Nietzschean definition of nihilism.

Let me make it clear that I have no interest whatsoever in ontology. I have no interest in sciences either. What I care about is values.

WTP can be understood as an ontological principle, but what is of interest to me is what values such an ontological principle implies. I really only care about WTP in terms of values that it promotes.

Similarly, I only care about nihilism because Sauwelios is using the concept of nihilism to separate values in two distinct groups: those that are nihilistic and those that are not.

It’s all about politics: a group of people want to impose their own values onto everyone else. What I am doing here is trying to defend my own values and to show how different and degenerate their values are.

When I ask you to define WTP and nihilism, I am really only asking you to define your own values. I can guess what your values are, but I want you to make it explicit, I want you to make it clear so that no mistake can be made.

Are you a friend or a foe, Sauwelios?

Let’s take a look at some common ways my enemies “think”:

  1. morality is a means to survival (when morality really is the ideal)
  2. social behavior is a weakness, merely a means to survival, and the more one relies on social behavior the weaker one is (when social behavior is the ideal, not merely a means and not merely an accident)
  3. slavery is good (when slavery is actually bad)
  4. life is an endless growth, or an endless fullfillment of one’s desires (when life is actually a means to retaliate)
  5. there is no such a thing as will (when there is such a thing as will)
  6. instinct is more important than will (when will is more important than instinct)
  7. higher sexual diphormism is better (when lower sexual dimorphism is better)
  8. men strive to differentiate themselves (when men actually resist differentiation)
  9. slavish/conservative treatment of women is superior (when it is romantic/idealistic treatment of women that is superior)
  10. equal/liberal treatment of women is superior (when it is romantic/idealistic treatment of women that is superior)
  11. being gentle is for pussies (when being gentle is for gentle-men)
  12. being aggressive is always bad (when being aggressive is an adequate retaliatory measure against both overt and covert aggression)
  13. it is important to confront at all times (which is wrong because such a decision must be based on the rank of priorities, otherwise unnecessary disputes and division between people ensue)
  14. complicated thoughts are better than simple thoughts because they are your own, simple thoughts are bad because they are dumbed-down (wrong, it betrays an asocial and confused mind)
    . . . and so on and so forth

I am not here to bash Sauwelios and Jakob. I am here to make a distinction between me and them. That’s all. If I come across as aggressive, that is probably because I don’t like their values. Not that I endorse every aggressive act of mine. Sometimes my aggression is a mistake, an act of instinct and not of will. I do not deceive myself about it. But I also do not want others to believe that I am out to bully people.

The last thing I want to do in the world is to spend my time cyber-bullying (and real-life-bullying) my enemies. Unless that is a part of some reasonable and moral master plan, that is, but usually that’s not the case.

I strive to treat people based on how they treat me. I define my interaction in relation to the other. I adapt it and I use symmetry as a guide. I do not use canned responses, unless canned responses are fit for the situation, which is rarely the case. I adapt. Just because a man is my enemy does not mean I should eliminate him. I treat him as he demands to be treated.

Not that I always stay true to this moral principle, but there is a considerable difference between me, who is striving to stay true to it, and others who do not strive at all.

Here on this thread I want to contrast my own values against those of Sauwelios. This thread is not explicitly about values, but that is one more reason to talk about them. Precisely because this thread is about values without being explictly stated that it is so, precisely because of that it is my duty to expose his values and constrast them against mine.

A fair warning for Magnus,

Be careful when dealing with fools, especially of the priestly religious nature. Neither of these two can nor will offer you a challenge, nor acquiesce to your demand for simplification. Their utility and practice is dedicated to complex obfuscation. They want to cover and hide reality, not uncover nor discover it. They exist in a realm of imagination and ideals, never connected nor reconnecting with reality. Reality is not their concern nor goal. They careless about it. In fact, to them, and other subjectivists, reality is something to be avoided altogether. Something to stay away from and snidely dismiss.

Because reality exposes their types of minds, as being something lower. For all the great ideals and “heights” they will pretend, and offer to their slavish followers, they won’t live up to their promises. They have already broken from, and repeatedly choose to break from, reality.

This is why hedonism and decadence lead to nihilism, self hatred.

It leads to false ideals, bad faith in philosophy, endless dishonesty and lies. Why??? Because when you live in an imaginary Matrix work, with impossible ideals, and expect any degree of realism, then these types will always be let down with failure again and again and again. Reality will never meet their ideals. Because they have created weak premises from the start.

Like building a castle on the sand. You need a strong foundation, before dreaming up some ideology, some type of “ontology”. They lack this. Their foundations are weak, stupid, infantile, cracked, misguided.

They’re architects, without first being engineers. It can be pointless to learn physics, without learning metaphysics. Or beliefs, without reason.

Roquentin- nihilist
Kundera, - not a nihilist in my opinion

Roquentin has been literally reduced, versus Kunderra making lightness of being literally a counter-position. This counter position, may dampen the ontologically reduced effects of a prior preception, otherwise.

Sauwelios

Fair enough, is it me seeing that in the notion of will to power[and VO] then? What does ‘power’ mean if not strength and dominance. Now if we add value ontology, the will to power reflects the force of ones being, as if ‘you’ are a continuation. The will > grows [past to present [without becoming disparate] as satyr would put it] > becomes itself, like a tree from a seed. This strongly implies [or denotes] that the instincts ~ being the thingness of the will, are fundamental to that process.

If you mean that will-to-power is actually rising above the animal/machine and asserting yourself, becoming self-empowered and not instinct driven, then I have misunderstood you in making that assumption ^^.

Interesting. Do you see this as like buddhist rebirth i.e. that one candle goes out and another is lit, and there is nothing between our existences? that there is only this world and you are an existentially recurrent entity? ~ so there is no spirit, your form or spiritual form if I may, is your whole existence, and that isn’t something else [e.g. spirit or soul].

Would there not necessarily be a transcendental factor, this because there are no causal existent links between one incarnation and the next?

_

The choice of ideal is independent from the real.

To illustrate this point, consider the scenario of an obese man. No matter how obese he is, the ideal will never become what he is, or at least, what he is capable of; the ideal will never become obesity.

The difficulty, even the impossibility, of the attainment of the ideal is no argument against it.

Negative states that accompany it – states such as anger, frustration and disappointment – are no argument against the value of the ideal either. To think so would be a sign of hedonism.

It is not the end – the ideal – that should adapt to reality, but its means.

It is Jewish sentiment to think that the ideal should be grounded in the real. It is a sign of fear of failure, and not only of failure, but also of death. It is the Jew who must be realistic at all times, for only realism can guarantee survival at all costs (to be “the chosen one” by natural selection at all times.)

It is an attitude that is promoted by slavemasters. It’s the stick of the “carrot and stick” method. The slave is discouraged from rebelling by reminding him that his rebellion will lead to punishment and eventually to death.

The choice of ideal should be rooted in one’s will. Not in external will, not in instinct, for instinct is external as well, but in one’s will. And the choice of one’s ideal is always far above the real.

You choose what you will and you strive to achieve it no matter what. Unless you lack the spine to do so. In that case, you will be motivated to give up and simply sit back and laugh at those who do not do so, hoping that your “predictions” of their demise will be realized, while, of course, secretly fearing that you’re just a cowardly cynic.

The ideal is far more important than the real. It is what gives meaning to life. Without a powerful ideal, there is literally no reason to live.

Unless you’re a Jew, of course, or a Gentile, Gentile understood as a non-Jewish Jew.

Realism is only a means, never an end in itself. Only Jews and Gentiles think otherwise.

One has to make a clear distinction between being idealistic and being unrealistic.

To be idealistic means to have ideals.

I am idealistic, but I am also realistic, in the sense that my expectations of reality are realistic.

To be unrealistic means to confuse the ideal for the real, or to deny the real by fleeing into the realm of fictional.

It has to be stressed over and over again that realism pertains to one’s expectations of the future, not to one’s ideals. Ideals are beyond realism. Expectations, on the other hand, are not.

It is not one’s ideals that should be realistic (it makes no sense to speak of “realistic ideals”) but one’s expectations.

Expecting too much, for example, leads to disappointment and is a good example of being unrealistic. One resolves such a problem by adapting – lowering – one’s expectations, not by giving up on one’s ideals. Ideals are supposed to remain firm.

This requires strong will, for disappointment is a strong reaction that must be kept under control in order to be able to successfully adapt one’s expectations to reality. More often than not, people end up succumbing to their instincts. Rejecting all ideals or replacing one’s ideal with a simpler one are two common examples. Another common example is idealistic expectations, where the individual expects more than can be expected in reality.

To confuse the two – one’s choice of ideal with one’s expectations – is to be a Jew. Or a Gentile.

You need a dream before you can start building a strong foundation for your castle.

The infeasibility of a project is no argument against it. I do not choose my projects based on what is likely to succeed. I choose based on what is worthy of building.

You are a Gentile.

If your ideal is too far removed from reality, resulting in failure after failure after failure, and refuse to ever succumb to reality, then that is nihilistic and self-defeating. Nihilism is the inability to reconnect ideals and reality. Reality results in lots of failures. Some, simpler and easier ideals can be accomplished, others cannot. Most obese people idealize being skinny and healthy. But their constant failure and inability to fast and diet, leads to their self-hatred, resentiment, and nihilism. They are self-destructive and weak-willed. Their ideal, of being healthy, never becomes a reality. Because health, and beauty, both require extremely great willpower. That’s what common people don’t understand, or, they substitute willpower for religious nihilism, of word-play, of semantics, of value-ontology, of make-belief child fairy dream worlds. They detach from reality.

You are repeating yourself.

The concept of “realistic ideal” or “ideal that is attached/reconnected to reality” is non-sensical because the ideal is always above the real.

By insisting that the ideal should be shaped according to reality, so that perpetual failure is avoided, you are telling us that fear of failure is guiding your actions.

It is a quintessential Jewish attitude.

The individual who can no longer strive after his ideals is defeated. It’s game over for him. There are no longer any solutions. He’s a dead man. But the one who keeps trying to strive after them, despite failing over and over again, is infinitely more superior to the one who gives up on his ideals by “recconecting them to the real” in order to have any chance of success. The former remains true to himself, to his ideals, the latter is a traitor.

Moral man in captivity struggles and dies. He does not “reconnect to the real”. It is the immoral man – the slave – who does so, by bergaining with the slavemaster.

That you would call heroic attitude “self-defeating” goes on to prove my point that you are a Gentile.

The irony of you considering yourself to be free when you’re just a Goyim who is controlled by the Jews. You are a puppet promoting what Jews want you to promote and that is the idea that heroism is a bad, self-defeating, nihilistic attitude.

You are doing nothing but repeating what Satyr is saying. The idea that the ideal should be “connected to reality” is his own (which he borrowed from Nietzsche.) But Satyr, like you, is a Gentile, which is revealed in many of his writings.

His disparaging view of morality, for example, as well as his stubborn insistence that social behavior is a weakness are clear signs that he’s a Gentile. You need not go further than this.

The fact that he gamed a woman to give birth to his son so that he can raise him in his 40’s and that without a mother and the fact that he feels no shame about it and that he’s happy to share his Jewish achievements with the world, all of these are signs of what a Gentile Satyr is.

Need I go on?

The slavemaster keeps his slaves from rebelling against him by redirecting their attempts at rebellion. He does so by promoting unnecessary conflicts between his slaves thus effectively replacing their real enemy (himself) with the fake enemy (some other slave or a group of slaves.) I think this strategy is called “divide and conquer”.

This is why we have gender wars, race wars, nation wars, religion wars, class wars, masculinity wars, femininity wars, taste wars and many other trivial conflicts that are exaggerated in order to distract from what’s really going on.

A trivial mistake is presented as a major mistake in order to redirect the attention from the real mistake.

Gentiles, though aware of it, never really leave the loop. By the means of reverse-bluff, Gentiles are herded in a way that makes them think that they have finally left the loop.

The idea that one leaves the loop by “connecting the ideal to the real” is one such herding tactic. This is based on the idea that there is no such a thing as will (see Will to Power note number 46, Nietzsche is disturbingly Jewish in his appearance.) Precisely that which leads out of the loop (there is no other way out) is said to be what makes one stay within the loop. Is there greater deception than that? The reality is that it is always the instinct, and nothing but the instinct, that makes one stay within the loop. Not will, but instinct. And what is often designated as will is rarely will, but most commonly an overcoming of instinct that is motivated by fear (e.g. perfectionism is overcoming that is motivated by fear, not by one’s will.)

The idea that “morality is a weakness” or that “morality is a product of fear” is another herding tactic, also devised by Nietzsche. Morality not as an ideal, as something beautiful in itself, but as a means to survival, as something invented and adopted by uncontrolled fear. Moral people are to be considered enemies because by striving to surround themselves with moral people – those who are like them – they turn amoral people into moral people and that is bad because morality is a suppression of instinct. People MUST be amoral from time and time, never EVER demand from them to be consistent!

It’s all based on the idea that will is evil and instinct is good. Masterful deception, no doubt.

Another idea that is often sold, and that is related to morality, is that “social behavior is a weakness”. Gentiles such as Satyr are sucking hard on this one. The underlying idea is that people are fundamentally competitive, striving to prove that they are the best, and so, any social behavior should be considered only a means and never an end. Whoever accepts this sentiment proves himself to be the best, the most obedient, Goy, because by idealizing competition they make the slavemaster’s task of “dividing and conquering” much easier.

You too are sucking on this degenerate idea.

Yes you do need to go on. You’re not listening, and unnecessarily injecting other ideals, of Gentiles (Christians) and Jews into the discussion. What’s the point? Your head is filled with nonsense. Gentiles and Jews are a side issue, and cannot be summed up within the discrepancy of ideals versus reality.

You misunderstand the basic point. You have an ideal: to run to the bathroom before you shit your panties. Because if your dream, your goal, your ideal is not realized, then you’ll shit inside your panties and ruin your nice flowery skirt. You’ll be embarrassed, and probably socially shamed if anybody sees your accident. A side-point, if you shit in public, then people will see you as weak-willed. You lack the willpower to even shit on a toilet, instead of defecating inside your pants. So this is a practical, pragmatic, and realistic interpretation of an ideal, willpower, and reality in action. Will you make it to the bathroom in time, or not? Will you shit in your little girl panties, or not? Or will your ideal, your goal of arriving at the toilet, become reality?

Nietzsche is the philosopher who capitalized on the “Becoming” aspect. Sometimes ideals become reality. Sometimes your simple goal, of shitting on a toilet, becomes reality.

Now if your goal, your ideal, is to fly an airplane, or jump off a cliff, or “become Uberhuman” then these all require a lot of clarification. Some goals (ideals) are more difficult to achieve, to become reality, than others.

Will you shit in your girl panties or not, Magnus??? How realistic are your ideals? This has nothing to do with Jew-Christianity, clear your mind of that for now. Jew-Christians comes much later, after you’ve relieved yourself first.

Larger reality, and larger ideals, come later in life. For infants, your primary concern will be potty-training.

What a Gentile. You’re not even Boromir (which is what Satyr is.) You’re just a regular clueless Gentile.

You do not even know what ideal is. You equalize ideals with goals (which are means to realizing ideals.) No further discussion between the two of us can take place until you understand this distinction.

Like a typical Gentile, you are stuck in the domain of “practical, pragmatic and realistic”.

While noble life does build linearly, starting with smaller goals and then building upwards toward bigger goals, it also starts with the ideal. It starts with the end which is then broken down into pieces to be linearized.

You are a Gentile through and through. Keep revealing yourself.

The ideal is what inspires and motivates people into action. It is what intoxicates and energizes people to do things they otherwise wouldn’t be able to do. It is not the same concept as that of goal because it has no definite position in time. It’s simply something that is to be brought on by the actions of the individuals forming a collective that is united by that ideal.

You are a materialist, didn’t I already say that? You are stuck in the practical.

It’s all about choosing a realistic goal for you because you have no ideal to direct your selection of goals. No ideal to motivate you to choose goals that would otherwise be perceived as “unreasonable”. I repeat, that’s quintessentially Jewish attitude: choosing your goals based solely on their feasibility. It’s about being “the chosen one” by natural selection every single time.

You haven’t understood anything of what I wrote, and like a typical Gentile, you are being rude, simply because you have no clue what I am talking about.

Boy, your head is filled with garbage. Clean yourself before you disgrace my presence again. And learn how to address your superiors as well, while you’re at it.

Let me introduce you to “my” terms (scare quotes because they aren’t really my terms, but I approve of them, which is why I’m using them.)

When I say Jew I mean stereotypical Jew, not every Jew, because not every Jew is bad. Let’s make that clear.

When I say Jew I mean Jewish tribalist. Tribalism is egoism on the level of tribe. Egoism means being concerned only about your own (subjective) interests. The opposite is universalism, which means being concerned about universal (objective) interests.

Jakob admits to being a tribalist and his insistence that “there is no whole” should be taken to mean that he is against universalism. Clearly, he’s a Jew.

When I say Gentile I mean Jews who are not Jews, or rather, non-Jewish tribalists.

There are two types of Gentiles: pro-Jewish Zionist Correctness Gentiles (ZC Gentiles) and anti-Jewish “Jew-wise” Boromir Syndrome Gentiles (BS Gentiles.)

Boromir is a character from Lord of the Rings who tried to take the Ring from Frodo in order to use it against the enemies so that he can defend his tribe.

He says:

Boromir Syndrome infectees are people who adopt the values of their enemies in order to fight them, thus becoming like them.

An example is a moral man who becomes immoral in order to fight immoral people. Or a non-racist who becomes racist in order to fight racists (see Arbiter of Change.)

Boromirs of the world use Jewish (= tribalist) means to fight Jewish (= tribal) power.

Satyr is a good example of BS Gentile.

Do not be fooled by what he says, because whatever he says, his actions betray him, making it clear that he is infected with Boromir Syndrome. The only way out for him would be to admit that he is making mistakes, something I predict he will never do.

He simply has no ideals. The fact that his forum (it is his forum, no matter what he says) is designed not in a way to inspire people, but to encourage conflicts, is proof enough. Lyssa once accused me of being a “Nazi” simply because I pointed out the obvious aesthetic deficiency of their forums. The fact that she uses the word “Nazi” and that she does so in a negative context is a tell enough.

He uses his free time to bully people, not to interact with them. What else do you need to conclude that he’s Boromire Syndrome infectee? If there was a goal he was trying to reach by this sort of action, you could at least understand it, but no, it’s just what he does in his spare time.

His interaction with people is asymmetric. His relationship with them is that of scientist experimenting with his test subjects. He’s a trickster. It is the reason he encouraged Lyssa to deceive Erik. No sane person would ever recommend and indulge in something like that.

Most people see through this and rightfully consider him to be a degenerate. Of course, him being obsessed with other people’s flaws, he can never really see his own. And the process goes on.

What’s interesting are the people who surround him. Do they ever feel disgusted at his actions? Because I know I did, though I denied it, until I could no longer take it. He’s too ugly for me to tolerate him.

These people, are they so numb that they would tolerate the sight of him literally murdering someone for no reason whatsoever?

If he is so noble, one would expect that his forum is noble just as well, and instead of letting undesirable people post on his forums so that he can “play” with them as if they were mice, he would simply ban them. But banning people they consider too strict. Banning people in order to maintain the aesthetic quality of their discussions, discussions that are supposed to inspire people, this is considered to be too strict. This is how degenerate they are. They can no longer ban anyone! Simply because they associate banning with emotionality (which betrays their desire to ban people on emotional grounds, but resisting to do so in order to appear tolerant.)

All of this will be laughed off as trivial matter, whereas shitposting on their forums by cyber-bullying people who do not post on their forums is, of course, considered a serious matter.

Petty conflicts with no purpose whatsoever are a serious matter.

He is a creep and he is so ugly he cannot even choose an avatar that does not scream LOOK HOW UGLY I AM in your face.

He never really did any harm to me personally. This is impersonal. I never had an argument with him and I never read him criticizing me. In fact, he promoted me in forum rank immediately upon joining his forums, suggesting some sort of affiliation. Very strange considering the amount of disgust I felt.

My objections are purely objective. What he does, how he acts, what he says.

The same mistake I made with icycalm – another BS Gentile, except he is even bigger BS Gentile than Satyr is – the same mistake got repeated again, and that mistake is failing to voice my disgust immediately.

So I had to leave and never return.

The meme I linked above refers to Satyr’s famous story of his ex-girlfriend aborting his baby and his subsequent disillusionment. We all know how much that disturbed him. He was such an idealist until that very moment! That someone would DARE to abort his seed without first consulting him about his opinion, how MEAN people can be!

We can postulate that this event is the moment when uncorrupted Satyr became infected with Boromir Syndrome. His disillusionment was just too much to bear.

So he turned malignant. Instead of seeking a romantic relationship, or no relationship at all considering the situation he was in, he sought out to game his “girlfriend” in order to make sure that this time no babies are aborted.

He wanted to leave something behind and he wanted to do so at all costs. His justification is that he “loves himself”, unlike Jews who supposedly do not “love themselves”.

He, and also Apaosha if I remember correctly, think that indiscriminate reproduction, or reproduction for the sake of reproduction, of those who “love themselves” is something good and something that one must do lest one become “extinct”.

Jewish fears.

It does not strike him as egoistic, and thus quintessentially Jewish, to game a woman in order to reproduce. How self-conceited one has to be to do something like that! How deceived of one’s own superiority one has to be to do something like that!

That he would criticize Jakob on the grounds that he is child-less is also telling. He wants Jakob – a Jew – to reproduce. Very funny. Instead of praising him for not reproducing, he makes fun of him.

There is nothing to be done here. Boromirs will be Boromirs. The only thing I can do is to expose them for what they are and hope to protect others from being corrupted by them.

That is indeed what I will say. But I will add to that that the term “will to power” is intended to invoke that sense. Its “immorality” is precisely in extending the meaning of “power” to include everything commonly considered moral. Thus Laurence Lampert writes:

[size=95]“Nietzsche’s philosophy achieves insight into the fundamental fact of will to power, and that very insight, seemingly so world-denying, flowers into a new religion whose ideal is the opposite of the world-denying ideal that has prevailed in our culture till now.” (Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, pp. 52-53.)[/size]

One need only think of the Christian connotations of the word “worldly” to see how our culture has been world-denying. The doctrine of the will to power will seem to be extremely world-denying to those who conceive the ideal world as the diametrical opposite of the will to power–as slave- or herd-moralists everywhere have done. For it will seem to them to teach that the whole world is utterly evil.

That’s funny, because just before you posted this I wrote to Jakob:

[size=95]“[P]erhaps you should check that discussion sometime to which I linked in that thread (but for which, as Magnus discovered, you have to be a member of that Yahoo group). Therein I describe the Nietzschean position as follows: ‘the priest at the head of the warrior - for the sake of man’s future!’ Perhaps, if the Jews were to take that position, the Netherlands should not be the capital of Europe [as I had previously mused], but Israel of the whole West, if not of the whole world.”[/size]

But before you interpret this as Zionist: I don’t think it’s part of Zionism for Israel to take responsibility for the whole human race.

I disagree, on both counts. But note that my concept of “power” is much broader than yours. This accounts for both these disagreements.

I will keep insisting, but only on the former. There are relatively ignoble wills to power and relatively ignoble forms of power, but all wills and forms of power are absolutely noble.

How is “striving for power” simpler than “will to power”? Indeed, “will to power” is already a great simplification, and this is at least one thing Parodites and Capable seem to hold against it (and yet, their will to analyse reality more deeply is itself a will to power!).

So the necessities of my life are my enemies?

No, that’s zombie talk. A zombie is a living dead. Order is dead, or at least not necessarily alive; power, on the other hand, is necessarily alive.

[size=95]“Oh, I got a live one here!” (The Joker, Batman (1989 film).)[/size]

That’s sincerely good to hear. You’re still a zombie, though.