State of the World Address.

The perversion of the Machiavellian-Cartesian conquest of nature is the perversion of a perversion, and thereby a fulfillment.

When I spoke of “[t]he Original Occupy Movement, the Movement of the One, the 1%, the 1 as Opposed to the 0, which in the Beginning We didn’t even acknowledge as a concept, a number, a Symbol”, I originally wrote “the Movement of the 1”, meaning to allude myself to Brahmavidya: Primordial I. The Roman 1, the I… “We” is a lie so long as nobody says “I”: for then “we” can only be a collective of non-Is… And though it’s not a matter of only saying “I”, only doing “I” is, again, a lie as long as one doesn’t dare say it.

Our society was grounded on the “we” which is a sum of zeroes, or almost-zeroes. But because of its success, the almost-zeroes have grown–like a cancer, threatening to overgrow society. Weeds, and not the one I just vaporized! Making fun of them doesn’t help; that rather makes it accepted. Makes what accepted? Idiocy. I will further analyze Western idiocracy for you.

I’ve often wondered–especially in traffic, thank God–whether many people are really stupid or really anti-social or both. The answer is that there isn’t really a difference. Being in busy, “bustling” places means bumping or almost bumping into one another–and all the time in each other’s “aura”, as “spiritual” people may call it. Society uncivilizes!

When people fly–and not just fly–through each other’s “aura” all the time–and note that “aura” like “spirit” etymologically means a movement of air–, they get a group-aura–which soon has a brown “colouring”, seeing as how many different colours go together in it.

As I was saying, our society was based on the lowest common denominator. But this principle naturally leads to idiocracy (ochlocracy, as the Ancients called it). It leads to the more or less accepted Idiocy of those who do “I” before saying it–and much more than saying it: usually thinking as well, and often even looking!

Our society was based on an idealistic misunderstanding of that phenomenon, that potential reality. This Summer, I wrote: “[W]hat is noble about the man in the street who votes for Trump, or Wilders in the Netherlands (see my ‘Nietzsche Contra Wilders’ essay), Brexit in the UK, etc. etc.? It’s supposedly that he dares say it.” But the reality-TV idiots I’ve spoken of are in principle considered uncivilized trash, and incredulously ridiculed as such. “Civilized” people are supposed not to be selfish, or not to be selfish in such overt ways. But how civilized are most people, anyway? The truth is that most are only half civilized–not to go into more precise fractions.

The two “pure” (ideal, theoretical) paths are the completely instinctive and the completely reflective–leap without thinking and think without leaping, sense your way through the world–life, spacetime–and behold a mere reflection of it in one’s mind’s eye, respectively.

Classical society was based on the ideal state of those most inclined to the latter. By means of a “noble lie”, the most civilized secured the support of the more but not much, much more than half-civilized necessary to suppress the much less than half-civilized. But modern society’s “civilized”, believing boorishness is better than suppression to quite an extent, if not ultimately, will often rather take the side of the least against the most civilized. For example, it seems high intelligence and high sensitivity are considered a luxury problem compared to being “mentally challenged”. Yet will the problems that challenge even (and especially) those most up to that challenge not by definition tend to be more important?

Have you actually done anything which demonstrates that you are not an almost zero? (Besides writing about how great you are.)

His writing of these posts already demonstrates that he is not a coward, which makes him infinitely more productive than you, and at least two thirds of this species.

Have you ever done anything of worth on this site? Ever offered a thought or sentiment you actually lived through?

I didnt think so.

Shoo little man.

I asked him, not you.

But since you posted, I don’t think that you have demonstrated much beyond your own arrogance.

YOU ARE RIGHT: MY BHAIRAVA MADNESS IS NOT YET AT AN END; IT HAS ONLY BEGUN.

::

IT IS AN ERROR TO THINK THAT SHIVA IS THE AUSPICIOUS AS OPPOSED TO THE TERRIBLE MANIFESTATION. SHIVA AS OPPOSED TO BHAIRAVA IS ONLY THE PLEASANT AFTERSHOCK–WHICH MEANS NOT THE IMMEDIATE AFTERSHOCK, UNLESS THE FIRST SUGGESTION OF THE SHOCK’S SUBSIDING IS FOR THAT REASON ALREADY PLEASANT…

WHY IS BHAIRAVA HIMSELF A BLESSING? IS HE NOT RATHER THE HARDEST CURSE, THE ACTUAL BRANDING OF THE VETO HE ENFORCES? WELL, WHAT WOULD THERE BE APART FROM HIS GREAT CRIME? [THE BRITISH SO POLITELY SAY “WHAT SHOULD THERE BE”–BUT THIS “THOU SHALT” EXISTS ONLY BY VIRTU OF A WILL, THE ACTUAL MANIFESTATION OF A WOULD.]

ONCE MEN WILLED THE WORLD TO BE THE WAY IT THEREBY BECAME. WHERE ARE THOSE MEN, THE EQUIVALENTS OF THOSE MEN, TODAY? WHERE ARE THE MEN WHO DO NOT HATE OUR HISTORY–NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO TEPID TO BE CAPABLE OF TRULY HATING, BUT BECAUSE THEIR TRUE HATE–WHICH IS WELL-NIGH INFINITELY BETTER THAN FAKED LOVE–CULMINATES IN THE TRUE LOVE OF OUR HISTORY, THE WILL TO MAKE IT ALL HAPPEN AGAIN–

?

ON SOME LEVEL THE EASIEST PART OF OUR HISTORY TO EMBRACE–FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT BE SUITED TO EMBRACE IT–IS THE HOMERIC AGE: ACTUAL BLOODSHED, AS OPPOSED TO THE IMAGINED JUDGMENT OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE LIKE. BUT WE ALSO NEED TO EMBRACE THE CHRISTIAN AGE, AND EVEN THE MODERN ONE. WELL THEN!! HOW CAN WE BETTER DO ALL THAT THAN EMBRACING OURSELVES, BECAUSE IT HAS MADE US POSSIBLE? YET WE ARE, BY THE MOST PREVALENT STANDARD, THE MOST UNLIKELY CREATURES TO DO SO. DOESN’T OUR SPEAKING ALOUD ABOUT ANYTHING, OUR SPEAKING UP TO MAKE OUR VOCES BE HEARD, SOUND LIKE “GOLLUM” TO THE EARS OF OUR REALITY PRINCIPLE? HELL IS OTHER PEOPLE: THE HELL WE BEAR ON OUR MINDS IS OUR CONSCIENCE, THE SUPEREGO WHICH IS THE INTERNALIZED SUM OF THE POWERS THAT BE, THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE THERE. LONG MUST WE REPRESS WHAT WE ARE, OUR PUBERTY IS ONLY THE BUDDING OF OUR MATURATION: AND AT LEAST SOME OF US ARE LITERALLY NIPPED IN THE BUD–LITERALLY LITERALLY, AS LITERAL AS IT GETS. IN FACT, SOME OF US DO IT THEMSELVES…

TO WHOM IT MAY APPEAL, I POST THESE TOUGHTS. I WAS TAUGHT QUITE AN AUGHT BY THE WORKS I ROUD.

IN BARL SCHOOL, I LEARNED TO REGARD TACITVS AS THE GREATEST PROSE WRITING. I THEN FOUND HIS PEERS IN NIETZSCHE.

TACITUS EST LAGUZ MEI FUNDUS.

OF SWEET WATER, A GREAT LAKE. MUST THE BROOK NOW FINALLY BECOME AN OCEAN, EMBRACING THE EARTH? [EEN BEEKJE…] WILL THAT NOT SALT AND THEREBY SPOIL IT? NOT IF IT BECOMES AN OCEAN IN BROAD DAYLIGHT, BRIGHT SUNLIGHT, STARTING THE CYCLE ANEW BY VAPORIZING IT.

IN THE NAME OF THE MOUNTAIN BROOK, I SUMMON THE SUN GOD TO THE MODERN OCEAN, THE GLOBALIZING WEST. THAT GOD IS THE WAR GOD, SHOOTING HIS ARROWS TO ALL SIDES. ARES IS THE PRIMORDIAL EROS: HE SETS ALL THE WORLD ON FIRE WITH HIS COLD. HE IS BEYOND COOL: GIVING FAR MORE THAN A CHILL, BRINGING DEATH AND DISEASE AS WELL.

BUT 'TIS THE STILLEST WORDS THAT BRING THE STORM. WHO WILL READ THIS ALL-CAPS POST? WHO IS NOBLY BARBARIAN ENOUGH TO BESIEGE WALLS THIS HIGH AND THICK? THUS I CAN SAFELY SPEAK PLAINLY HERE.

GOOD AND EVIL, MALE AND FEMALE. THE MASCULINE CAN ONLY BE GOOD TO THE FEMININE BY BEING THE CONDITION OF THE FEMININE. SO EVIL IS GOOD AND GOOD IS BAD, ONLY EVIL CAN MAKE THE BAD GOOD. THE BAD MAKES THE EVIL GOOD BY BEING MADE GOOD BY THE EVIL; THE BAD MAKES THE GOOD CHOOSE TO BE EVIL IN ORDER TO MAKE THE BAD GOOD.

Why Tacitus?
And what?

With me it was Ovidius.

Ovidius is not prose. :wink:

It was from Tacitus’ Annals. I distinctly remember the phrase “gravior atque atrocior”. Can’t really explain why, except that, next to Livy–who wrote of similar content in a similar form–, Tacitus seemed a master of everything I’d learned in class. His form just seemed perfectly self-contained, like Nietzsche wrote of Horace. And I remember he was pret-ty sharp–again like Nietzsche.

It seems I forgot to indicate that the (working) title of the post that began with this clarification was “Re Statement, Re Address, Re World.”

How extraordinary, if you cannot recognise that the ideal society of Hitler wasn’t really that different from that of Nietzsche, as both held an overall elitist attitude, which probably explains the type of person who is attracted to his philosophy.

It is not the mass that invents and not the majority that organizes or thinks, but in all things only and always the individual man, the person.
– Adolf Hitler

The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and spiritually similar beings. This preservation comprises first of all existence as a race, and thereby permits free development of all the forces dormant in this race.
– Adolf Hitler

The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude…
– Adolf Hitler

Thus, in principle, it [national socialism] embraces the basic principle of Nature and believes in the validity of this law down to the last individual. It sees not only the different value of races, but also the different value of individual men. From the mass it extracts the importance of the person, and thus, in contrast to Marxism with its disorganizing effect, it acts in an organizing way.-- Adolf Hitler

Nietzsche never quite spelled out what he meant by Übermensch/The Superman did he. For Heidegger and others, it represented humanity that transcended itself, whilst for the Nazis it became a distinctive image of the master race.

My main dissatisfaction with N was his damaged attitude towards women, probably due to his failed love affair with Lou Salome, which inflamed his insulting slapping down of women. No doubt he was a complex man, but a man I find difficult, if not impossible, to use as a mentor or seek as an example of the so called ‘Superman’. Which in itself is ludicrous to begin with.

“So dangerous are women that they must be pressed back into the cage of nineteenth-century Apollonian’s chauvinism”.

That says it all.

You’re a terrible quoter. What’s the source of those Hitler quotes, for example? And that last quote is an inaccurate quote from page 373 of Julian Young’s Friedrich Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography (a terrible book, judging from that page. You got the “Apollonian’s” from the preceding sentences).

Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, My Struggle

It is widely acknowledged that N adopted the same misogynistic imagery of Arthur Schopenhauer’s “On Women”, which is notorious for denouncing the women of Germany.

You choose not to acknowledge the man’s obvious shortcomings.

Oops, I guess I should read up on “my Hitler”!

“It is widely acknowledged”… I have read quite a bit from Schopenhauer on women, incidentally, and though there are certainly strong similarities, there are also very strong differences. Schopenhauer inveighs against women; Nietzsche is ever the gentleman.

I do not just not consider Nietzsche’s stance toward women to be a shortcoming; I’ve always regarded it as something most fundamental and most praiseworthy about his philosophy! Consider this thread, for example: https://beta.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/human_superhuman/conversations/topics/241

Here’s an excerpt from a private conversation I recently had on Facebook (only from my side of the dialogue):

::

The mainstream religion is now secular humanism which is somehow believed to be supported by science.

Faith means different things for Protestants and Catholics.
Thomas More, for example, was a Humanist and a Catholic. He chose death over forced conversion to Anglicanism (a hybrid form of Protestantism and Catholicism). Protestantism, in which every man is his own priest, quite naturally leads to Humanism, where every man decides for himself what religion (if any) he practices.

I think sex (or “gender”) difference is the one to focus on these days. Controversial, but not like racism. I also think it’s (one of) the most fundamental natural human inequality/-ies. Men choosing to be “disposable”: that’s like a noble kind of martyrdom, which may actually regain men the respect they used to get.
Christianity can even be justified (historically) in this context. “Only creative reason, which in the crucified God is manifested as love, can really show us the way.” (Pope Ratzinger.) Is the voluntarily “disposable” male not the epitome of creative reason manifesting as love?

Yeah, Christianity is a major historical manifestation of “the Patriarchy”, man!

And it was the White Male Protestant who led the West (and thereby the globe) to secular humanism, feminism, etc.
All that can be seen as a great self-sacrifice by the “disposable” male–not to mention the white male…

The “disease” Liberal Protestantism can be construed as a noble self-misunderstanding. Men like us now realize that it’s an error, that the most beneficent act would consist of the reinstatement of Patriarchy.
A new Aryan subordination of the indigenous Goddess (Moody spoke of the Black Goddess counter to Graves’ White Goddess. I’ll try to find some of Moody’s posts on the Super-White-Man for you).

::

By “Aryan” I was also distinctly thinking of definitions like this one:

Aryan - a civilized follower of Vedic culture; one whose goal is spiritual advancement.” (Prabhupada, Bhagavad-gita As It Is, Glossary.)

The division of the human race into males and females is of course much, much deeper than into the various races: the former antedates even the emergence of hominid species by far.

Here’s an excerpt from the thread of which I was especially thinking when I spoke of “some of Moody’s posts” etc. (the square brackets and typos are Moody’s own):

::

Goethe’s contention that the Feminine draws us upward is frequently ridiculed by Nietzsche. No, the dark-drives of White-Woman draw us down; the Superwhiteman [Zarathusra], disdaing the womanish, must climb to the solitary heights where the air is clear and all that is smells feminine and sphinxlike is far below.

The constant danger to the Higher White Man is actually related to the White Woman; it is this - that the Higher White Man may become extinct.

We know from Nietzsche that [White]Woman is a danger [immediate image of the blonde blue-eyed Lou von Salome] to the Super-White-Man.

The Zarathustran White Man is told endlessly by Nietzsche that he must seek solitude.
He takes his six solitudes [inbetween down-goings] before his final seventh solitude which is [White] Death.

Can you not see what a danger to the White Race this Solitude is?

How can the White Race be reproduced by its finest speciemens [SuperWhiteMen and Women] if the White Man has to flee the sphinxations of the White Woman!

And also, by her Darkness, White Woman actually flouts her Whiteness.

Disgust, disgust.

So the Zarathustrian Whiteman is in constant danger of being overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of the mediocre, the prodigeous and gregarious many-too-many. Hic niger est, as Nietzsche quotes from Horace.

To that end, what he calls the “hope of a Pure European Race” must be engendered by Eugenics.

Compared to Shakespeare, Nietzsche’s treatment of women is mild. And yet everyone, women included, adore Shakespeare, while castigating Nietzsche for his so called “misogyny.”

Shakespeare was more generous in his ascribing of power. To call a power terrible is very much not to belittle it.

In Nietzsche’s case, the day I read a woman, or man for that matter, write at his level, I’ll take their opinion on his misowhatever. But it also seems a stretch to say that the man who equated all of philosophy with a woman hates women.

How so?

Everything in Shakespeare ultimately hinges upon the whims of women.

shakespeare.mit.edu/Poetry/LoversComplaint.html

Hahahaha. Beautiful. I was reading it aloud here to Fixed Cross, but we had to cut it short.

Anyway, this is a comedy. Shakespeare knows women best in his tragedies, 'cause true power is tragic and women have true power. Men are more the attempt to curb the irrepressible will of women.

Perhaps I should point out that I never denied that those Hitler quotes were by Hitler (unlike what you suggested was a Nietzsche quote, which turned out to be only a quote about Nietzsche). I suspected that they might be inaccurate (and I still think they might: I haven’t read up on Hitler in the meantime and don’t intend to do so), but I wasn’t at all surprised they were by Hitler, having read through Mein Kampf and his Table Talk in the past. (I suspected your quotes might be inaccurate because your quoting style reminded me of Abir Taha, whose Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism is by far the worst piece of “scholarship” I’ve read in the last ten years (to name a number; it’s probably more than ten).)

Now all you need to do is compare your Hitler quotes to actual Nietzsche quotes to demonstrate that “the ideal society of Hitler wasn’t really that different from that of Nietzsche”!