inherent”. Truth and “happiness” may be valued, but they aren’t values.
4 I reject the proposition that truth is valued for its own sake. 
Truth is valued to the extend that it grants one power, ie some sort of advantage. It is a means. The will to truth is merely one of the many guises of the will to power. 
Suffering is not to be devalued, as suffering is often a means to other valued things, like strength, greater complexity, endurance, appreciation etc. What doth not kill one, makes him stronger.
5. There is no such thing as a “moral authority”. Authority is pure mythology. 
There is no one that anyone ought obey independent of an If clause aka (desires of a subject). 
Real atheology is real autistic sophistry just like Christer apologetics. 

Saturday, May 20, 2017

Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism - Ebook Edition

You can purchase an ebook copy of my book "Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism" on via this link

You can save 1$ by emailing me at . In your email just state your interest in purchasing my ebook. Then pay me 9$ via PayPal and I will email you the ebook.

To read a recent review of my book click this link http://www.lulu.

'As you read this book, leave your pride and preconceived beliefs at the door. Withhold judgement until you have finished it. Have open-minded Skepticism towards what you read and I am sure you will see the foundations you once held dear slowly crumble away.
James makes no apologies in this book, your worldview will be challenged and if you are fortunate enough, you will be set free from the chains of moral realisms.' — Matthew Ray

'James Theodore Stillwell III enters the fray with Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism, a short book which affirms a Nietzsche-Redbeard view of nihilism as the need for the individual to not be ruled by the herd, and find meaning where it is relevant to the individual...
Stillwell writes in an open style, merging contemporary idiom with philosophical language, that allows the book to introduce a dense concept and then breathe as it explores its depth at a more leisurely pace...
The book affirms the basic idea of nihilism through a study of morality which it rightly views as conditional. That is, if someone wants to survive, they must eat; however, there is no universal commandment that all must want to survive. With that in mind, Stillwell dispenses with the idea of objective and subjective morality, and focuses instead on the morality of survival and self-expression.' — Brett Stevens —

— Objective Morality is illusion —

— The Free Man Is A Warrior–Skeptic —

— Prescription Demands Force —

— The World Is A Battlefield —

— Life Is Will To Power —

Friday, May 19, 2017

Against Normative Realism

Justin Schieber is a moral realist who argues that "happiness" is "good in itself" and pain and suffering are "bad in themselves." That is, he claims that there is intrinsic goodness and badness.
He claims that suffering is a dis-value in itself.
He merely assumes this as an axiomatic truth.
He calls this "normative truth". In fact he calls his thesis "Normative Realism".

Why is pain and suffering intrinsically bad? Why is happiness good? His answer is that you cannot ask why because it is "philosophical bed rock". He likens it to questioning the laws of logic. However, unlike "the laws of logic" it is still possible for me to argue cogently without assuming "intrinsic value".
So, comparing his so called "normative truths" to "the laws of logic" falls apart. He has offered no cogent reason to assume his so called normative facts. Here, I can do that to, moral nihilism is axiomatic. Now what?
Also, to say that "X is a value" is to express a positive non cognitive attitude, or that it is a means to obtaining something you have a positive attitude about.
Value isn't mind-independent, it is what minds do.
Another way of putting it is, there are no values only valuers.

His assertion concerning a value or good or bad in itself is ofcourse, nothing more than peticio Príncipe (begging the question).
Such claims to intrinsic value is like arguing "God is good because God is good".
2 can play this game: So then, my response is that moral realism is false because moral realism is false.

He claims that some facts are sufficient reasons to motivate action.
He's wrong. If one is in a burning building and one correctly believes that they will die if they don't leave. This true belief would be insufficient to motivate action.
There must be a desire not to die or burn to death in order for a motivating to-be-done-ness to propel action.
(See Hume's Theory of motivation)
He claims that moral nihilism is false because there is no intrinsic value according to moral nihilism and thus no reason to value anything on moral nihilism.
This claim displays a profound misunderstanding of moral nihilism. Example, the reason we value life is because we evolved to. Is life an intrinsic (inherent value)? No, but on moral nihilism to say that 'X is a value' is to express a subjective desire for X.

I offered to debate him, but he declined my offer.

Your move Justin...

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

The Will To Truth

No one is unbiased. Organisms are valuing power hungry machines.
Many will claim to have a bias toward truth, but this is only true when truth grants them power. This is only true to a point.
For example, Christians reveal their bias against truth when they say things like "If my theism is correct you (the atheist) face eternal damnation, and if you are right then death is the end and I have nothing to lose by believing."

This clearly demonstrates that they prefer a comfortable lie over cold hard facts.
The phrase "I have nothing to lose by believing" reveals that ultimately truth is at least secondary to them and not an end in itself. That they value truth less than something else as it is only a means to something else. 

Believers will often resort to arguing that "Without God there is no objective morality, therefore God". 
Which is really just arguing "I don't wanna live in a world without X, therefore God". An appeal to consequence fallacy. 

Matthew Ray, a now former Christian apologist wrote in the the forward of my book that; "God could very well want me to suffer if it meant his glory be shown. See Romans 9). I then realized that this god was only after his best interest (his interest not mine). These thoughts deeply disturbed me but I fought them. I played them off like it was Satan trying to deceive me but then I remembered, Satan cannot do what God doesn’t allow him to do. So no matter how you look at it, God is allowing Satan to do this for his glory."(his power interest not mine)

That is he became open to the possibility that God didn't exist after realizing that if he did, he wouldn't derive benefit from it.
Most believers (in whatever) won't even question their belief until it will grant them (power) by doing so. 

I have met many believers who believe (at least in part) because they derive power by being apart of a religious in-group. That is, they derive comfort in their beliefs, they may even have a social safety net because of it etc.
I have watched unbelieving woman suddenly 'find Jesus,' after dating a Christian man. (Often times he is wealthy)

It has been said "If you want to know what someone thinks about you, look at what they are willing to believe about you".
Is this not at least generally true? 
People are more likely to believe negative accusations about those they hate or have no emotional attachment to, but will often fervently defend those who are of power importance to them no matter how guilty the accused person is likely to be. 

Look, for example what conspiracy theories democrats are willing to believe about a republican politician. Why do they buy into such theories about their opponents? Because if true, they stand to benefit, and often even if false they stand to benefit. 

Please do not misunderstand me here, I am not saying "they believe because of motive X, therefore their belief is false."
That would be an appeal to motive fallacy. 
I'm not claiming that they always make such decision consciously. In fact I think it is mostly subconscious.

Every healthy organism consciously and unconsciously seeks power, sometimes truth is power, other times it isn't. 
One thing is always true, power is always power. 
People will accept power UnAllied to truth, but never truth UnAllied to power just as they will accept power UnAllied to (purported) 'moral goodness" but never "moral goodness" UnAllied to power.

"The world is will to power..... you are will to power and nothing besides!" — Nietzsche 

Much of what people believe is due to subconscious power considerations. Natural selection selects for truth insofar as it is successful in the propagation of DNA. 
Often times a belief in falsity binds an in group together thus leading to greater in group cooperation, and thus an aid to genetic proliferation and individual survival.  
Hence religion and dogma. 
"The will to truth" is ultimately merely one of the many guises 
 of the will to power. 

Perhaps you can think of some ways in which people derive power/benefit from believing in something false. 
If so, leave it in the chat box below.

Thursday, May 11, 2017

My Projectivism

My own personal view (at the moment) is that morality at least begins as non cognitive attitudes and then elaborate beliefs and attempted justifications are constructed around them.
As a Projectionist in morals, I hold that our moral opinions and behaviors are better accounted for as reactions to a reality that consists not of value, moral obligation, or rights. This is in stark contrast to the moral realist who contends that our moral opinions and behaviors are explained by our recognition, or intuition concerning some kind of moral reality.
The human tendency is to project one's negative and positive attitudes onto reality and then mistakenly believe them to be something one locates in-the-world, as something independent of human reactivity and opinion.
For example, one could have a meta physical belief which postulates the existence of some sort of platonic 'realm of values', a belief in some kind of moral non naturalism or naturalism. In meta ethics this view is known as "Projectivism".
While I think it is clear that moral terms are used to express emotional attitudes, it is equally clear that (especially among the theologically minded) moral language is also employed in reference to some mistaken belief concerning 'objective moral values' etc. With that said, I'm not sure that many average folk think very deeply about what they mean when they say 'X is evil!'. They don't necessarily have any particular cognitive moral belief but are merely expressing approval or a strong disgust.
Think of young children for example; they use moral language but haven't had enough time and experience to accumulate nor cognitive capacity to formulate convoluted belief structures.

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Moral Nihilism Is Not Relativism

I want to clear up a common misconception concerning moral nihilism.
Over the years in discussing meta ethics with non philosophers I have encountered many who confuse Moral Nihilism with Moral Relativism.
Moral Relativism is the meta ethical view that moral language is true or false relative to a given societal, cultural, or religious standard.
Moral nihilism clearly distinguishes itself from Moral Relativism as it is the view that moral facts do not exist, that nothing is either moral or immoral; and that moral language is either false or un—true.
Neither is Moral nihilism some sort of Cultural Relativism.
Cultural Relativism is the ethical view that all cultures are valid and thus no criticism of them should be made. The Power-Nihilist may point out to the Cultural Relativist that the prescription "You ought not be critical of other cultures." is itself an ethic (prescription) that is relative to their culture, thus not an objective moral prescription.

Saturday, May 6, 2017

Argumetum Ad Moral Nihilum

Dear Antifa and other SJW morons.

As a philosopher of meta ethics I hereby inform you that it is fallacious to derive a prescription from the fact that one group of human primates (or their ancestors) enslaved another group of human primates. This is known as an is-ought fallacy. You cannot logically deduce oughts from facts.

Thus your assertion that "Every descendant of the European invaders has a debt to pay to the slaves that were uprooted from their native lands and forced to build this nation under bondage." is logically untenable.

Also, you are assuming slave value premises such as "equality is good" and "Boo slavery!" etc and as values can only be assumed they can also be rejected out right.

It Tis not contrary to reason to prefer inequality over equality, slavery over freedom, nor 'the destruction of the whole world" over "the scratching of my finger." (See Hume's Treatise On Human Nature.)

Also, as morality is based on subjective sentiment rather than facts and reason, and all oughts are based upon value premises (an if clause) there are no moral imperatives.
Thus all morality is subjective and your moral arguments are without foundation. In fact, it is logically impossible to argue about values, and only possible to dispute about questions of fact. (See Language, Truth & Logic Ch 5 by A.J Ayer)

Argumentum ad moral nihilum

Premise 1. Moral terms are non cognitive expressions and thus non propositional or truth apt.
Premise 2. "Injustice" is a moral term whose referent lacks in-the-world-properties.
Premise 3. Justice is also a moral term.
Premise 4. There are no moral imperatives (categorical imperatives) only hypothetical ones.
Conclusions, therefore "injustice" does not exist.
Therefore racial "injustice" is "evil" is un-true.
Therefore there is no such thing as "social justice".
Therefore there are no social justice warriors, only deluded primates who use these non cognitive terms as though they actually described in-the-world-properties.

Friday, February 10, 2017

The Philosophy of Power PodCast Live Episode — On Slave Morality

In this 5th special live edition of The Philosophy of Power PodCast (philosopher) James Stillwell and (host of Radio wehrwolf) Dion Clark discuss slave morality and its impact on modern ideals and moral sentiments. James begins by reading verious articles concerning slave morality so as to clearly define what it is and what it is not. He also plays a video clip from a recent Milo interview which illustrates how slave morality creates protected identity groups while simultaneously demonizing the white majority. He then plays a video from fellow philosopher and youtuber 'Ontologistics' which illustrates that equality, utilitarianism,  contractarianism, the 'veil of ignorance' theory are products of slave morality. Dion and James then spend the rest of the show discussing these and a few other topic related to the effects of slave morality on western civilization such as 'bad conscience', 'white guilt' and 'pathological altruism' etc.

On a side note: The Philosophy of Power PodCast is still in need of a 60 second theme song so if you enjoy this podcast and are musically inclined please send your MP3 submissions to
Also, this podcast is listener supported so please consider donating a few shekels via PayPal via this link as every little bit helps and the show is in need of a web cam. 
If you haven't already please subscribe to The Philosophy of Power PodCast YouTube Channel linked here
so that you can join us for live episodes and participate in live chats. This show will now be broadcasting live every show via the above linked YouTube channel.
Please be sure to rate comment and share the YouTube video versions of this podcast on your favorite  social media plat forms. This show is also available on,, and stitcher radio.

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

The Philosophy of Power PodCast episode 5 2/9/17

Don't miss the first ever live episode of The Philosophy Power PodCast on Thursday at 8pm eastern time. The episode topic will be "slave morality." It will be a joint show, 2 shows in one, as we will be broadcasting live on The Philosophy of Power PodCast YouTube Channel linked here
It will also be an episode of Radio wehrwolf linked here hosted by Dion Clark
Please be sure to subscribe to the philosophy of power podcast YouTube channel and click the bell symbol so that you will be notified of all future uploads. Also please be sure to checkout episodes of radio linked above.

Sunday, February 5, 2017

The Philosophy of Power PodCast episode 4 — A conversation with Libertarian Realist

In this 4the edition of The Philosophy of Power PodCast I and race realist youtuber/blogger 'Libertarian Realist' discuss the alt right, leftist indoctrination via media, academia etc, the demographic decline of white countries and the constant influx of non white invading hordes. We also briefly discussed Slave morality, bad conscience and white guilt, and moral nihilism vs moral realism.
It was through Libertarian Realist (Brad) and his videos that I was introduced to race realism (race iq and violence crime statistics). I would like to encourage my readers and subscribers to subscribe to his YouTube channel and follow his blog which are both linked below. I would like to thank Bradley for taking the time to come on the show and for his many contributions to 'the war of ideas' and I hope he will come back on the show in the near future.

Libertarian realist YouTube channel
Libertarian Realsit website

This podcast is listener supported. If you have enjoyed this podcast please feel free donate some shekels via PayPal here

We are currently in need of a web cam so that we can start producing live shows on YouTube. The show is also in need of a 60 second theme song. 
If you or someone you know has musical abilities, please send me your musical creation to in MP3 format and I will review it and let you know whether the theme is show-appropriate. 

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

The Philosophy of Power PodCast Episode 3 — Meta Ethics & Christian Theology

In this 3rd edition of The Philosophy of Power PodCast I discuss meta ethics & Christian theology with Justin Effler who about 5 years back used to comment on my YouTube videos from time to time.
In this episode I argue that even if said entity (The Christian God) existed objective meaning, morality, & purpose would be would be illusory.
I also gave a brief outline of the Power-Nihilism philosophy.

Please be sure to subscribe to The Philosophy of Power PodCast on YouTube. Please be sure to like on YouTube and Facebook and share this episode on all your favorite social networking plat forms, Twitter, Facebook, etc.
Also this podcast is listener supported and I would like to take this show live which costs me money. I could use some help. Please consider donating what you can via PayPal here

In order to take this show live so I can stake your calls etc I will need a new web cam and to pay for an encoder service. It also costs me money to have this show on soundcloud.
And finally this show is in need of about a 30—60 second long theme song for the introduction. Any listener with musical talent is encouraged to make a theme song for this program. Just send your MP3 file to thanks!

Monday, January 23, 2017



The Philosophy of Power PodCast now has its very own YouTube channel please be sure to subscribe and checkout the latest episode . Please be sure to rate, comment & share.

This podcast is un apologetically dedicated to the philosophy of power & philosophy in general from a pro white perspective.
The latest episode (ep 2) of ThePhilosophyofPowerPodCast is now uploaded to this website and  ThePhilosophyofPowerPodCast and is located on the right hand side of this web site.
The latest episode recorded features a discussion between Dion Clark, myself (James .T Stillwell III, and Brandon Lashbrook. We discussed the rise of the alt right, the Trump phenomena, a need for an alt right aristocratic leadership, the TRS doxing incident, cultural Marxism, the deleterious effects of slave religion, ideals, and morality has had on western civilization and much more.


Soon-ish I'd like to do live shows via YouTube complete with call ins. In Oder to make this happen I will need a new webcam and other things so if you wanna see this happen please send your pay pal donations to my pay pal account and a note stating that your donation is for webcam and or other show expenses. Your help is greatly appreciated.