Superfeminism

[Magnus Anderson]

how do you figure?
i gather from the above that "the disruption of that order" is bad, and that "resent based policy" is bad
i think that a new structure that was neither disruptive of that order nor resent based would be quite welcome

I need to get some eyeglasses.

You are speaking of policies based on resentment. ReSent based policies, not reCent based policies. "Recent based policies" sounded quite strange but obviously not enough to make me question my eyesight.

i hope i cleared that up for ya

Yah.

[phoneutria]

how do you figure?
i gather from the above that "the disruption of that order" is bad, and that "resent based policy" is bad
i think that a new structure that was neither disruptive of that order nor resent based would be quite welcome

I need to get some eyeglasses.

You are speaking of policies based on resentment. ReSent based policies, not reCent based policies. "Recent based policies" sounded quite strange but obviously not enough to make me question my eyesight.

i hope i cleared that up for ya

Yah.

ahahahahah

[phoneutria]

Hives, unlike human societies, are composed of sterile clones.

Human females are aggressively competitive among themselves, and it tends to not be the healthy type of competitiveness in which one aims higher to become superior to the other. Instead they target the other, and attempt to take one another down.

It is very foolish to assume that in a matriarchy there would be no "oppression" of any group.

I put oppression in quotes because it is not reasonable to speak of oppression proper in a society where all are born with equal rights.

The feminist cooperative utopia is based on denial of that or willful ignorance of it.

I'll go ahead and demean my own argument by saying that I'm not speaking from a scientific perspective now, as I am employing the phrase "tends to" and grounding this observation on personal experience. It seems fair. It is a weak point, but I feel it's worth mentioning when speaking of hives.

Perhaps the feminist utopia is a hive. Perhaps all women must stop rearing children for that to be realized.

[Fixed Cross]

The OP gives a scenario of absolute repression. It is a theoretical possibility.

(Need I remind people that fascism is always carried by women - which is why Communism is better, though also repressive, than fascism)

[Fixed Cross]

Ill post a portrait of a Pure, purely pure ultra sauber Communist artist
here is very much which is masculine about her art.



Fascism has only idolatry.

[Fixed Cross]

An uncle I have of mine he said: athletic exercises are fascist.

A fitness culture to him points to a fascism.

And it is true women are fascistic about their body shaping regimes. There is no other word for it.

Women have that gear, 1, 2, 444000, where men go 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, if decadent. They don't get to that place of tyranny.

[phoneutria]

[Fixed Cross]

Yeah women are far more aware of their shit than men are, either of their own or of womens. And then there are plenty of men who are aware of this, and profit tremendously.

[perpetualburn]

We all know what happened to Hera when she got too big for her britches and tried to rebel against Zeus.

Also, only Zeus (masculine) is able to fully immortalize a mortal completely in his human form (Ganymede)... All other loves of the gods turn to flowers or Cypress trees or a Cicada or whatever. Man has some special grace that woman doesn't have. The masculine as the higher principle is connected to wholeness.

Feminism is either a blatant, toxic defiance of the masculine out of bitterness or a misguided attempt to appropriate masculine qualities in order to prove something under the banner of "equal opportunity"...That some women can do some things better than some men (or that some women outrank some men) will NEVER make the feminine the higher principle.

Granted. Only the highest of all humans is a woman but she is much rarer than higher men. But what does this mean?

Does this not mean a ant-queen or a bee-queen.... depending on fascism or monarchy.
I see a hive, dude. Don't you? So isn't this hive typically ruled by a mother-tyrant?
And are not males mere instruments....



Butt no, of course the ant is not the Nietzschean higher woman. I souls guess. I actually have little idea of what he meant except I can relate in my own personal way in a sense.
Not the ant-hood, but to the Valkyries. They are higher than men and they do live among us.
But Valkyries like men.

Yes the hive is typically ruled by a mother-tyrant, like in Sweden. But I don't see how the highest human is a woman. Is the rarest of woman more special than the rarest of man? The gap between even great MEN is already huge let alone between great men and women:

" My concept "Dionysian” here became the supreme deed; compared with it everything that other men have done seems poor and limited. The fact that a Goethe or a Shakespeare would not for an instant have known how to take breath in this atmosphere of passion and of the heights; the fact that by the side of Zarathustra Dante is no more than a believer and not one who first creates truth—that is to say not a world-ruling spirit, a Destiny; the fact that the poets of the Veda were priests and not even fit to unfasten Zarathustra’s sandals—all this is the least of the matter and gives no idea of the distance, of the azure solitude in which this work dwells. Zarathustra has an eternal right to say: "I draw around me circles and holy boundaries. Ever fewer are they that mount with me to ever loftier heights. I build a mountain range of holier and holier mountains"

The same Shakepeare who N said had the most powerful vision of reality, even HE by N's estimation couldn't breath in his heights.(Although I don't know if i agree with N here).

However, Nietzsche did NOT (as far as i know) ever engage with or even so much as MENTION Shakespeare's "The Sonnets"...Yet took the time the time to talk about Julius Caesar (*rolls eyes*)... This small fact is something that I've never seen mentioned in any Nietzsche scholarship, yet it seems incredibly important. The "slight muse" of Shakespeare's Sonnets may well be Nietzsche's Superman... Or if he's not, what does that mean, what is the relationship between the two... are they antagonistic, etc etc... Professing to know the limits of someone's depths (Nietzsche on Shakespeare) without ever engaging the very CORE of Shakespeare (The Sonnets) would be like someone professing to be an expert on Nietzsche without ever talking about TSZ.

The question is then, why did N never mention The Sonnets:

A) He never read them (but i believe he had a collected works of Shakespeare in German)
B) He read them but didn't think them very important (highly unlikely)
C) He read them and found them gravely important but left out mention for esoteric reasons

Women have that gear, 1, 2, 444000, where men go 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, if decadent. They don't get to that place of tyranny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylAfVYQfAPw

[Fixed Cross]

Great post. I disagree with Nietzsche on Shakespeare and honestly think it is because things need to be read in their native language, poetry especially.
Shakespeare not in English is like tennis on a sloping soggy hill. It has nothing to do with Shakespeare's power. It is all in the sound. At least so I discovered when I set about reading Hamlet aloud and suddenly realized it wasn't a somewhat boring drudging piece but ecstatically awesome, word for word.

Whatever N has said on the English is facile. I attribute this to his admiration for and service of Bismarck, who loathed nothing more than Englishmen. And, because N was wise, he consequently said very little about the English indeed.


On the subject of men and women -
I do not agree at all that men are greater or better than women. Men just fuck up way too much to give them that credit. If men were so great, the world would not have so much leftism, to begin with. The state of the world proves that men are shit, as a rule, and that the Superman is direly needed.
I trust that women will do most of the work in rearing the Superman. The logic behind that trust is simple: most men, nearly all of them, are desperately offended at the thought some species could turn out higher, better, more capable of love, more intimate with power, than they are.
Whereas millions of women desperately yearn for something better than regular old man. Women are not as insidiously jealous as men are - they are jealous very overtly. Men think they can hide it and go through insane lengths for it. But they never can hide it other than to their idiot buddie-boys.





* I mean can you imagine reading Zarathustra in English... oh um oops.
But Zarathustra is conceptual poetry, alchemy. It is not in the impact of the spoken word, as Shakespeare is - it isn't as "superficially" musical. Though it really kind of sucks to read it in English, the bigger concepts largely come across.
What does not in the least come across is the humour. Or does it? I find especially book 1 impossible to read without laughing very often at quite small things.





* Women do of course hide their envy from men where they can and from women where they can try, but not from themselves. Well not nearly as much as men do at least - this is the advantage of being the weaker sex. You start out with less presumptions, less illusions.
Add to that the capacity of childbirth and see that women more than man are made to understand creation beyond themselves.


Hmmmmmmmm. I wonder if Blalvatski and Alice Bailey are not to be seen as serious examples for such an understanding. It would be pretty good if such a rough one as B. would be interpretable as such - much of their philosophy is surely of the advent of a Higher Man.

hyu-men.jpg (67.68 KiB) Viewed 2927 times

[Fixed Cross]

Ok Perpetualburn,

Say, work with me here, there is a hard conservative and experimentally Nietzschean caste of women who are tasked with rearing or finding means to the rearing of as well as educating and preparing eduction of the Superman.

What would the Curriculum look like?

(Because someone has to tell these women what to do. They might raise a Superman but they cant fathom whats going on in the bastards heart.)




If I had to right now spot the setting it would be eastern Canada, and the Superman would be raised on semi Eskimo Frenchwomen and Hockey. I don't find it probable that whatever the Superman would be, he could be beaten at ice hockey. All jest aside there is a core of truth to this, and a need for seemingly trivial elelements to seep into he equation of the childhood of the man-beyond men.
It is a spartan sport and has actual grace. Canada has the Hudson Bay which would make for a Superhumanly harbour. There are grizzlies around and stuff like that. The opposite of city dwellings is required. Not many western nations offer that so much as Canada. Politics is suitable nowhere for this project, so we have to completely ignore politics. Also - where can you ignore politics? The same place.

In what way is the Earth suitable - where has man not ruined here?

[perpetualburn]

Great post. I disagree with Nietzsche on Shakespeare and honestly think it is because things need to be read in their native language, poetry especially.
Shakespeare not in English is like tennis on a sloping soggy hill. It has nothing to do with Shakespeare's power. It is all in the sound. At least so I discovered when I set about reading Hamlet aloud and suddenly realized it wasn't a somewhat boring drudging piece but ecstatically awesome, word for word.

Whatever N has said on the English is facile. I attribute this to his admiration for and service of Bismarck, who loathed nothing more than Englishmen. And, because N was wise, he consequently said very little about the English indeed.

Have you tried reading Shakespeare in German? I imagine the English translation of Nietzsche is relatively better than the German translation of Shakespeare (Other than some poems most of Nietzsche is prose)

I mean, imagine trying to translate "A Lover's Complaint' (the companion poem to The Sonnets) to German (http://shakespeare.mit.edu/Poetry/LoversComplaint.html)... It's barely comprehensible in English... I didn't even appreciate Shakespeare until I was in my late 20's... Along with some of the sonnets, probably the most esoteric writing in English.

It's just strange that Nietzsche would skip over The Sonnets... Superman=lightest thing on earth, a shadow, has not yet arrived... Shakespeare's fair youth: a "slight muse"(i.e. insubstantial, barely there yet so profound in importance like the Superman), a brightly shining shadow, has not yet truly arrived (Sonnet 55)... Like Nietzsche's experience of the Superman, it seems Shakespeare has only experienced the fair youth as a dream or vision...but he's REAL, something that will come.

On the subject of men and women -
I do not agree at all that men are greater or better than women. Men just fuck up way too much to give them that credit. If men were so great, the world would not have so much leftism, to begin with. The state of the world proves that men are shit, as a rule, and that the Superman is direly needed.
I trust that women will do most of the work in rearing the Superman. The logic behind that trust is simple: most men, nearly all of them, are desperately offended at the thought some species could turn out higher, better, more capable of love, more intimate with power, than they are.
Whereas millions of women desperately yearn for something better than regular old man. Women are not as insidiously jealous as men are - they are jealous very overtly. Men think they can hide it and go through insane lengths for it. But they never can hide it other than to their idiot buddie-boys.

I didn't say that men in general are better than women in general, but that the rarest of men is something more special than the rarest of women. http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/sonnet/53 "But you like none, none you, for constant heart."

"SHAKESPEARE

(April 23, 1664-1889)
Nay, Master, dare we speak? O mighty shade,
Sitting enthroned where awful splendors are,
Beyond the light of sun, or moon, or star,
How shall we breathe thy high name undismayed?
Poet, in royal majesty arrayed,
Walking with mute gods through the realms afar—
Seer, whose wide vision time nor death can bar,
We would but kiss thy feet, abashed, afraid!
But yet we love thee, and great love is bold.
Love, O our master, with his heart of flame
And eye of fire, dares even to look on thee,
For whom the ages lift their gates of gold;
And his glad tongue shall syllable thy name
Till time is lost in God’s unsounded sea!"

-Julie C.R. Dorr a really great poet in her own right showing her deference

* I mean can you imagine reading Zarathustra in English... oh um oops.
But Zarathustra is conceptual poetry, alchemy. It is not in the impact of the spoken word, as Shakespeare is - it isn't as "superficially" musical. Though it really kind of sucks to read it in English, the bigger concepts largely come across.
What does not in the least come across is the humour. Or does it? I find especially book 1 impossible to read without laughing very often at quite small things.

lol, well I took German for 2 weeks (or was it 2 days) in college... But quickly realized there was no way I was ever going to become fluent unless someone kidnapped me, threw me in a dungeon and tortured me relentlessly in until I finally became fluent.... even then I would still probably be too obstinate... there are words in German that are the size of entire sentences... who needs that.

Do you prefer TSZ in Dutch over English?

* Women do of course hide their envy from men where they can and from women where they can try, but not from themselves. Well not nearly as much as men do at least - this is the advantage of being the weaker sex. You start out with less presumptions, less illusions.
Add to that the capacity of childbirth and see that women more than man are made to understand creation beyond themselves.


Hmmmmmmmm. I wonder if Blalvatski and Alice Bailey are not to be seen as serious examples for such an understanding. It would be pretty good if such a rough one as B. would be interpretable as such - much of their philosophy is surely of the advent of a Higher Man.

Yes women are more naturally disposed to appreciate creating "beyond themselves."... But it's the sacrifice of higher men that will lead to the arrival of the Superman. But of course these men need good mothers too.

Ok Perpetualburn,

Say, work with me here, there is a hard conservative and experimentally Nietzschean caste of women who are tasked with rearing or finding means to the rearing of as well as educating and preparing eduction of the Superman.

What would the Curriculum look like?

(Because someone has to tell these women what to do. They might raise a Superman but they cant fathom whats going on in the bastards heart.)




If I had to right now spot the setting it would be eastern Canada, and the Superman would be raised on semi Eskimo Frenchwomen and Hockey. I don't find it probable that whatever the Superman would be, he could be beaten at ice hockey. All jest aside there is a core of truth to this, and a need for seemingly trivial elelements to seep into he equation of the childhood of the man-beyond men.
It is a spartan sport and has actual grace. Canada has the Hudson Bay which would make for a Superhumanly harbour. There are grizzlies around and stuff like that. The opposite of city dwellings is required. Not many western nations offer that so much as Canada. Politics is suitable nowhere for this project, so we have to completely ignore politics. Also - where can you ignore politics? The same place.

In what way is the Earth suitable - where has man not ruined here?

Well, we don't even know if the Superman is even born in some traditional sense... we only know per TSZ that he arrives...

I do think there needs to be some normality in education (sports hanging out with friends etc )... Not just some kid being treated like a science experiment in an effort to raise him into a god or something... The most divine is also the most normal, "simple" (the subdued sophistication and simplicity of the Greek gods vs the Ornate Asian gods) ... my most religious experiences have always been at this cross section of divine and normal. I once almost slipped into sleep as I was laying in my bed concentrating dutifully on someone I love, but before actually falling into sleep, the beginning of a cross of wet gold flashed in my mind's eye with incredible realness... You know that feeling when you catch yourself before actually falling asleep as if you're falling off the bed and you get an adrenaline rush...it was like that expect i was jostled back awake by this vision that was literally seared into my memory.... My one and only vision of a cross...which i immediately associated with Eros without any mental deliberation...not Christ ironically...

I dunno, Cananda gets cold as fuck in the winter... I don't even like the winters in Massachusetts...anything below 10 degrees fahrenheit can GTFO ...(you have much more mild, civilized winters in the Netherlands... I dunno why you chose Cananda to set up camp if you're financially location independent but i digress) ... For nature and space it's great I suppose... but eventually he (the Superman) will have to venture out of the Icy North like the Vikings and hopefully reconquer some more choice locations like Los Angeles or Cape Town

[Fixed Cross]

Great post. I disagree with Nietzsche on Shakespeare and honestly think it is because things need to be read in their native language, poetry especially.
Shakespeare not in English is like tennis on a sloping soggy hill. It has nothing to do with Shakespeare's power. It is all in the sound. At least so I discovered when I set about reading Hamlet aloud and suddenly realized it wasn't a somewhat boring drudging piece but ecstatically awesome, word for word.

Whatever N has said on the English is facile. I attribute this to his admiration for and service of Bismarck, who loathed nothing more than Englishmen. And, because N was wise, he consequently said very little about the English indeed.

Have you tried reading Shakespeare in German?

I just tried. Im thinking these translations might be the underlying causes of the great wars.
Terrible.

I imagine the English translation of Nietzsche is relatively better than the German translation of Shakespeare (Other than some poems most of Nietzsche is prose)

But thats treacherous. It seems good, but it lacks a layer, in the case of Zarathustra, of subtle commentary if you know what I mean which runs through the usages of specific vernacular, sounds, essentially.
"Schleicht dich", a basic Viennese reproach, rebuke, mild curse, translates as "sneak yourself away", but that only goes so far in carrying the psychic imprint of the word.
Zarathustra is written very much to the ear rather than to the abstract mind. But the concepts are very real so it translates as a powerful book - but it seems abstract where it really isn't.

I mean, imagine trying to translate "A Lover's Complaint' (the companion poem to The Sonnets) to German (http://shakespeare.mit.edu/Poetry/LoversComplaint.html)... It's barely comprehensible in English... I didn't even appreciate Shakespeare until I was in my late 20's... Along with some of the sonnets, probably the most esoteric writing in English.

Phew, yeah. No, that would be tough to convey, but tougher really, than Rome & Juliet?
Romeo oh Romeo, warum doch bist du Romeo
haha, no that works. Perfectly in fact.
even better maybe lol, it becomes a sincere philosophical question.
audience is found scratching their heads and stroking goatees.
Hm.
Warum doch indeed.

It's just strange that Nietzsche would skip over The Sonnets... Superman=lightest thing on earth, a shadow, has not yet arrived... Shakespeare's fair youth: a "slight muse"(i.e. insubstantial, barely there yet so profound in importance like the Superman), a brightly shining shadow, has not yet truly arrived (Sonnet 55)... Like Nietzsche's experience of the Superman, it seems Shakespeare has only experienced the fair youth as a dream or vision...but he's REAL, something that will come.

I will read into the Sonnets with this mind. That could be interesting. In the vein of taking the most potent stuff humans have brought forth as fit for the cauldron that speweth forth the Superman.
Also an example of the hard to translate German term Ueber, and frankly, the issue of Mensch - it it certainly not Man, but Human. Man is Mann.
Uebermann. That's not what he says. It is very specifically bigendral. Superhuman. Beyondhuman. Overhuman. But all of that is just terrible, because he only speaks of a qualitative transcendence, not some archetypical, categorical thing.
It is normative. Better-human. So Superman is sort of the best, given it is honest about its subjectivity.
But it doesn't sound right. It doesn't indicate the direction.
The upward-evolved-human, the angelic human, the demigod, the horned fisherman, ...
Maybe I'm full of shit and it doesn't matter in the least, as its a concept. But then again.

On the subject of men and women -

I didn't say that men in general are better than women in general, but that the rarest of men is something more special than the rarest of women. http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/sonnet/53 "But you like none, none you, for constant heart."

"SHAKESPEARE

(April 23, 1664-1889)
Nay, Master, dare we speak? O mighty shade,
Sitting enthroned where awful splendors are,
Beyond the light of sun, or moon, or star,
How shall we breathe thy high name undismayed?
Poet, in royal majesty arrayed,
Walking with mute gods through the realms afar—
Seer, whose wide vision time nor death can bar,
We would but kiss thy feet, abashed, afraid!
But yet we love thee, and great love is bold.
Love, O our master, with his heart of flame
And eye of fire, dares even to look on thee,
For whom the ages lift their gates of gold;
And his glad tongue shall syllable thy name
Till time is lost in God’s unsounded sea!"

-Julie C.R. Dorr a really great poet in her own right showing her deference

The temples of soul that he lit, in so many private dungeons, millions of paths woven from royal red wool by the conjuring light of this lantern, how many adorers, how many gods with fewer adorers and none of such purity,
etc
yeah great man.
However, this poem above, it could be translated in German - it is heavy handed enough, the frivolities are not as visceral and not as phosphoric, their foam, Aphrodisian content is contained within the semantic meaning.

* I mean can you imagine reading Zarathustra in English... oh um oops.
But Zarathustra is conceptual poetry, alchemy. It is not in the impact of the spoken word, as Shakespeare is - it isn't as "superficially" musical. Though it really kind of sucks to read it in English, the bigger concepts largely come across.
What does not in the least come across is the humour. Or does it? I find especially book 1 impossible to read without laughing very often at quite small things.

lol, well I took German for 2 weeks (or was it 2 days) in college... But quickly realized there was no way I was ever going to become fluent unless someone kidnapped me, threw me in a dungeon and tortured me relentlessly in until I finally became fluent.... even then I would still probably be too obstinate... there are words in German that are the size of entire sentences... who needs that.

Do you prefer TSZ in Dutch over English?

Yes, vastly.
Dutch is very close to German in sensibilities. It is significantly milder and less misanthropic in Dutch because there simply isn't such venom in this tongue, but it is colder in a sense more Eurasiatic, stoically pagan. It runs down the same hill, as a cadence.
But mind you, the non poetic Nietzsche isn't wanting in English in any way. His quality is akin to steel, a quality English handles very well.
I would say Beyond Good and Evil is better in English than it is in Dutch. Because it is an essentially modern book.

Yes women are more naturally disposed to appreciate creating "beyond themselves."... But it's the sacrifice of higher men that will lead to the arrival of the Superman. But of course these men need good mothers too.

Exactly.
Thats not a trivial point or side issue.
When N speaks of Discipline and Breeding in section IV of the Will to Power, he doesn't mention women. But this only means we need to do that for him. Breeding without examination of woman is rather ... impossible

Ok Perpetualburn,
What would the Curriculum look like?

Well, we don't even know if the Superman is even born in some traditional sense... we only know per TSZ that he arrives...

Thats terrible lol. You're giving potentially rise to a whole new UFO movement.
But to be fair N makes it pretty well clear that he is talking about a step in evolution, and an earthly thing.
Given also that the she (I did that instinctively) is the meaning of the Earth.

Hm. I may refer to there Uebermensch in the female gender.
Men, are as little worthy of it as women, probably less so at the moment. Gender-wide, I mean. By and large.
Women have to be as involved in the rearing of this dastardly thing as men and in physical terms much more.

I do think there needs to be some normality in education (sports hanging out with friends etc )... Not just some kid being treated like a science experiment in an effort to raise him into a god or something... The most divine is also the most normal, "simple" (the subdued sophistication and simplicity of the Greek gods vs the Ornate Asian gods) ... my most religious experiences have always been at this cross section of divine and normal.

Yes. He could be a goat herding kid in the mountains, though he would have to meet a lot of interesting travellers.
Raised at a mountain-crossroads by necessity and a sublime witch.
But what of the girl he is interested in - she needs to be superhuman as well, and how does that work?
Is she a pagan type, or a delicate princess of longstanding cultural refinement?
Both, of course - but the woman has not much been discussed.

I once almost slipped into sleep as I was laying in my bed concentrating dutifully on someone I love, but before actually falling into sleep, the beginning of a cross of wet gold flashed in my mind's eye with incredible realness... You know that feeling when you catch yourself before actually falling asleep as if you're falling off the bed and you get an adrenaline rush...it was like that expect i was jostled back awake by this vision that was literally seared into my memory.... My one and only vision of a cross...which i immediately associated with Eros without any mental deliberation...not Christ ironically...

Well not ironically, thankfully. That sounds powerful.
Wet gold, as in made wet with water or as in molten?

I dunno, Cananda gets cold as fuck in the winter... I don't even like the winters in Massachusetts...anything below 10 degrees fahrenheit can GTFO ...(you have much more mild, civilized winters in the Netherlands... I dunno why you chose Cananda to set up camp if you're financially location independent but i digress) ... For nature and space it's great I suppose... but eventually he (the Superman) will have to venture out of the Icy North like the Vikings and hopefully reconquer some more choice locations like Los Angeles or Cape Town

I love the crisp cold and the long lasting snow deep but Im settled back in the Netherlands, I wasn't able to get a permanent visa, work permit, etc. But the spaces, are just incomparable. NL is the densest country population wise in the hemisphere, world wide after Bangladesh. Amsterdam is around and under sea level, causing very dank pressures and a unified atmosphere. Impossible to have a separate aura.
Canada is the most unspoiled country perhaps on the planet, and the Quebecers are essentially, medieval French people, really fucking well bred for life, without bullshit and with a great deal of vigour and grace.
French Montreal is the sweetest place Ive ever been in hands down, and I mean the crisp sweetness of a frozen world.

Cape Town sounds right though.
Astro-mythologically, this Uebermensch might indeed be ruled by Poseidon, who in a sense is beyond the Titans, and obeys to no master. The depths of his realm are unmatched, the secrets more fundamental and strange than anywhere, perhaps it could be said that the bottom of the Ocean is the true depth of space, of cosmic existence.

Though of course there are great oceans on many other planets, this one of water, must be quite unique.

[phoneutria]

Yes women are more naturally disposed to appreciate creating "beyond themselves."... But it's the sacrifice of higher men that will lead to the arrival of the Superman. But of course these men need good mothers too.

That is almost right. If fact, it is not a disposition, but a natural mandate. We can't help but create beyond ourselves. The work of women is functional so that the work of men can be aesthetic. Women are minor art, men are fine art.

Romeo oh Romeo, warum doch bist du Romeo
haha, no that works. Perfectly in fact.
even better maybe lol, it becomes a sincere philosophical question.
audience is found scratching their heads and stroking goatees.
Hm.
Warum doch indeed.

A lot of Shakespeare is meant to be, it is my feeling.
How ghostly and eerie the opening lines of Hamlet seem.

I can read neither Shakespeare nor Nietzsche in Portuguese.
Desejo de poder?? fucks sake.

[Fixed Cross]

Yeah but Hamlet is severely mystical.
But talking about this a bit I realize German and English, especially Shakespeares English, aren't that far apart. Compared to indeed, Roman languages. Shakespeare in French seems completely pointless.

Desejo de poder?? fucks sake.

Exactly. Wil naar Macht is fine but still not Wille zur Macht. Will to Power is a very good term though.

Im kind of changing my take on the irreconcilability of English and German. They both have that bombast.

[perpetualburn]

Wet gold, as in made wet with water or as in molten?

More molten but pure gold in appearance, and despite its "liquid fire" appearance it was very fixed in place... stamped/seared/drilled into my memory... I could only hold on to it for a few moments before it degraded...But that's sort of how all experiences of eternity go... you're thrust back into Time after opening a window to eternity... you can only stay there for so long before it degrades... But it doesn't make it any less eternal.

[Fixed Cross]

Indeed. And such accounts are rare enough online even second hand. Convincing accounts, of which this is one.
Can you explain why the association was with Eros?

[Dan~]

As unfair as it may sound to the more radical members of my sex, the societal order that we have, that has existed in essentially the same structure for millennia, has done so for an obvious reason: it works.

Slavery has been around a long time.
That doesn't mean it works or that it is good.

Democrats worship common things.
To them, a commonly accepted thing is true and right.
No matter how evil and spreading it is.

[Fixed Cross]

As unfair as it may sound to the more radical members of my sex, the societal order that we have, that has existed in essentially the same structure for millennia, has done so for an obvious reason: it works.

Slavery has been around a long time.
That doesn't mean it works or that it is good.

It must work to keep around, but work to what end?

What has happened since slavery has been abolished?
It has taken hold in different forms.

I bet there are now more owned, unfree people than have ever lived before. Arguably, anyone with an unpayable debt is a slave. A large portion of college graduates qualifies.
Anyone with serious device-dependencies is arguably a slave as well. The device controls the human. Women are more resilient to this; they have more actual use for their devices, they are more cybernetic in the current sense.

Democrats worship common things.
To them, a commonly accepted thing is true and right.
No matter how evil and spreading it is.

Smartphones have made this form of laziness almost indispensable.
We will see how far it comes.

untab

Ur dur no we will likely not, it will keep going for thousands of years.

But like, we will see what's gonna happen like, soon.
Thats not much of a prophecy.

[phoneutria]

As unfair as it may sound to the more radical members of my sex, the societal order that we have, that has existed in essentially the same structure for millennia, has done so for an obvious reason: it works.

Slavery has been around a long time.
That doesn't mean it works or that it is good.

Savery built every civilization that has ever existed, including this one.
You can thank slavery that for that computer you're on, massah.

I didn't say anything about what's good. I did say something about what works.

Democrats worship common things.
To them, a commonly accepted thing is true and right.
No matter how evil and spreading it is.

Liberalism is the cult of expiating for things you've never done, while still retaining the perks of the work you didn't do, under the illusion of a clear conscience.

[promethean75]

^^^ that last bit is totally quotable. Like hannah arendt would totally read that three times and think deeply about it if it were in a book she were reading as she drank her coffee and chain smoked at the corner cafe.

[Fixed Cross]

Without the sarcasm, that actually is very eloquently said.

"Liberalism is the cult of expiating for things you've never done, while still retaining the perks of the work you didn't do."

Id leave out the clear conscience, as liberals are typically writhing in visible guilt and shame which they can only manage to hide from themselves with a heavy drug regiment.

[Dan~]

I bet there are now more owned, unfree people than have ever lived before. Arguably, anyone with an unpayable debt is a slave. A large portion of college graduates qualifies.

That is SO capitalism.

[Fixed Cross]

No, its an older problem.

Are you ok btw Dan? You sound pretty aggressive. Not used to that from you.
Not that I have a problem with it. Just wondering what changed.

[Dan~]

No, its an older problem.

Are you ok btw Dan? You sound pretty aggressive. Not used to that from you.
Not that I have a problem with it. Just wondering what changed.

I don't know why I would sound or seem aggressive.

That is certainly not what i want to portray.