When researching the Creek War for my article in Atassa, a curious thing I encountered was the attitude that the Indians had towards black slaves. For the Creeks and Seminoles, a slave was not free by virtue of slavery being an immoral institution and thus illegitimate. A slave was no longer a slave once he decided to stop being a slave and run away. One of the issues that the whites had with these Indians was how they would harbor escaped slaves, and this was a major point of contention in the Second Seminole War. But this was not due to the “enlightened” attitude of the Indians. They were not above taking blacks as slaves themselves, or keeping them in bondage. The point was that the “freedom” and “dignity” imparted to all human beings by Enlightenment thinking was not a given for the uncivilized mind. It had to be “earned” or “seized” from those who would take it from them.
I have left behind the idea of noble sentiments, those transient feelings that merely wishing for nice things makes me a good person. I have seen to many instances wherein people believed in mercy only to commit atrocities, or committed atrocities as an act of mercy. It is best just to try to empty yourself of those sentiments: whatever happens will happen. Death comes soon enough, weariness brings forgetfulness, long-suffering numbness. The only victory comes in being still here and still standing.
People want their dignity and life recognized merely for existing. It doesn’t work that way. That is the leftist dream, but it never achieves anything. That we all mean something just because we are: we are joined to the noble savage and the future transhumanist explorer of the stars due to some continuity… Continuity! What a fabulous lie! All the savages are slaughtered, and by dancing on their graves… I mean, “honoring them,” we obtain the wisdom and power that they should still have but don’t. We think we are all the same but we aren’t. In fact, it’s that thinking we are all the same, that we are all “humanity”, that leads us to cut down the forest, pollute the rivers, till the land to depletion, and pave the rest. Because we’re humanity, because that’s “our” good. Humanity is the enemy of nature because it is the enemy of place, of physicality, of wildness. There are human beings (human animals), and then there is Glorious Humanity. If one does not stare humanity in the face and declare one’s opposition, one is either a fool or a coward.
To separate the human being / animal and Humanity is not so simple. In fact, it is nearly impossible. It is like asking the animals to stay away from the watering hole in the hot summer.
To posit indiscriminate and selective actions is to posit the superiority of the Inhuman over the human; that is, that human beings are not a closed system, they “open up” onto something greater than themselves (even if they neither understand nor obtain it). To destroy those greater things (Wild Nature), one fails in one’s vocation, namely, to be open to the universe, to be merely another force within it and to act like it. This attitude seeks to make everything sterile and artificial because those things are “safe”.
To posit “amorality” is to seek to destroy all obstacles as you go. It is to posit the individual over society, chaos over order. It is to posit that sins of omission (not doing anything) are no less grave than sins of commission (doing something). That civilized peace is built on the pile of bleached bones of extinct savages. That you can’t buy off the universe with good behavior. That you refuse the bargain of the Golden Rule because only slavery and vice come from it (and not the commendable kind). “Amorality” acknowledges that we all have “blood on our hands” because we have all bathed in this blood. Our society was irrigated by it.
Does this destroy love and mercy whole-cloth then? Not necessarily, but it certainly opposes their codification: their enshrining into the realm of rights and “inherent dignity” of the person ipso facto. I can hope for mercy for those I love, and wish for destruction on those I don’t: wishing neither makes me noble nor makes it so. I am not God: my Word is not in the beginning, and nothing is made by it. But it is perfectly reasonable for me to hate a system that would set my or any other desire as a universal code of morality. Hypocrisy? What does it matter?