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.

Friday, January 13, 2017

A Response To Trs & David Fabre — 'Political Overreaction'

My response to this TRS post

"What a load of horse shit! Christian slave values are not the 'glue of western civilization' but rather the demise of it! Every former Christian country has now been over taken by feminism, Marxism, equalityism etc. As Nietzsche noted Christianity is the precondition for such anti life affirming phenomena. Thus Nietzsche was aristocratic. We are in the trouble we are in today because of 'bad conscience' and 'white guilt' which are symptoms of the Christian slave pocs. Socio political liberalism is Christianity stripped of its God and its values taken to a higher level of consistency. Taken to its zenith! It is the glorification of victimhood, a puritanical hatred and suppression of human nature and biological instincts. Christianity has its 'equality before God' while progressivism and feminism has its 'equality before the law.'
On this matter Nietzsche stated the '[The Christian concept, no less crazy, has passed even more deeply into the tissue of modernity: the concept of the "equality of souls before God." This concept furnishes the prototype of all theories of equal rights...'

As to your whining about individualism, we have never had any real individualism in the west (unless you consider the aristocrats of the past.) All forms of government are collectivist. Authentic Individualism is not the problem, and becoming one with the herd collective isn't the answer to our problems. The solution is not more plebeian rulership! Both the right and the left are collectivist. You are clearly a herd animal and a slave minded parasite who doesn't understand RedBeard or Nietzsche. The herd and slave ethic, and democracy (herd rule) is the problem. Word to the wise, calling something 'edgy' is not a rational argument. I see the left do this with the term 'racist.' Furthermore, even if what you've said about Christianity being 'the glue of western civilization' were true, that wouldn't make Christianity true and atheism etc false. And even if true it would still be irrelevant as people cannot force themselves to believe such outdated non sense.
I wanna point out some logical blunders committed by many in the alt right. I am constantly coming into contact with alt right, videos, podcasts etc where I hear alt righters claim that moral nihilism, anti statism, and any other intellectual position they don't like is "mental masturbation" that libertarians and an-caps are 'autistic' etc. (I'm not a libertarian or an anarch-capitalist, just a philosopher of meta ethics.)
Even if it were true that X is 'mental masturbation' that wouldn't make X false. Another claim I've noticed is that without Christianity we can't have X, Y and Z or that without religion humanity will be left in a state of vacuous nihilism. I have cogent reasons to reject these claims and yet the fact remains that I could grant all of them and that wouldn't make Christianity true, or atheism, libertarianism, and moral nihilism false.

Such arguments are what we in the field of philosophy call appeals to consequence fallacies.
Sure, moralities and religions are useful as they are power structures but that doesn't make them true. It is important to distinguish between 'utility' and 'truth.'
It's akin to arguing 'The ship isn't sinking because if it were we'd all drowned. I don't wanna die, therefore the ship isn't sinking.'

Also It is possible to have meaning, morality, and purpose in the absence of belief in 'God' and 'objective moral values and duties'.
Skepticism isn't antithetical to the goals of the alt right, however irrationality and a failure to reason cogently is a hinderance to any goal. People who fail to think rationally make the movement look intellectually bankrupt. Perhaps you have valid arguments for your beliefs. GOOD! Use those and ditch the fallacious non sense.

'A great man is necessarily a skeptic... The man of faith, the believer, is necessarily a small type. Hence "freedom of spirit," i.e, unbelief as an instinct [is a precondition of greatness].' — Friedrich Nietzsche — The Will To Power — 963 (Spring-Fall 1887)

Atheism, moral nihilism etc doesn't lead to a vacuous nothingness. As Nietzsche made clear, salve morality and passive nihilism does. Liberalism, equalityism, egalitarians, Marxism, communism, socialism, these are all slavish herd values.

I and many others are tired of alt righters who use emotionally charged rhetoric to shut down logical discourse. The alt right as a movement can be 'better' than this.

RedBeard's philosophy was not an 'overreaction' it was rather an all out assault upon the slave doctrines you value. It was a dose of realism meant to clear away the cobwebs of destructive slave idealism. What I, Nietzsche, and RedBeard advocate is an aristocratic individualism. That is a white society where intelligent individuals rule over herd and slave minded sheep like yourself. We are the true individualists, we were born with such instincts, and it is the natural order of things, that we have the ability to rule over your kind. Your kind will always demand masters and you will even invent ones where they are absent (God). Indeed RedBeard put it best when he wrote 'The “common people” have always had to be befooled with some written or wooden or golden Idol — some constitution, declaration or gospel. Consequently the majority of them have ever been mental thralls, living and dying in an atmosphere of strong illusion. They are befooled and hypnotized even to this hour, and a large proportion of them must remain so, until time is no more. Indeed the masses of mankind are but the sediment from which all the more valuable elements have been long ago distilled. They are totally incapable of real freedom, and if it was granted to them, they would straightway vote themselves a master, or a thousand masters within twenty-four hours. Mastership is right — Mastership is natural — Mastership is eternal.'

I concur with Nietzsche when he wrote that 'Basic error: to place the goal in the herd and not in single individuals! The herd is a means, no more! But now one is attempting to understand the herd as an individual and ascribe to it a higher rank than to the individual—profound misunderstanding! ! ! Also to characterize that which makes herdlike, sympathy, [or empathy] as the more valuable side of our nature!
That every will must consider every other will its equal would be a principle hostile to life, an agent of the dissolution and destruction of man, an attempt to assassinate the future of man, a sign of weariness, a secret path to nothingness.' — Friedrich Nietzsche

Your kind advocates the kind of values, ideals and societies which benefit you, which grant you power, we 'UnAllied Minds' do the same as life is will to power. Power is the means by which ideals and goals are actualized and thus all life seeks power. (For more on this see my book concerning meta ethics available here

You trs people think that you can house opposing values under one roof. You are mistaken. You are a false unity. A house divided will eventually fall.
Master morality and slave morality cannot coexist under one umbrella. Christianity is a destructive life denying system of lies (myth) and values. The west doesn't need religion! God is dead! The solution to our problems is not to shrink back into irrational mythology. Let your will say "the I-Theist is the meaning of the earth."
What the west needs is Active Nihilism (what I call Power—Nihilism) not Passive Nihilism (Slave religions, ideals and moralities)"

'Mankind is aweary, aweary of its sham prophets, its demagogues and its statesmen. It crieth out for kings and heroes. It demands a nobility — a nobility that cannot be hired with money, like slaves or beasts of burden. The world awaits the coming of mighty men of valor, great destroyers; destroyers of all that is vile, angels of death. We are sick unto nausea of the “good Lord Jesus,” terror-stricken under the executive of priest, mob and proconsul. We are tired to death of “Equality.” Gods are at a discount, devils are in demand. He who would rule the coming age must be hard, cruel, and deliberately intrepid, for softness assails not successfully the idols of the multitude. Those idols must be smashed into fragments, burnt into ashes, and that cannot be done by the gospel of love.' — Might Is Right — Ragnar RedBead

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

On Imperatives

'Every ought simply has no sense and meaning except in relation to threatened punishment or promised reward ... Thus every ought is necessarily conditioned through punishment or reward, hence, to put it in Kant's terms, essentially and inevitably hypothetical and never, as he maintains categorical ... Therefore an absolute ought is simply a contradictio in adjecto." —Schopenhauer (On the Basis of Morals, §4).

Imperatives (oughts) are directives; they command us to perform or abstain from certain behaviors. The philosopher Immanuel Kant split imperatives into 2 types; Hypothetical and categorical. Hypothetical imperatives (aka rational oughts) instruct what actions to perform in order to achieve a particular goal. Example: “If you want to lose weight you ought to diet and exercise."
Hypothetical imperatives are only applicable to persons who want to achieve a particular goal.
If you don’t care about losing weight the  “you ought to diet and exercise" isn't applicable to you as there would be no motivating reason to diet and exercise.

According to Kant, moral oughts (categorical imperatives) are not of this sort. Categorical imperatives have nothing to do with achieving goals, losing weight, or avoiding pain etc.

For Kant Moral behaviors aren't about staying out of prison, or avoiding certain social consequences. Unlike hypothetical imperatives, categorical imperatives (purportedly) instruct us how to behave irrespective of our desires, whims, preferences, and goals.
Morality doesn’t state “If you want to achieve X you ought to do Y."
Rather, it says "Thou shalt not commit murder!" regardless of whether you are concerned about facing the death penalty or not! It is this kind of imperative the moral skeptic rejects because outside of the context of punishment and reward there can be no motivating force to propel one to act in a certain manner.
After all, if I want to do X and can get away with performing X without consequence why ought I not do so? Because it's 'wrong'? What does 'wrong' even mean? Hence the nihilist contends that only hypothetical imperatives are tenable. The categorical imperative is nothing but the ethical woo of moralizing sophists!