FROM RESSENTIMENT TO NAZI BOOK BURNINGS UNDER HITLER AND RELATED OTHER ARTICLES
COMMENTARY BY LUCY WARNER
APRIL 10, 2016


At this time, we are moving toward what could become another world war due to the ongoing and bloody conflicts between Israeli and Palestinian groups, and warlike religious Fundamentalists of both Christian and Islamic backgrounds. I hate and fear the mandatory thought patterns of fundamentalist religion in that it squelches good and free thought by its’ very nature. As a result, it always verges toward group hatred, hence war. There is a need for some forgiveness in order for the achievement of peace, and we drastically need peace, but sometimes there is a necessity to fight first. Allowing oneself to become totally downtrodden is not a virtue.

Humans are simply not rational enough to forego violence en masse. Some people try to do that, and even achieve it, but whole societies rarely do. There’s always the taint of an old enmity, such as the NeoNazi movement which is growing again today in the US and other parts of the world. How much is pure -- and very simplistic -- group loyalty, and how much is due to philosophical and psychological differences varies with the situation, but all those are usually involved. We are doomed to war and individual hatreds due to the highly emotional and irrational nature of the human mind, I have come to believe. I do strongly want peace, even if it is a flawed peace, however I think we may very well need to fight the very dangerous elements in the Middle East and now in Europe first.

Interestingly the highly conservative wing in this country are often hard set against the UN and other such organizations, fearing the loss of our nationalistic power. Peace is not a sufficiently important goa to them. To me, we clearly need less nationalism and more cooperation, however, and an internal takeover by a new fascist force of blind hatred frightens me more than the relatively few ISIS members who are causing death and fear in our European cities. I have always been passionately patriotic about our aims to achieve freedom, fairness, honesty, and an economically level playing field. FDR was a hero of mine. I hope fervently that we can continue to move toward good goals and away from what I consider to be evil.

At the same time, I do not believe in pacifism unless in the struggles for group recognition like those of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. If it is well planned and supported by a great many – all or nearly all -- of the members of the “slave” group (see article below), they can present such a front of unleashed power that the aggressor force will come to understand that it will lose the war. Along with some quite violent black groups in this country, the many thousands of pacifist marchers who were followers of King presented a sufficiently convincing show of force that it prompted Congress and President Johnson to sign the civil rights laws which changed our country for the better. Unfortunately, we still need more work in that direction.

A similar thing happened in the French and American Revolutions. We did finally achieve peace, though not immediately. In the case of America, the Revolutionary War and establishment of our nation were followed by two more wars against England. The fact that nearly everybody in America were directly the family members of those in England, and we had a common philosophical and educational background, kinship finally won out and a real peace was established.

I came across “Stir Journal” through an Email friend, and in it appears this interesting and socially challenging article called “Why I Reject Forgiveness Culture. For trauma survivors, there are many paths to healing and moving on. Why does forgiveness culture demand that survivors forgive their abusers?” By Elizabeth Switaj, dated Sep 29, 2014. In that article I came across a word I had never seen which is related to the subject of forgiveness. It is ressentiment.

I am a devotee of moral relativism modified by concern for others. Within that framework, I believe that I will only live once, and to do so in unnecessary emotional pain and without pleasure just doesn’t make sense to me, since I don’t believe in heaven and hell, or in timidity as a basic rule of my ethical views. I don’t think timidity is a virtue. In fact, it’s the basic cause of the Nazi takeover, in which those who disagreed with it were too afraid to speak up for another or fight against it. From the Wikipedia article on “Ressentiment,” comes the following statement on relativistic morality.

“By contrast, Scheler, who also was skeptical over the historically emerging unchecked power of mass culture and the prevalence and leveling power of mediocrity upon ethical standards and upon the individual human person (as a unique sacred value), was nonetheless a theistic ethical objectivist.[14][15] For Scheler, the phenomenon of Ressentiment principally involved Spirit (as opposed to Will to Power, Drives or Vital Urge), which entailed deeper personal issues involving distortion of the objective realm of values, the self-poisoning of moral character, and personality disorder.[16]”

Of the articles below, do read the Nietsche and Blake for competing views of life which are very pertinent to America today.


This discussion on the subject of forgiveness appeared in an online journal called “Stir,” at website “http://www.stirjournal.com/2014/09/29/why-i-reject-forgiveness-culture/. Photograph of Elizabeth Switaj, Switaj_pic. Her whole article appears here.

“When I say that I am against forgiveness, I am not judging individuals who choose to forgive. If doing so helps you, then by all means, forgive. What I abhor is a culture that places demands on victims and survivors, insisting that we are not whole until we forgive. Forgiveness culture implies that betrayers and abusers can expect to be forgiven — they can hurt and harm and rage — and should their targets decline to forgive, they can rest smug in the assurance that the refusal reflects a flaw in their victims, not in themselves.

I can relate many small wrongs after which the offender has apologized, claimed he would never demand forgiveness, and then become condescending when I’ve not immediately accepted the apology. “We don’t have to be enemies, but sure, I’ll leave you alone,” said one text message. I had not said I would not forgive him; I had simply not forgiven on demand. Still, this incident was relatively minor.

I have chosen not to forgive the perpetrator of my worst trauma. I will never forgive the man who raped me. Despite conventional wisdom, I have not failed to move on. I have continued to grow as a writer and a teacher, moving around the world (literally — I’ve lived in three new countries since that night) with an open heart because I have chosen to do the work to keep myself open to everyone and everything I have yet to know. I have dated and had one long-term relationship, which failed not because I am a survivor of sexual assault but because the man was an alcoholic who envied every success I earned.

In a culture that stigmatizes those who refuse to forgive, the added stress can lead to poorer health and slower recovery.

Following the end of that relationship, I took advantage of the free counseling to which I had access as a doctoral candidate. I wanted to make sure that I had dealt with whatever issues may have lingered. My counselor was taken aback by how high-functioning I was despite my traumas. She never asked me if I had forgiven the rapist. She knew I did not need to forgive to thrive. There may be correlations between forgiving and having better physical and mental health, but correlation does not prove causation. In a culture that stigmatizes those who refuse to forgive, the added stress can lead to poorer health and slower recovery. Those of us who choose not to forgive would be much happier and healthier if we were not told we were simply not ready, or were hurting ourselves by making such a choice.

Worse, the stigma can silence victims. I never reported my rape to the police. I had no proof; Jon and I had been dating and had had consensual sex on many occasions prior. Moreover, the NYPD is not known for compassionate treatment of sexual assault survivors, and I moved in radical-progressive social circles that viewed the justice system as a site of unenlightened vengeance. But I did post my story on Livejournal where mutual friends would see it. I wanted to warn other women who knew him. Some people supported me, but others criticized me for naming him. One even told me I should forgive him, just days afterward, since at least I would get a story out of it.

Over the next few years, I heard stories from other women, stories that had I heard beforehand would have stopped me from getting involved with Jon. In some cases, the women had repressed the memories until reading my experience. But there were women who said they had forgiven him (after all, as more than one pointed out, he had his own history of being sexually abused — though we had only his word on that) and remained friends with him. Many encouraged me to do the same. I don’t blame them.

What I blame is the cultural assumption that forgiving makes a person superior. Without that assumption, more women would have called him out, and it would have been harder for him to continue his predation.

The story gets more troubling. During my first week in Belfast, where I was working on my Ph.D., Jon sent me an email that carefully skirted anything legally actionable but let me know that he had been tracking me and could show up any time. After that, I took to Googling him occasionally so that I knew where he was living. A few years later I found his obituary. I celebrated. I’d have danced on his grave if it wouldn’t have required a transatlantic flight — not out of vengeance but out of joy that he could never hurt anyone again. If I’m ever in the nowheresville in Pennsylvania where he died, I will have my dance.

At the time, however, I was curious about what happened and I found the answer in a Livejournal entry by his first love and lifelong friend — a woman who knew that he had raped me and sexually abused at least one mutual friend of theirs. He had overdosed on barbiturates. She went on about how she had forgiven him for the ways he had hurt her and it was especially sad because he had been getting his life together. He was studying to teach disabled children. And it was that last fact that put me in a rage. I commented, anonymously, that the way he died was not as painful as he deserved. Then it was her turn for self-righteousness: What was wrong with me, speaking to someone who was grieving that way? People like me had ruined Livejournal! So I asked what was wrong with her, thinking it was fine for a known predator to work with a vulnerable population. Then I answered my own question: She valued her fairy tale of forgiveness and redemption over the right of those children not to be abused. I never went back to see if she responded because nothing she could have said would have made it OK.

But I was wrong. I should not have blamed her personally. Trying to derail his redemption narrative, even for such legitimate concerns, would only have led to accusations of a failure to forgive. True, forgiveness is not supposed to mean tolerating someone’s foul actions, but the effect of mandatory forgiveness is often the same as if it did. If you cannot publicly condemn someone, then you must condone them by your silence.

Now that Jon has died, forgiving him would not endanger anyone, but I have no reason to do so. I have let the hurt fade into the background of my psyche and gone on with my life as best I can — much in the way I have dealt with the grief of loved ones’ deaths. Forgiveness would not add anything to that. It would not make me a better person, though it might well make me more certain of my goodness.

The choice not to forgive can represent a legitimate response to an offender’s continuing actions and place in society.

Pseudo-spirituality has made forgiveness a marker of personal virtue. If you forgive, then you know you are enlightened. Deepak Chopra describes forgiveness as the “recognition that actions that are perceived as hurtful or wrong are the perspective of the small ego mind, not the higher self.” If you perceive an assault on yourself and your body as too wrong to forgive, you are being small-minded.

This attitude ignores that the choice not to forgive can come from a place of strength. It can represent a legitimate response to an offender’s continuing actions and place in society. The absence of forgiveness implies neither desire for revenge nor lack of enlightenment, and assuming otherwise minimizes what forgiveness really means. Those who truly forgive make a conscious choice to do so for personal reasons that go beyond wanting to be healthy or enlightened. And it takes work after that decision. Real forgiveness is an achievement, and denying the validity of other paths to healing minimizes that truth, even as it erases other, equally authentic ways to thrive.

At the same time, coerced forgiveness — a forgiveness granted because it is believed to be the only virtuous or healthy thing to do — breeds resentment. Coerced forgiveness merely paves over rage or the desire for vengeance. Nietzsche saw violence as the solution for such “ressentiment.”*1. According to Anglican theologian Giles Fraser, that perspective reflects Nietzsche’s treatment of violence as “almost a game” and, as also argued by sociologist René Girard, Nietzsche’s failure to understand that Christian ressentiment results from the triumph over violence. But I would argue that as long as hatred lingers, even corralled, the cycle of violence is only paused. Breaking the cycle requires transformation. Real, voluntary forgiveness is only one way of achieving that kind of internal change. Simply living a life of my choosing is my way, but compulsory forgiveness is not another.

The truth about my rapist’s death is that no one will ever know whether he committed suicide or overdosed accidentally. If I knew the former were true, I would choose to forgive him because I would know that he was aware that he had done horrible wrongs. Indeed, the work I have done to move forward would transfer to the path of forgiveness, meaning that I would have little work left to do once I made that choice. Genuine forgiveness and other ways of learning to thrive despite wrongs are not so different. Demanding that survivors of trauma forgive denies us agency in choosing how to heal, even though denial of agency is often a key part of trauma and its reassertion is essential to moving forward. Forgiveness culture claims to know what is best for us, but it only makes it harder for many survivors to thrive.

Elizabeth Kate Switaj teaches literature, creative writing, and composition at the College of the Marshall Islands. She is the Social Media Editor of Poets’ Quarterly. Her creative non-fiction has recently appeared in the anthology (T)here: Writings on Returnings. Visit her website. Follow her on Twitter.”

*1 See “ressentiment”



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment_(Scheler)

Ressentiment (Scheler)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Editorial comment: This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (October 2014)


“Max Scheler (1874–1928) was both the most respected and neglected of the major early 20th century German Continental philosophers in the phenomenological tradition.[1] His observations and insights concerning "a special form of human hate" [2] and related social and psychological phenomenon furnished a descriptive basis for his philosophical concept of "Ressentiment".[3] As a widely recognized convention, the French spelling of this term has been retained in philosophical circles so as to preserve a broad sense of discursive meaning and application.[4] Scheler died unexpectedly of a heart attack in 1928 leaving a vast body of unfinished works. Extrapolations from his thoughts have always since piqued interest and discussion on a variety of topics.[5] His works were on the Nazi book burn list.

As a concept belonging to the study of ethics, Ressentiment represents the antithetical process of Scheler's emotively informed non-formal ethics of values.[6] But Ressentiment can also be said to be, at once, Scheler's darkest as well as his most psychological and sociological of topics, foreshadowing many later findings in those particular social sciences.

Today we might associate Ressentiment with passive aggressive behavior: e.g., the power of labor unions to negotiate favorable work contracts through the use of strikes or production slow downs; or America's non-violent civil rights movement. But, folk wisdom comes closest to Scheler's meaning by recognizing Ressentiment as a self-defeating turn of mind which is non-productive and ultimately a waste of time and energy. Maturity informs most of us that sustained hatred hurts the hater far more than the object of our hate. Sustained hatred enslaves by preventing emotional growth to progress beyond the sense of pain having been precipitated, in some way, by whom or what is hated (i.e., another person, group or class of persons).[7]

Background[edit]

It is difficult to imagine the intellectual concern of late 19th and early 20th Century over the collective drift in Western Civilization away from old-guard monarchial and hierarchical societal structures (i.e., one's station in life being determined primarily by birth), toward the relative uncertainty and instability embodied in such Enlightenment Era ideals such as democracy, nationhood, class struggle (Karl Marx), human equality, humanism, egalitarianism, utilitarianism and the like. As such, Ressentiment, as a phenomenon, was first viewed as a pseudo-ethically based political force enabling the lower classes of society to rise in their situation in life at the (perceived) expense of the higher, or more inherently "noble" classes. Hence, Ressentiment first emerged as, what some might view, a reactionary and elitist concept by today's democratic standards; while others of a more conservative mind-set might view Ressentiment as liberalism disguised as a socialist attempt at usurping the role of individual responsibility and self-determination. In any event Scheler's contributions regarding this topic cannot be fully appreciated without some cursory reference to the thought of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900).

Friedrich Nietzsche used the Kierkegaardian term Ressentiment as the source of this emerging degenerative morality issuing from an underlying existential distinction between what he saw as the two basic character options available to the individual: the Strong ("Over Man," "Superman" or "Master") or the Weak (the "Slave"). The Master-type fully accepts the burdens of freedom and decides a path of self-determination. The Slave, rather than deciding to be the authentic author of his own destiny, chooses a repressed unsatisfying mode of life, blaming (by projection) his submissiveness, loss of self-esteem and pitiful lot in life upon the dominant Master figure (and his entire social class) who by contrast seems to flourish at every moment. A true enough assessment, given that economic exploitation always seems to lie at the heart of any intrinsic Master / Slave social arrangement, along with the Master class "washing their hands" (so to speak) of the burdens of social responsibility. This underlying Ressentiment forms the underlying rationale for a code of conduct (e.g., passive acceptance of abuse, fear of reprisal for asserting personal rights due to implied intimidation, or inability to enjoy life) belonging to the Slave-type or class ("Slave Morality").[8]

Nietzsche was an atheist and harbored a particular disdain for Christianity, which he viewed as playing a key role in supporting Slave Morality. In supporting the Weak and disadvantaged of humanity, Christianity undermined the authority, social position and cultural progress of the Strong.[9] Nietzsche viewed the progress of such Slave Morality as a sort of violation of the natural order and a thwarting of the authentic advancements of civilization available only through the Strong. This view of a "natural order", so typical of 19th Century Europe (e.g., Darwin's Theory of Evolution) is expressed in Nietzsche's metaphysical principal – Will to Power.[10] Scheler, by comparison, ultimately viewed the universal salvic [sic]*2 nature of Christian love as contradicting Nietzsche's assessments,[11] and in later life developed an alternate metaphysical dualism of Vital Urge[Note 1] and Spirit:[Note 2] Vital Urge as closely allied to Will to Power, and Spirit as dependent yet truly distinct in character.

Contrary to Nietzsche's ultimate intent, much of his legacy ultimately led to an implosion of objectivity in which (i) truth became relative to individual perspective, (ii) "might ultimately made right" ("Social Darwinism"), and (iii) ethics would become subjective and solipsistic *3.

By contrast, Scheler, who also was skeptical over the historically emerging unchecked power of mass culture and the prevalence and leveling power of mediocrity upon ethical standards and upon the individual human person (as a unique sacred value), was nonetheless a theistic ethical objectivist.[14][15] For Scheler, the phenomenon of Ressentiment principally involved Spirit (as opposed to Will to Power, Drives or Vital Urge), which entailed deeper personal issues involving distortion of the objective realm of values, the self-poisoning of moral character, and personality disorder.[16]

Basic features of Ressentiment[edit]

Scheler's described Ressentiment in his 1913 book by the same title as follows:


"…Ressentiment is a self-poisoning of the mind which has quite definite causes and consequences. It is a lasting mental attitude, caused by the systematic repression of certain emotions and affects which, as such are normal components of human nature. Their repression leads to the constant tendency to indulge in certain kinds of value delusions and corresponding value judgments. The emotions and affects primarily concerned are revenge, hatred, malice, envy, the impulse to detract, and spite." [17]

Although scholars do not agree on a fixed number or attributes materially defining Ressentiment, they have nonetheless collectively articulated about ten authoritative and insightful points (many times combining them) which stake-out the boundaries of this concept:

1) Ressentiment must first and foremost be understood in relation to, what Scheler termed the apriori hierarchy of value modalities. While the direction of personal transcendence and ethical action is one toward positive and higher values, the direction of Ressentiment and unethical action is one toward negative and lower values. Scheler viewed values as emotively experienced with reference to a universal, objective, constant and unchanging apriori hierarchy of value modalities. From lowest to highest these modalities (with their respective positive and corresponding negative dis-value forms) are as follows: sensual values of the agreeable and the disagreeable; vital values of the noble and vulgar; mental (psychic) values of the beautiful and ugly, right and wrong and truth and falsehood; and finally values of the Holy and Unholy of the Divine and Idols.[18] Ressentiment represents the dark underside, or inversion, of Scheler's vision of a personal and transformational non-formal ethics of values.

2) Ressentiment, as a personal disposition, has its genesis in negative psychic feelings and feeling states which most people experience as normal reactive responses to the demands of social life:[19] i.e., envy, jealousy, anger, hatred, spite, malice, joy over another's misfortune, mean spirited competition, etc. The objective sources of such feeling states responses might be occasioned by almost anything: e.g., personal criticism, ridicule, mockery, rejection, abandonment, etc.

For the individual person, the ethical and psychological issue becomes how the energy from these feeling states will be channeled so as to better benefit the individual person and society.

3) Ressentiment is highly situational in character in that it always involves "mental comparisons" (value-judgments) with other people who allegedly have no such Ressentiment feelings,[20][21] and who likewise exhibit genuinely positive values. Hence, although Ressentiment might begin with something like admiration and respect, but surely ends in a sort of coveting of those personal qualities and goods of another: i.e., advantages afforded by their beauty, intelligence, charm, wit, personality, education, talent, skills, possessions, wealth, work achievement, family affiliation and the like. This early stage of Ressentiment resembles what we might refer to today as an inferiority complex.

However, one can easily extend this notion of "comparing" to externally acquired qualifiers having the potential for negative valuations which also tend to a support consumer based economics: i.e., status symbol possessions (a lavish house, or car), expensive fashion accessories, special privileges, club memberships, plastic surgery and the like.[22] This principal is expressed in our common colloquialism of "Keeping-up with the Jones'". The subliminal result of all of these "comparisons" tend to lend credence the idea that one's self-concept, self-image, self-esteem, worth or social desirability is linked to our social inclusion or exclusion in a favored superior class having the means to insulate themselves from the rest of society.

4) Ressentiment, as situational, also typically extends to inherent social roles. Many social roles involve relationships frequently occasioning some level of inter-personal value-judgment with accompanying negative psychic feelings and feeling states which suggest dominant and submissive roles, not unlike Nietzsche's Master-Slave dichotomy. For example:

The subordinate and/or submissive gender roles assigned to woman in terms of sexuality, child rearing and nurturing tasks.[23]

Generational Divides ("Generation Gaps"): The rejection of a younger generation by members of an older generation, due to the latter's inability to accept their own changes and to move beyond the value pursuits proper to those preceding stages of life. Also, the reverse is true. The rejection of an older generation by members of a younger generation due to latter's inability to accept that fact that the older generation understands and sympathizes with the challenges they face.[24]

Progressive forms of inter-family and blended-family relations: i.e., younger siblings toward the elder sense of entitlement; the hyper-critical mother-in-law toward the daughter-in-law;,[24] or even the more contemporarily abandonment of an ex-spouse in favor of "trophy wife" or "trophy husband" as a status symbol signaling a raise in social status; the relational neglect toward children from a previous marriage over ones of the current; the reactions of peer friends and family to a romantic relationship involving partners of vastly different ages; the pathetic efforts of a mediocre ne’er-do-well child to live up to the standards of a successful high achieving parent, etc.
The classic employee / employer adversarial relationships.

5) Ressentiment triggers a tendency in people which Scheler termed "Man's Inherent Fundamental Moral Weakness":[25][26] a sense of hopelessness which pre-disposes a person to regress and seek surrogates of lower value as a source of solace.

When personal progress becomes stagnant or frustrated in moving from a negative to a more positive plateau given a relatively high vital or psychic level of value attainment, there is an inherent tendency toward regression in terms of indulgence in traditional vices and a host of other physical and psychological addictions and self-destructive modes of behavior (e.g., the use of narcotics).[27] This tendency to seek surrogates to compensate for a frustration with higher value attainment inserts itself into the scenario of consumerist materialism as an insatiable self-defeating need "to have more" in order to fill the void of our own philosophical bankruptcy and spiritual poverty.

Essential structures of Ressentiment proper: "Pathological Ressentiment"[edit]

Further refining Ressentiment, Scheler wrote:

"Through its very origin, ressentiment is therefore chiefly confined to those who serve and are dominated at the moment, who fruitlessly resent the sting of authority. When it occurs elsewhere, it is either due to psychological contagion—and the spiritual venom of ressentiment is extremely contagious – or to the violent suppression of an impulse which subsequently revolts by "embittering" and "poisoning" the personality." [16]

Hence, certain advanced characteristics of Ressentiment link this phenomenon to what we might refer to today as personality disorders. As such, Ressentiment Proper [28] ("Pathological Ressentiment’) is not materially linked exclusively to issues of socio-economic status, but rather cuts across all socio-economic strata of society to include even the most powerful.

6) In Pathological Ressentiment a Sense of Impotency develops on the part of those experiencing ressentiment-feelings, especially if situational and social factors weigh so heavily so as render a person unable to release or resolve negative psychic feelings and feeling states in a positive and constructive manner:[29] what we refer to today in psychological terms as repression.

Originally understood, Ressentiment is defused whenever one has the power and ability to physically retaliate, or act out, against an oppressor. For example, an ancient Roman citizen, as Master, could be expected to take revenge straight away upon his Slave while the reverse would be unthinkable. "When [negative psychic feelings and feeling states] can be acted out, no ressentiment results. But when a person is unable to release these feelings against the persons or groups evoking them, thus developing a sense of impotence, and when these feelings are continuously re-experienced over time, then ressentiment arises." [30]

But for Scheler, the essence of Impotency as characteristic of Pathological Ressentiment has less to do with the actual presence of an external oppressor, and more to do with a self-inflicted personal sense of inadequacy over limitations in the face of positive value attainment itself.[31] Hence, Ressentiment-feelings tend to be continuously re-experienced over time in a self-perpetuating manner primarily fueled by a sense of inadequacy felt within the self which the "other" really only occasions.[32] For example, one can have every advantage in life given them, yet prove to lack the talent for achieving the goals set for him or herself.

These re-experienced feelings of impotency become rationalized on a subconscious level as knee-jerk attitudinal projections: i.e., prejudices, bias, racism, bigotry, cynicism, and closed mindedness.

Noteworthy is the "abstract" focus of Ressentiment: the fact that specific individuals (i.e., the "Master figure" or their counterpart "Slave figure") are no longer even required for Ressentiment feelings and their rationalized forms of expression to continue and drive forward. One only needs a representative member of the class of one's focus of resentment to be represented in some way. "Members of a group can become random targets of hate, borne out of impotence that seeks to level the group." [33] Such a random formal treatment of "otherness" offers a plausible explanation for hate crimes, serial killings (in part), genocide, the general framing of an enemy in faceless non-human terms, as well as any top-down or bottom-up form of class warfare agenda, etc. Hence, there must be a psychic distancing of de-personalization between Master and Slave perceptions of "the other" in order for Ressentiment to operate effectively.

7) Pathological Ressentiment entails "Value-Delusion". Value Delusion is "a tendency to belittle, degrade, dismiss or to ‘reduce’ genuine values as well as their bearers."[30] However, this is done in a distinctively non-productive manner because "ressentiment does not lead to affirmation of counter-values since ressentiment-imbued persons secretly crave the values they publicly denounce."[30] This aspect of Value Delusions represents a horizontal shift of value judgment concerning things and the world from a positive to a more negative orientation. What was once loved or thought of as good becomes devalued as "sour grapes" [34][35] or "damaged goods" in the mind of the Ressentiment-imbued person, and what was previously lacking in value is now elevated to the status of acceptable.

In spite of this decidedly negative direction, "the ressentiment-subject is continuously 'plagued' by those distractions of unattainable values in that he emotionally replaces them with disvalues issuing forth from his impotence. In the background of such an illusory and self-deceiving over-turning of positive values with illusory negative valuations there still remains transparency of the true objective order of values and their ranks." [36] Hence, the demands of Value-Delusion manifest in what we commonly refer to as a superiority complex,i.e., arrogance, hubris, hypocrisy, employment of double standards, denial, revenge, and self-projection of one's own negative qualities onto the opposition.

Correspondingly, negative feeling states suggest the absence, repudiation or flight from positive values. But nonetheless, negative values do not stand on their own intrinsic merit: they always refer back in some way to correspondingly positive values.[37] Emotionally, Value Delusion turns happiness to sadness, compassion to hate, hope to despair, self-respect to shame, love and acceptance to rejection (or worse, competition), resolve to dread, and so on down throughout the human emotional strata.

Delusion is essential for the Ressentiment-imbued person in order to maintain any semblance of mental homeostasis.

8) Pathological Ressentiment ultimately manifests as "Metaphysical Confusion". Metaphysical Confusion is a form of Value Delusion in which the value shift is more vertical in character,[38] in relation to the apriori hierarchy of value modalities. In this dimension, Value Delusion occurs a sort of twisting, or false inversion, of the value hierarchy wherein higher value-contents and bearers are viewed as lower, and lower as higher. Today we commonly refer to this phenomenon as "Having One's Priorities Out of Order." Scheler illustrated such an inversion in his analysis of Western civilizations humanistic, materialistic and capitalistic propensities to elevate utility values above those of vital values.[39][40] Carried to the logical extreme, "Ressentiment brings its most important achievement when it determines a whole "morality," preventing the rules of preference until what was "evil" appears "good".[41]

9) Pathological Ressentiment ultimately results in a deadening (psychological numbing) of normal sympathetic feeling states, as well as all higher forms of psychic and spiritual feelings and feeling states. As opposed to a pure well ordered emotive life (Ordo Amoris) appropriate to the ethical person as created in God's image through love (ens amans), Pathological Ressentiment emotively results in a disordered heart (de’ordre du coeurs),[42] or what we might commonly refer to as a "hardened heart."

For Scheler, morality finds expression in response to "the call of the hour",[43] or exercise of personal conscience, which is based the heart's proper order of love (Ordo Amoris) in relation to positive and higher values. By contrast, Ressentiment with its corresponding Value-Delusions willfully favors varying degrees of a disordered heart (de’ordre du coeurs) and twisted emotions consistent with personality disorders. For example, it is precisely the failure to feel for and identify with their victims (even to the extent of deriving sadistic pleasure) which characterizes the sociopath, the psychopath, the serial killer, the dictator, the rapist, the bully, the corrupt CEO and the ruthless drug dealer—all share this same common denominator.[44] Common Law would refer to this quality as "cold blooded".

Author Erick Larson in his book Devil in the White City renders with great precision a literary description of this deadening of higher feeling states in reference to America's first serial killer, Herman Webster Mudgett, alias Dr. H.H. Holmes

"…Holmes was charming and gracious, but something about him made Belkamp [the antagonist] uneasy. He could not have defined it. Indeed for the next several decades alienists [early psychologists] and their successors would find themselves hard-pressed with any precision what it was about men like Holmes that caused them to seem warm and integrating but also telegraph the vague sense that some important element of humanness was missing. At first alienists described this condition as "moral insanity" and those who exhibited the disorder as "moral imbeciles." They later adopted the term "psychopath"…as a "new malady" and stated, "Besides his own person and his own interests, nothing is sacred to the psychopath."[45]

The Ressentiment-Imbued person exercises such a pronounced psychic distance from his victims so as to never fully achieve the desired lasting satisfaction produced though his own unethical actions. "Retaliation" of this sort no longer yields any good, and "expression" of this sort lacks all possibility of positive results. "In true ressentiment there is no emotive satisfaction but only a life-long anger and anguish in feelings that are compared with others." [46]

Unfortunately in general, our particular era suffers from a pronounced inability to feel higher levels of vital psychic (intellectual and sympathetic) and spiritual feeling states.[47] For example, the process of our legal system tends to convert the absolute character of moral sentiments to a "blameless" game of negotiation of cost vs. benefits.[48] Can we even imagine the moral education furnished by such archaic practices as the stockade or tar and feathering so as to invoke real public humiliation for crimes? In addition, we as a culture have become so desensitized to feelings of outrage over public persons of power and stature lacking in all feelings of shame over their wrongdoings that our greatest moral problem becomes one of complacency.

Ressentiment and wider societal impact[edit]

10) Finally, Pathological Ressentiment bears a particular relation to the Socio-Political Realm by virtue of, what Scheler describes as, man's lowest form of social togetherness, "Psychic Contagion".[49][50] Psychic Contagion is the phenomenon of uncritically "following the crowd", or mob mentality, liken to lemmings charging over a cliff. Positive examples, are good natured crowds in a pub or at sporting events; a negative example, violent rioting. As a concept, Psychic Contagion bears an affinity to Nietzsche's assessment of Slave-type mentality.

To the extent that the politically powerful (i.e., the "Master" faction or "Slave" faction of society, as the case might be) are able to rally collective cultural animosities through the use of Psychic Contagion, they increase their ability to achieve their underlying socio-political objectives. Such methods usually take the forms of incendiary rhetoric, scapegoat tactics (e.g., anti-Semitism, homophobia, hatred toward welfare recipients and the disadvantaged, etc.), class warfare, partisan politics, propaganda, excessive secrecy / non-transparency, closed minded political ideology, jingoism, misguided nationalism, violence, and waging unjust war.

The use of such methods of negative Psychic Contagion can be viewed as having propelled such historical figures or movements as Nero (burning of Rome), the French Revolution (Ressentiment in the original concept), Hitler (genocide of the Jews, the Aryan Master Race agenda and the Lebensborn project), the 1975-1979 Cambodian Khmer Rouge (genocidal social engineering), the 1994 Rwanda (tribal based genocide), International Fundamental Islamic Terrorism.

Conclusions[edit]

It is a mistake to assess Scheler's concept of Ressentiment as chiefly a theory of psychological pathology, though surely it is that in part. In addition, Ressentiment is a philosophical and ethical concept from which to assess the spiritual and cultural health both of individual persons and society as a whole: a task which seems all the more urgent given economic globalization (i.e., a tendency toward carte blanche predatory capitalism).[51] For example, it is entirely acceptable to view human ethical transcendence as complementary and commensurate with a bottom-up psychology of needs and drives so long as the arch of that qualitative direction is positive in nature. However the reverse is false. Negative parallel aspects are irreducible to Scheler's top-down metaphysical principal of good as emanating from our personal development as spiritual beings. This distinction is illustrated by the many cases in which negative role models can, and do, emerge as highly self-actualized economically powerful individuals from a psychological standpoint (clearly "Superman" type persons), but who are entirely lacking from an ethical, social and spiritual standpoint: e.g., the drug king-pin or pimp as a person young boys admire and look up to, or the corrupt CEO who absconds with obscene bonuses while his company goes bankrupt and the employee pension fund disintegrates. These negative manifestations of values and value inversions demonstrate how the philosophical conception of Ressentiment rests upon qualitatively different grounds transcending science and pure economics.

For Scheler, Ressentiment is essentially a matter of self in relation to values, and only proximately an issue of social conflict over resources, power and the like (Master / Slave, or dominant / submissive relationships). For Scheler, what we call "having class", for instance, is not something as one-dimensional as power, money, or goods and services readily sold or purchased. Rather, liken to the array of apriori hierarchy of value modalities, "class" has to do with who you make of yourself as a person,[52] which involves a whole range of factors including moral character, integrity, talents, aptitudes, achievements, education, virtues (i.e., generosity), reciprocal respect among diverse individuals (active citizenship) and the like.

Scheler's formulation of Ressentiment backhandedly acknowledges the underlying principal of love, as replacing raw will to power, with its accompanying decision to pursue uncompassionate domination of our fellow man. As such, the best case scenario for Nietzche's Master / Slave distinction lies in the free self-mastery by the individual person to channel negative psychic feelings and feeling states, and to become disillusioned [53] with unpragmatic beliefs,[54] so as to intelligently benefit themselves and society. As such, we should promote a society which is inclusive, rather than exclusive, in character; but which also promotes individual and social responsibility. Repression should be constructively defused wherever reasonable and possible. We might also foster a society which seeks to resolve (instead of deny) attitudinal conflicts and differences through constructive means: i.e., dialogue, education, constructive negotiation, enhanced personal communication, and professional intervention. Force and violence should always be used only as a last resort.

Since society must be guided by the rule of law above power, we must promote government which relies upon fairness (See John Rawls) and egalitarian principal [55] in terms of channeling our national economic forces. Self-interest (as in Adam Smith's "invisible hand") is man (and nature's) most highly efficient means of positively converting Vital Urge into human economic benefits-—the point at which "the rubber hits the road"—but it is also a force highly susceptible to greed. Therefore, government must insure that such raw pursuit of utility value is not purely an end in itself, but must serve primarily to form an economic base upon which genuine value strata and culture can take root and flourish for the common good as well as everyone's respective individual needs. We should realize that living with less materially does not diminish in any way our access to greater emotional, intellectual, artistic and spiritual fulfillment. Only in such ways can virtue truly become its own reward.

See also[edit]
Max Scheler
Scheler's Stratification of Emotional Life
Ressentiment
Master-slave morality
A Theory of Justice (John Rawls)



*2: “salvic” misspelling of “salvific”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/salvific

salvific
adjective | sal·vif·ic | \sal-ˈvi-fik\

Definition of salvific :
having the intent or power to save or redeem

solipsistic *3
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/solipsism -- sol-ip-sism
noun
1. Philosophy. the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.
2. extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Master-slave morality)


Master–slave morality is a central theme of Friedrich Nietzsche's works, in particular the first essay of On the Genealogy of Morality. Nietzsche argued that there were two fundamental types of morality: 'Master morality' and 'slave morality'. Slave morality values things like kindness, humility and sympathy, while master morality values pride, strength, and nobility. Master morality weighs actions on a scale of good or bad consequences unlike slave morality which weighs actions on a scale of good or evil intentions.

For Nietzsche, a particular morality is inseparable from the formation of a particular culture. This means that its language, codes and practices, narratives, and institutions are informed by the struggle between these two types of moral valuation.

Master morality[edit]

Nietzsche defined master morality as the morality of the strong-willed. Nietzsche criticizes the view, which he identifies with contemporary British ideology, that good is everything that is helpful; what is bad is what is harmful. He argues that this view has forgotten the origins of the values, and thus it calls what is useful good on the grounds of habitualness — what is useful has always been defined as good, therefore usefulness is goodness as a value. He continues explaining, that in the prehistoric state, "the value or non-value of an action was derived from its consequences"[1] but ultimately, "There are no moral phenomena at all, only moral interpretations of phenomena."[2] For these strong-willed men, the 'good' is the noble, strong and powerful, while the 'bad' is the weak, cowardly, timid and petty.

The essence of master morality is nobility. Other qualities that are often valued in master moralities are open-mindedness, courage, truthfulness, trust and an accurate sense of self-worth. Master morality begins in the 'noble man' with a spontaneous idea of the good, then the idea of bad develops as what is not good. "The noble type of man experiences itself as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges, 'what is harmful to me is harmful in itself'; it knows itself to be that which first accords honour to things; it is value-creating."[3] In this sense, the master morality is the full recognition that oneself is the measure of all things.[citation needed] Insomuch as something is helpful to the strong-willed man it is like what he values in himself; therefore, the strong-willed man values such things as 'good'.

Slave morality[edit]

Masters are creators of morality; slaves respond to master-morality with their slave-morality. Unlike master morality which is sentiment, slave morality is literally re-sentiment—revaluing that which the master values. This strays from the valuation of actions based on consequences to the valuation of actions based on "intention".[4] As master morality originates in the strong, slave morality originates in the weak. Because slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it vilifies its oppressors. Slave morality is the inverse of master morality. As such, it is characterized by pessimism and cynicism. Slave morality is created in opposition to what master morality values as 'good'.

Slave morality does not aim at exerting one's will by strength but by careful subversion. It does not seek to transcend the masters, but to make them slaves as well. The essence of slave morality is utility:[5] the good is what is most useful for the whole community, not the strong. Nietzsche saw this as a contradiction. Since the powerful are few in number compared to the masses of the weak, the weak gain power by corrupting the strong into believing that the causes of slavery (viz., the will to power) are 'evil', as are the qualities they originally could not choose because of their weakness. By saying humility is voluntary, slave morality avoids admitting that their humility was in the beginning forced upon them by a master. Biblical principles of turning the other cheek, humility, charity, and pity are the result of universalizing the plight of the slave onto all humankind, and thus enslaving the masters as well. "The democratic movement is the heir to Christianity."[6]—the political manifestation of slave morality because of its obsession with freedom and equality.


...the Jews achieved that miracle of inversion of values thanks to which life on earth has for a couple millennia acquired a new and dangerous fascination--their prophets fused 'rich', 'godless', 'evil', 'violent', 'sensual' into one and were the first to coin the word 'world' as a term of infamy. It is this inversion of values (with which is involved the employment of the word for 'poor' as a synonym for 'holy' and 'friend') that the significance of the Jewish people resides: with them there begins the slave revolt in morals.[7]

Society[edit]

This struggle between master and slave moralities recurs historically. According to Nietzsche, ancient Greek and Roman societies were grounded in master morality. The Homeric hero is the strong-willed man, and the classical roots of the Iliad and Odyssey exemplified Nietzsche's master morality. He calls the heroes "men of a noble culture",[8] giving a substantive example of master morality. Historically, master morality was defeated as the slave morality of Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire.

The essential struggle between cultures has always been between the Roman (master, strong) and the Judean (slave, weak). Nietzsche condemns the triumph of slave morality in the West, saying that the democratic movement is the "collective degeneration of man".[9] He claimed that the nascent democratic movement of his time was essentially slavish and weak.[citation needed] Weakness conquered strength, slave conquered master, re-sentiment conquered sentiment. This resentment Nietzsche calls "priestly vindictiveness", which is the jealousy of the weak seeking to enslave the strong with itself. Such movements were, to Nietzsche, inspired by "the most intelligent revenge" of the weak. Nietzsche saw democracy and Christianity as the same emasculating impulse which sought to make all equal—to make all slaves.

Nietzsche, however, did not believe that humans should adopt master morality as the be-all-end-all code of behavior — he believed that the revaluation of morals would correct the inconsistencies in both master and slave morality — but simply that master morality was preferable to slave morality, although this is debatable. Walter Kaufmann disagrees that Nietzsche actually preferred master morality to slave morality. He certainly gives slave morality a more throughout critique but this is partly because he believes that slave morality is modern society's more imminent danger.[citation needed]

See also[edit]
The Marriage of Heaven and Hell
Orthodoxy
Master–slave dialectic



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marriage_of_Heaven_and_Hell

The Marriage of Heaven and Hell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photograph -- Plate from Marriage of Heaven and Hell


The Marriage of Heaven and Hell is a book by the English poet and printmaker William Blake. It is a series of texts written in imitation of biblical prophecy but expressing Blake's own intensely personal Romantic and revolutionary beliefs. Like his other books, it was published as printed sheets from etched plates containing prose, poetry and illustrations. The plates were then coloured by Blake and his wife Catherine.

The work was composed between 1790 and 1793, in the period of radical ferment and political conflict immediately after the French Revolution. The title is an ironic reference to Emanuel Swedenborg's theological work Heaven and Hell, published in Latin 33 years earlier. Swedenborg is directly cited and criticized by Blake in several places in the Marriage. Though Blake was influenced by his grand and mystical cosmic conception, Swedenborg's conventional moral strictures and his Manichaean view of good and evil led Blake to express a deliberately depolarized and unified vision of the cosmos in which the material world and physical desire are equally part of the divine order; hence, a marriage of heaven and hell. The book is written in prose, except for the opening "Argument" and the "Song of Liberty". The book describes the poet's visit to Hell, a device adopted by Blake from Dante's Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost.

Proverbs of Hell[edit]

Plate from Marriage of Heaven and Hell

Unlike that of Milton or Dante, Blake's conception of Hell begins not as a place of punishment, but as a source of unrepressed, somewhat Dionysian energy, opposed to the authoritarian and regulated perception of Heaven. Blake's purpose is to create what he called a "memorable fancy" in order to reveal the repressive nature of conventional morality and institutional religion, which he describes thus:
"The ancient Poets animated all sensible objects with Gods or Geniuses, calling them by the names and adorning them with the properties of woods, rivers, mountains, lakes, cities, nations, and whatever their enlarged & numerous senses could perceive. And particularly they studied the genius of each city & country, placing it under its mental deity; Till a system was formed, which some took advantage of & enslav'd the vulgar by attempting to realize or abstract the mental deities from their objects: thus began Priesthood; Choosing forms of worship from poetic tales. And at length they pronounc'd that the Gods had order'd such things. Thus men forgot that All deities reside in the human breast."

In the most famous part of the book, Blake reveals the Proverbs of Hell. These display a very different kind of wisdom from the Biblical Book of Proverbs. The diabolical proverbs are provocative and paradoxical. Their purpose is to energise [sic] thought. Several of Blake's proverbs have become famous:

"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom. ""The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction."

Blake explains that,
"Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion, Reason and Energy, Love and Hate are necessary to Human existence. From these contraries spring what the religious call Good & Evil. Good is the passive that obeys Reason. Evil is the active springing from Energy. Good is Heaven. Evil is Hell."

Interpretation[edit]

Blake's theory of contraries was not a belief in opposites but rather a belief that each person reflects the contrary nature of God, and that progression in life is impossible without contraries. Moreover, he explores the contrary nature of reason and of energy, believing that two types of people existed: the "energetic creators" and the "rational organizers", or, as he calls them in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, the "devils" and "angels". Both are necessary to life according to Blake.[2]

Blake's text has been interpreted in many ways. It certainly forms part of the revolutionary culture of the period. The references to the printing-house suggest the underground radical printers producing revolutionary pamphlets at the time. Ink-blackened printworkers were comically referred to as a "printer's devil", and revolutionary publications were regularly denounced from the pulpits as the work of the devil.

Influence[edit]

The Marriage of Heaven and Hell is probably the most influential of Blake's works. Its vision of a dynamic relationship between a stable "Heaven" and an energized "Hell" has fascinated theologians, aestheticians and psychologists. Aldous Huxley took the name of one of his most famous works, The Doors of Perception, from this work, which in turn also inspired the name of the American rock band The Doors. Huxley's contemporary C. S. Lewis wrote The Great Divorce about the divorce of Heaven and Hell, in response to Blake's Marriage.

According to Michel Surya, the philosopher Georges Bataille threw pages of Blake's book into the casket of his friend and lover Colette Peignot on her death in 1938.

An allusion from The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, depicting Aristotle's skeleton, is present in Wallace Stevens's poem "Less and Less Human, O Savage Spirit".

Benjamin Britten included several of the Proverbs of Hell in his 1965 song cycle Songs and Proverbs of William Blake.

Allusions to the work have often been made within aspects of popular culture, notably in the "counter culture" of the 1960s. The avant-garde metal band Ulver released an album that was a musical setting of this book, titled Themes from William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. The American black metal band Judas Iscariot extensively quotes parts of The Marriage of Heaven and Hell in their song "Portions of Eternity Too Great for the Eye of Man" (whose title itself was taken from a quote from Blake's work). "The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom" is also seen printed out and displayed in one of the scenes of David Cronenberg's 1975 film Shivers.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings

Nazi book burnings
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photograph -- Book burning in Berlin, May 1933.
Photograph -- Goebbels speaking at a political rally against the Lausanne Conference (1932)
Photograph -- Memorial for book burning in 1933; in the ground of Römerberg Square in front of Frankfurt city hall, Hesse, Germany.


The Nazi book burnings were a campaign conducted by the German Student Union to ceremonially burn books in Nazi Germany and Austria in the 1930s. The books targeted for burning were those viewed as being subversive or as representing ideologies opposed to Nazism. These included books written by Jewish pacifist, classical liberal, anarchist, socialist, and communist authors, among others.

The book-burning campaign[edit]

Goebbels speaking at a political rally against the Lausanne Conference (1932)
On April 8, 1933, the Main Office for Press and Propaganda of the German Student Union proclaimed a nationwide "Action against the Un-German Spirit", which was to climax in a literary purge or "cleansing" ("Säuberung") by fire. Local chapters were to supply the press with releases and commissioned articles, sponsor well-known Nazi figures to speak at public gatherings, and negotiate for radio broadcast time. On the 8th of April, the Student Union also drafted the Twelve Theses which deliberately evoked Martin Luther and the historic burning of "Un-German" books at the Wartburg festival on the 300th anniversary of the posting of Luther's Ninety-Five Theses. The theses called for a "pure" national language and culture. Placards publicized the theses, which attacked "Jewish intellectualism", asserted the need to "purify" German language and literature, and demanded that universities be centres of German nationalism. The students described the "action" as a response to a worldwide Jewish "smear campaign" against Germany and an affirmation of traditional German values.

On 10 May 1933, in an act of ominous significance, the students burned upwards of 25,000 volumes of "un-German" books, thereby presaging an era of uncompromising state censorship. In many university towns, nationalist students marched in torch lit parades against the "un-German" spirit. The scripted rituals of this night called for high Nazi officials, professors, rectors, and student leaders to address the participants and spectators. At the meeting places, students threw the pillaged, banned books into the bonfires with a great joyous ceremony that included live music, singing, "fire oaths," and incantations. In Berlin, some 40,000 people gathered in the square at the State Opera to hear Joseph Goebbels deliver a fiery address: "No to decadence and moral corruption!" Goebbels enjoined the crowd. “Yes to decency and morality in family and state! I consign to the flames the writings of Heinrich Mann, Ernst Gläser, Erich Kästner.”

The era of extreme Jewish intellectualism is now at an end. The breakthrough of the German revolution has again cleared the way on the German path...The future German man will not just be a man of books, but a man of character. It is to this end that we want to educate you. As a young person, to already have the courage to face the pitiless glare, to overcome the fear of death, and to regain respect for death - this is the task of this young generation. And thus you do well in this midnight hour to commit to the flames the evil spirit of the past. This is a strong, great and symbolic deed - a deed which should document the following for the world to know - Here the intellectual foundation of the November Republic is sinking to the ground, but from this wreckage the phoenix of a new spirit will triumphantly rise.

— Joseph Goebbels, Speech to the students in Berlin

Opernplatz, Berlin book burnings


Memorial for book burning in 1933; in the ground of Römerberg Square in front of Frankfurt city hall, Hesse, Germany.


Book burning memorial at the Bebelplatz in Berlin by Micha Ullman

Not all book burnings took place on 10 May as the German Student Union had planned. Some were postponed a few days because of rain. Others, based on local chapter preference, took place on 21 June, the summer solstice, a traditional date of celebration. Nonetheless, in 34 university towns across Germany the "Action against the Un-German Spirit" was a success, enlisting widespread newspaper coverage.[citation needed] And in some places, notably Berlin, radio broadcasts brought the speeches, songs, and ceremonial incantations "live" to countless German listeners.

All of the following types of literature were to be banned.
The works of traitors, emigrants and authors from foreign countries who believe they can attack and denigrate the new Germany (H.G. Wells, Rolland);
The literature of Marxism, Communism and Bolshevism;
Pacifist literature;
Literature with liberal, democratic tendencies and attitudes, and writings supporting the Weimar Republic (Rathenau, Heinrich Mann);
All historical writings whose purpose is to denigrate the origin, the spirit and the culture of the German Volk, or to dissolve the racial and structural order of the Volk, or that denies the force and importance of leading historical figures in favor of egalitarianism and the masses, and which seeks to drag them through the mud (Emil Ludwig);
Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Hackel, Benedict);
Books that advocate “art” which is decadent, bloodless, or purely constructivist (Grosz, Dix, Bauhaus, Mendelsohn);
Writings on sexuality and sexual education which serve the egocentric pleasure of the individual and thus, completely destroy the principles of race and Volk (Hirschfeld);
The decadent, destructive and Volk-damaging writings of “Asphalt and Civilization” literati: (Graf, H. Mann, Stefan Zweig, Wassermann, Franz Blei);
Literature by Jewish authors, regardless of the field;
Popular entertainment literature that depicts life and life’s goals in a superficial, unrealistic and sickly sweet manner, based on a bourgeois or upper class view of life;
Nationalistic and patriotic kitsch in literature.
Pornography and explicit literature by Jewish authors.
All books degrading German purity.

Responses[edit]

The blind writer Helen Keller published an Open Letter to German Students: 'You may burn my books and the books of the best minds in Europe, but the ideas those books contain have passed through millions of channels and will go on.'”[1]

Persecuted authors[edit]

Among the German-speaking authors whose books student leaders burned that night were Walter Benjamin, Ernst Bloch, Bertolt Brecht, Max Brod, Otto Dix, Alfred Döblin, Albert Einstein, Friedrich Engels, Lion Feuchtwanger, Marieluise Fleißer, Leonhard Frank, Sigmund Freud, Iwan Goll, George Grosz, Jaroslav Hašek, Werner Hegemann, Heinrich Heine, Ödön von Horvath, Heinrich Eduard Jacob, Franz Kafka, Georg Kaiser, Erich Kästner, Alfred Kerr, Egon Kisch, Siegfried Kracauer, Karl Kraus, Theodor Lessing, Alexander Lernet-Holenia, Karl Liebknecht, Georg Lukács, Rosa Luxemburg, Heinrich Mann, Klaus Mann, Ludwig Marcuse, Karl Marx, Robert Musil, Carl von Ossietzky, Erwin Piscator, Alfred Polgar, Erich Maria Remarque, Ludwig Renn, Joachim Ringelnatz, Joseph Roth, Nelly Sachs, Felix Salten, Anna Seghers, Arthur Schnitzler, Carl Sternheim, Bertha von Suttner, Ernst Toller, Kurt Tucholsky, Jakob Wassermann, Frank Wedekind, Franz Werfel, Grete Weiskopf, Arnold Zweig and Stefan Zweig.

Not only German-speaking authors were burned but also French authors like Victor Hugo, André Gide, Romain Rolland, Henri Barbusse, American writers such as Ernest Hemingway, Upton Sinclair, Theodore Dreiser, Jack London, John Dos Passos, and Helen Keller as well as English authors Joseph Conrad, D.H. Lawrence, H.G. Wells and Aldous Huxley, Irish writer James Joyce and Russian authors including Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Maxim Gorki, Isaac Babel, Vladimir Lenin, Vladimir Nabokov, Leo Tolstoy, Leon Trotsky, Vladimir Mayakovsky, and Ilya Ehrenburg.

The burning of the books represents a culmination of the persecution of those authors whose verbal or written opinions were opposed to Nazi ideology. Many artists, writers and scientists were banned from working and publication. Their works could no longer be found in libraries or in the curricula of schools or universities. Some of them were driven to exile (like Walter Mehring and Arnold Zweig); others were deprived of their citizenship (for example Ernst Toller and Kurt Tucholsky) or forced into a self-imposed exile from society (e.g. Erich Kästner). For other writers the Nazi persecutions ended in death. Some of them died in concentration camps, due to the consequences of the conditions of imprisonment, or were executed (like Carl von Ossietzky, Erich Mühsam, Gertrud Kolmar, Jakob van Hoddis, Paul Kornfeld, Arno Nadel and Georg Hermann, Theodor Wolff, Adam Kuckhoff, and Rudolf Hilferding). Exiled authors despaired and committed suicide, for example: Walter Hasenclever, Ernst Weiss, Carl Einstein, Walter Benjamin, Ernst Toller, and Stefan Zweig.

Heinrich Heine, whose work was also burned, wrote in his 1820-1821 play Almansor the famous admonition, “Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen": "Where they burn books, they will in the end also burn people."

Denazification[edit]

Main articles: Censorship in the Federal Republic of Germany, Allied Occupation Zones in Germany and Denazification

In 1946, the Allied occupation authorities drew up a list of over 30,000 titles, ranging from school books to poetry and including works by such authors as von Clausewitz. Millions of copies of these books were confiscated and destroyed. The representative of the Military Directorate admitted that the order in principle was no different from the Nazi book burnings.[2]

Artworks were under the same censorship as other media;
"all collections of works of art related or dedicated to the perpetuation of German militarism or Nazism will be closed permanently and taken into custody.".
The directives were very broadly interpreted, leading to the destruction of thousands of paintings and thousands more were shipped to deposits in the U.S. Those confiscated paintings still surviving in U.S. custody include, for example, a painting "depicting a couple of middle aged women talking in a sunlit street in a small town".[3]

Remembrance[edit]

Fighting the Fires of Hate: America and the Nazi Book Burnings is a traveling exhibition produced by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Through historical photographs, documents, and films, it explores how the book burnings became a potent symbol in America’s battle against Nazism and why they continue to resonate with the public—in film, literature, and political discourse-—to this day.[4] In 2014, this exhibition will be displayed in West Fargo, North Dakota; Dallas, Texas; and Missoula, Montana.[5]

See also[edit]
Wolfgang Herrmann, librarian who created the original blacklist of books
List of authors banned during the Third Reich
List of book-burning incidents
Planned destruction of Warsaw
Denazification#Censorship