Nietzschean definition of nihilism.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
81

In other words, “in your head” you have managed to concoct a way to think about these things. This way. But, in my view, you have no real capacity to demonstrate that how you think about them is how all rational men and women must in turn think about them.

And that is my point of course: What counts is not what you believe or claim to know is true, but what is “in fact” actually in sync with the way the objective world really is.

Mary did in fact have an abortion. But is in fact Mary’s abortion moral or immoral? That distinction is the one I always come back to.

To wit:

You can “will” it to be that Mary did not have an abortion. But if in fact she did what does this “will” amount to? And how is it different with respect to “willing” that the abortion be thought of, described or reacted to as either moral or immoral?

Oh, they clash alright. But isn’t that precisely where I interject and begin to speculate about the limits of philosophy [logic and rational thought] in making distinctions between “right” and “wrong”, “good” and “bad”, “ideal” and “problematic”?

Yes, but for very different reasons. 2 starts with the premise that might is predicated on what is in fact [deontologically] the right thing to do. In a secular context, Reason becomes the new God. Laws may be enforced by the powers that be but only because they are in sync with the moral obligation of all rational men and women.

In a democracy, however, opposing sides may claim that their own narrative is the most rational, but the very existence of the democracy itself embodies the premise that, philosophically, there does not appear to be a way in which to know for certain which side is wholly right and wrong.

After all, if it could be argued definitively that abortion is either Right or Wrong, why would citizens vote on it? To me that
would be analogous to religious folks [in an ecclesiastic context] voting on whether the word of God was right or wrong.

3 unfolded historically in sync with the rise of capitalism. The marketplace needed a political superstructure that facilitated the transactions rooted in supply and demand. But it is here that Marx inserted the part that revolves around political economy. In other words, he takes the interactions embedded in the free enterprise system beyond idealism. But then [alas] is not communism itself more or less a reflection of an idealistic rendition of the future? If rationalized as “science”.

In my own opinion, what you have given me is largely an “analysis”. An intellectual contraption. An argument regarding values and the “will to power”. What I am looking for instead is the manner in which this might be understood “for all practical purposes” out in a particular world awash in conflicting behaviors understood from particular [and conflicting] points of view.

How would John and Mary contemplate this “rational value of valuation”? What on earth does it mean? That’s the part I am trying to grasp more, well, concretely.

In examining the manner in which my values pertaining to abortion had evolved existentially [organically] “out in the world” my own philosophy came to encompass/embody the way in which I have come to understand these things as organic components of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. But it hardly entails providing folks with my “life story”.

Instead, it situates my values [subjectively as personal opinions, political prejudices] in a particular existential sequence, that, had it not unfolded that way – had the sequence been very different instead – my values may well be significantly different today.

So, what I am asking you to do is to explore the components of your own philosophy such that I might begin to understand more substantively, more concretely how your own values [with respect to abortion or to any other moral/political conflict] came to evolve over the years.

How, in other words, when your values do come into conflict with the values of another, are you able not to become entangled in this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

If all the philosopher is able to do is to demonstrate how “almost everyone” is right from his own side then how, for all practical purposes, can social, political and economy interaction not become a manifestation of either “might makes right” or “democracy”?

Imagine for example that, relating to abortion, you are able to concoct a legal code that defines the “rules of behavior” in a particular human community. What behaviors would be prescribed and what behaviors would be proscribed?

Okay, with respect to abortion [or any other conflict of note] what do you mean by “examples”?

And, given any particular clash of values/ideals, what would be deemed “universal” by you with respect to dasein, conflicting goods and political economy"? How would they be understood by you in the context of your “general principles”?

In a world sans God [an omniscient and omnipotent point of view], how could it be decided by mere mortals that, deontologically, either wearing a wristwatch or not wearing a wristwatch, raping or not raping someone was either necessarily right or necessarily wrong?

In other words, whatever examples are given there is no escaping the need for a transcending font here. Which is why philosophers ranging from Plato and Descartes to Aquinas and Kant clearly recognized the need for God here.

Sans God, a man or a woman can adopt [embrace, embody] the point of view that their own selfish gratification [or the values of their culture and historical era] is the center of the moral universe.

How then, using the tools of philosophy, can this then be demonstrated to be inherently irrational or illogical?

82

I appreciate your interest in what I am saying. I want to believe that you are interested because my words allow you to free yourself from mental shackles. This is my goal – to free people from mental slavery. Whereas fear-mongers such as Satyr and Wizard seek to arouse fear in people so that they too become enslaved, I seek to help people transcend their fears.

I want people to be motivated by an ideal, not by fear. Fear is a means, not an end.

Though you are well meaning, you too are a problem. You are a problem because you fail to empathize with me. More importantly, you fail to realize that you fail to do so, and it is this, not the former, that is the real problem.

Like Aussenseite, you fail to understand that lack of intention to insult does not mean you won’t end up insulting.

The one who properly empathizes with me will see nothing other than passion and courage in these recent posts of mine. You, however, do not see this. You see fear and shame (among any other number of feelings.)

You do so because you do not have what it takes to emulate my behavior, and this is sufficiently strong will. You cannot transcend fear. Rather, you succumb to it, and so, you assume that I too succumb to it.

Only people who are free – and that means those who can transcend instinct – can direct their actions. Everyone else is controlled by fear, and so, necessarily unnecessarily violent. This applies even to people who do not want to be violent, because although they do not want to, they cannot control themselves, and so, they end up becoming violent in very subtle ways.

So while I do believe that you do not want to be violent, you have to trust me that you are. This isn’t the Gentile level of violence, but it is nonetheless violence, a minor sort of violence, which, once performed by many people all at once, acquires the same power as that of Gentile violence.

So yes, you insulted me, albeit your insult is of a minor kind.

In this way, you become a problem – a burden. Not only do I have to deal with my enemies, I also have to deal with people like you who are innocent but not mentally strong enough to remain innocent. You become controlled by my enemies, and in this way, become my enemy as well.

In urgent situations, I’d simply ignore your behavior and deal with it later on. In relaxed situations such as this one, I can deal with it and correct you.

This is not to shame you. I do not hate people like you. I just have to defend myself against you. You have to understand, at least accept the possibility, that you are being herded.

You make a mistake when you say that I should make it my priority to make sure that “Satyr does not satify his narcissistic vampire needs”. Why should I make that my priority? Let him do so, there are far more important things to focus on.

You make a mistake when you say that letting him “satisfy his narcissistic vampire needs” means that I acknowledge that he is powerful. I do not even know what you mean by the word “powerful”. If you mean superior, no, I do not acknowledge that he is superior. If you mean powerful as in good herder, yes, I do acknowledge that he’s a good herder, but that’s not something to be proud of.

You are right in the sense that my actions acknowledge that he had a strong effect on my mind, but having a strong effect on a mind does not imply superiority on the part of the criminal. Rather, it implies some sort of weakness on the part of the victim.

I’ve been herded, I admit it, and it is precisely because I’ve been herded that I am movitaved to defend other people, mostly, those who are like me, from being herded. I want to save them the effort and time. For example, if I read Aryanism.net before I stumbled across KTS, I’d never have made the mistake of associating myself with KT Gentiles.

Satyr is a powerful herder because he’s a confusing, complicated and contradictory person who possesses both good and bad traits. This makes him extremely dangerous. This is the danger of Boromir Syndrome infectees. They appear to be of your kind, but in actuality, they are not.

The danger lies in turning a blind eye to Satyr’s numerous critical but very subtle flaws. He herds people by using his good parts to seduce them into thinking that his critical flaws are in actuality not critical, and not only that, but that they are also not flaws at all.

He does this unconsciously, I believe, which is why he will deny the responsibility for these herding tactics. He’s an egoist after all. He does not care about anything other than himself.

His philosophy is a mess. He has over 9,000 aphorisms posted on his Facebook page which resembles those pirate 999-in-1 Nintendo cartridges from early 90’s that were used to herd children into thinking there really are that many games when in reality there were only a couple of games repeated several hundreds of times with slight variations.

A man who is not obeying the Don’t Repeat Yourself principle is not to be taken seriously.

Anyways.

You also make a mistake when you say that I should make it my priority not to let him think that I think of him as superior to me. It’s of lesser importance. Why not let him think so?

The priority should be to expose him for what he is in order to defend other people from being corrupted by his “thought”. That’s my priority. The rest is of secondary importance.

Him being an egoist, of course, he will no doubt try to mess up with your priorities in order to force you to play his petty game of egos. You need to refuse to be pulled inside the Goy wheel he is stuck into (which he thinks he is outside of.)

You praise me for being individualistic and for refusing to follow Satyr. I believe this is well-meaning on your part. However, these are wrong terms to use. You are, in fact, using his own terminology. I am not being “individualistic”. In fact, I am far more social than these people are. And there is nothing wrong with following people. The difference between me and them does not lie in the fact that I am individualistic and they are not. No, the real difference is that I am strong willed whereas they are not. I am outside of the Goy wheel (I am above my instinct), whereas they are still inside it while thinking they are outside of it (they are still dominated by instinct.)

This is a propaganda war, not a war of egos. I am not here to destroy Satyr. Noone cares about Satyr. He is an insignificant person. I am here to crush the corruption that is spread by Gentile propaganda. Satyr is only one among many Boromirs. There is icycalm, for example. There are many others as well. This is an attack on all of them.

A war of egos, what is that? These are petty, trivial, wars that people indulge into when they fail to face their real enemies. I explained this earlier in this thread. This is how slavemasters keep their slaves enslaved – by redirecting their attention from their real enemies (slavemasters.)

A war of egos is any trivial disagreement that is exaggerated in its importance.

For example, a war of egos is when Wizard and Mr. R start arguing over who dated better looking girls. Gender wars is another example.

It is Gentiles such as Satyr and Wizard who promote ego wars. This is supported by the fact that they consider the nature of human existence to be bellum omnium contra omnes, or the war of all against all.

They are cannibals. Asocial, mentally ill people who (ab)use history and science in order to convince themselves that their asocial behavior and mental illness is natural.

83

I just have to ask…

What is your definition of “a Gentile”?

And btw, No insult can be given if it is not taken.

84

Im not sure what the will to power is, as power and free will is an illusion.

I would say, that Nihlism, is best described as, the lack of the will to discern whether something is superior/inferior.

85

I defined it a couple of posts ago.

Jew is your regular Jewish tribalist. Gentile is a non-Jewish tribalist.

Tribalism is egoism on social level (e.g. family, clan, tribe, nation, etc.)

Yes. It is seems to me that you’re implying that being insulted is an unnecessary thing.

86

David Duke is a Gentile, for example. He’s also Boromir.

87

If you mean tribe, then say “tribalist”. Your need and compulsion to paint everything in terms of “jew or gentile” proves that your mind is perverted and corrupted. As-if “jews” are the standard by which to measure tribes? I don’t think this way. My tribe is neither jewish nor gentile, and not wanting to associate with either of them. Christians are just as degraded as jews, religiously.

Fear-mongering? What would a young boy know of fear? Young boys still live in a solipsistic dream world, which modernity and civilization only serve to strengthen and reinforce. This creates the propensity for extreme subjective idealism. Objective realism is rarest, on earth, in thought.

After reading the minds of millions of people, you can begin to count the number of people, on two hands, that strive and struggle for objectivity. Objectivity is rare. Humans being animals, is common, and a vast majority. Most people admit to being animals, see nothing wrong with it. Most people who identify morality, admit that morals exist, still are clueless about them.

Like giving a monkey a gun. It is too stupid to operate the gun. It is dangerous. It can kill itself, or another, accidentally by playing with the gun.

In the end, the monkey uses a gun as a hammer, and throws it away. The monkey thinks the gun is useless. And to the monkey, it is.

Now apply this analogy to morality, objectivity, and philosophy. Philosophy is the gun, and more. Philosophy is not only a weapon, but also a shield, or a tool.

The philosophy stone, the ultimate tool, can build entire worlds. And tear them apart.

88

Where did I claim to know the ER was true, and where did I claim that how I think about it is how all rational men and women must in turn think about it?

About the will to power, I’ve been a bit more definite, but always in the awareness that there need not be a single Reason (Ratio) and that any such claim is first and foremost an assertion. This, however, is precisely what the doctrine of the will to power says.

We could agree on that, sure.

That’s nice. I say, however, that it’s probably neither; it’s most probably amoral, as there is not a single shred of evidence of its being moral or immoral.

Ill will against time and its “it was”.

It’s different with regard to the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary.

It is. But I’m way ahead of you there. I say there’s probably no natural right, only positive right. Might makes right and is right (as might logically cannot make might wrong, since that would undermine itself). In other words, the positing of rights is the one natural right there is. One cannot posit the wrongness or the neutrality of might without diminishing one’s very positing thereof.

Exactly. Which is why I call it the deceptive or deluded form of 1.

I think so, yes.

They would see that the strongest valuation–the strongest will–wins. But, lest this be mistaken solely in the sense of physical might:

[size=95]“We consider [man] the strongest animal because he is the most cunning: his spirituality is a consequence thereof.” (Nietzsche, The Antichristian, section 14.)[/size]

Mary and John may both use 2 in order to deceive each other and/or delude themselves (the latter a very effective way of boosting one’s confidence!).

Indeed, how can it not? Did I say that it might not?

An example of an example would be a pro-lifer or a pro-choicer denying that it’s her will to power driving her to her activism.

Not sure what you’re asking me here. Perhaps the above enables you to change or rephrase the question.

The simple answer is: it cannot. The more complex answer is: it can be argued that the point of view that it cannot is superior to the point of view that it can. This is a paradox, and by that very fact corresponds “perfectly” to the aporetic character of the world.

89

In Aryan mythology, progress is defined as a reversal of degeneration, and degeneration being the natural course of events, indicating that there is always less degeneration in the past than there is in the present, this means that the Aryan conception of progress is past-oriented and backward-looking.

In contrast to this, non-Aryan conception of progress is based on the idea that past is inferior and future is superior, necessitating the overcoming of one’s natural inclinations. In this sense, non-Aryan conception is said to be future-oriented and forward-looking.

A non-Aryan ideology can be easily dressed up as Aryan ideology by adopting the past-oriented conception of progress while redefining what is in the past and what is in the future. Whereas Aryans conceive history as a degeneration from innocence to subsequent corruption, non-Aryans conceive history as a degeneration from corruption (power/masculinity) to subsequent innocence (weakness/feminization.)

Both liberals and conservatives see history as a movement from corruption to innocence. The only difference between the two is that the former see corruption as something bad in itself, something to be overcome, improved upon, whereas the latter see it as something good in itself, something to be defended from the danger of feminization. Thus, the former are honest about their non-Aryan roots, whereas the latter are deceptive about it.

History is a means, not a starting point. History does not shape one’s axioms. Rather, history is used to support one’s axioms.

This is why Aryan mythology is a mythology and not a history. It is a collection of myths invented, and in certain cases also supported by empirical evidence, in order to strengthen the main Aryan axiom that will (spirituality) is superior to instinct (primality.)

This is in stark contrast to non-Aryans who emphasize history, science and philosophy either as a source of their axioms or as a means to justify axioms that are grounded in instinct.

Aryans strive to transcend their instinct, whereas non-Aryans remain dominated by instinct no matter how many instincts they overcome.

Aryans rely on what is called blood memory in order to determine what is of higher value. Non-Aryans, on the other hand, always rely on some sort of instinct.

Aryans are difficult to herd because they rely on what is most private to them. Non-Aryans, on the other hand, rely on external sources, making them extremely gullible.

Non-Aryans are dragged into unnecessary historical, scientific and philosophical contests and justifications that do nothing but distract from reality. These people are seduced because they are afraid of ignorance. They simply must know everything. This is knowledge greed.

For Aryans, justification is a means, not an end, certainly not something that is motivated by fear. Aryans require no justification to act. All they require is a certainty that their actions are a worthy sacrifice for a worthy ideal.

The difference between Aryans and non-Aryans can also be observed in the way they conceive the concept of will.

For Aryans, will is a backward-looking phenomenon: it is that which resists action. For non-Aryans, on the other hand, will is a forward-looking phenomenon: it is that which initiates action.

For Aryans, will is that which resists external influence which manifests as reflex. For non-Aryans, will is that which succumbs to external influence.

Pretend Aryans, self-loathing non-Aryans, can be exposed for who they really are by pointing out that their understanding of the concept of will is forward-looking. What they call will, in fact, is no will at all. It’s an overcoming of instinct that is governed by some other instinct. Usually, an overcoming of instinct motivated by fear of social judgment.

By demonizing will, they once again make instinct popular. The gullible morons are led to believe that since will is a bad thing, the instinct must therefore be a good thing.

To escape this, some have invented the idea that one must find the balance between will and instinct. But there is no need for such a balance in reality. Will is always superior to instinct. Only someone who is afraid of transcending the instinct – of leaving the Goy Wheel – could make up something like that.

Various bogeymen will often be used to scare people into thinking that transcending their instincts and fears is a bad thing.

It is necessary to understand that Aryans are positively motivated. They are motivated by an ideal. All their actions are subordinated to ideal. Non-Aryans, on the other hand, are always negatively motivated. They are always motivated by fear. Whatever they do, whatever “ideals” they have, it’s always their fear guiding them. They do not create, they avoid. When they create, they create in order to avoid.

It is a historical fact that slaves were the most conservative of all people. They were the ones who “amor”-ed their “fati”-s the most. They were stubborn in their refusal to be anything other than who they are.

And this makes sense. They are afraid of exposing themselves to their mistakes. They are afraid they will end up hating themselves.

A nihilist is quite simply a man who is motivated by fear. This is necessarily someone who is not motivated by an ideal. Any other interpretation and you are betraying who you are.

A man who over-estimates his capacities is often used as a bogeyman to scare idealists. They will cite numerous disappointments and moments of deep self-contempt this man goes through all because he’s an idealist. But they never tell you the real reason he keeps failing. This might be because they consciously want to manipulate you, but in many instances, it’s because they themselves have been manipulated into thinking that they know the real reasons. They do not.

The real reason over-confident people fail is not because of their ideals, but because they are enslaved by some sort of fear that motivates them to over-estimate themselves by setting unrealistic deadlines.

These people are enslaved by time pressure, which is a fear of incompletion. This fear is in most cases subserviant to a more general fear of social judgment.

The easiest solution is to give up on the ideal. This removes the negative symptoms, but does it really solve the problem? or is it merely treating the symptoms?

An Aryan refuses to give up on his ideals. If a solution demands from him to give up on his ideals, he considers it no solution, but betrayal. A non-Aryan, on the other hand, will gladly accept such a solution, for he is guided by fear. He can give up on ideals, why not?

The real solution from the Aryan point of view is to identify those fears that enslave you – in the case of over-confident man that would be everything that stands behind the slavery of time pressure – and transcend them. He who does so unleashes the power to do whatever he wants. Not that he will succeed in his attempts, but he will at least succeed in the sense that he will remain loyal to his ideals.

But bogeymen are obviously too scary. Noone dares to overcome them.

We have people like History-boy who claim that ideals are bad because they always refer to something that does not exists or that did not exist. This is strange.

Airplanes didn’t exist before they were invented. And aristocracies did not exist before people gathered to form them. People have the capacity to invent things that did not exist before. It is very strange to argue against this human faculty.

People are herded to blame the wrong causes. For very good reasons.

For example, over-estimation isn’t a necesary condition for nihilism. There is no need to over-estimate anything in order to be a nihilist. No need to pose a goal that is too high for one to achieve it. This is the problem. Because by blaming the wrong causes, nihilists are led to think they are not nihilists.

Realism and nihilism aren’t mutually exclusive. That’s the trick. The trick is used to herd the vanity of realism.

Nihilism is not detachment from reality. It is a detachment from your ideals. And this detachment from your ideals, believe it or not, requires a degree of detachment from reality. One must not know everything. Othwerise, one loses one’s sight of one’s ideals.

It should be obvious: people who say that nihilism is merely a case of one’s goals being too high are morons who have solved nothing other than trivial pragmatic issues. And they didn’t even solve anything! They didn’t solve because it isn’t the right solution to the problem. Rather, they have simply eliminated negative symptoms, proving that they are hedonists.

By prioritizing an ideal above everything else, no guarantee is made that you will contribute anything to its realization. And this is the weakness that is easily exploited by herders. By telling people they won’t contribute anything to the realization of their ideals, they herd them into giving up on their ideals. Those who succumb to such herding tactics then become herders themselves who herd other people, and that’s how nihilism is promoted among Goyim.

Satyr is bastardizing the idea of “being connected to one’s past”.

The past is in contradiction to the present, not the other way around.

Sauwelios makes a mistake when he says that “order is dead”. He thereby proves himself to be a nihilist who is made unaware of his nihilism by the false idea of nihilism.

Order is precisely what arouses enthusiasm, what motivates and fuels people to sacrifice themselves.

Chaos, on the other hand, is precisely that which arouses no enthusiasm whatsoever and which requires overcoming on the part of the individual to so much as tolerate it (what is called “amor fait”.)

What is more inspiring? A beautiful woman or an ugly woman?

Think for a moment.

90

I did not advocate total lack of force, I stipulated that one must have respect for their enemy to enable a robust battle to take place.

Sword and shield are not needed for the cat who toys with a mouse.

I don’t advocate fearlessness, fear is a natural force, but it becomes negative if always present and in the forefront of every decision, positive when it waits ready, like a Centurion to sound the alarm. Might is right in certain circumstances and I have no hesitation in applying it, but mind determines when this should be. You deal with the enemy in the way they will understand it, that they may receive the full force of it, if that means you stoop to their level to do it, then so be it.

91

Magnus Anderson :

Your narrative makes me wonder, and reinforce my conviction, that I will try to explain here.

Why am I a Kantian? Because Kant was a watershed phenomenon, where, a few current issues at the time became focal points to cumulative resulting summation of prior unfolding social and political process.

Here, as science overtook and about to overcame belief systems which have here to fore been mixed with religious , institutional belief systems, created antinomians, socially divisive groups. These divisions primarily needed explanations, of ontological methods, by which, they could be justified.

The term ‘slavery’ had at this time, more rigid, and exact de notations, only later, did more loosely coined co-notations came to be of usage.

The slavery, of the mentality, had no applications in common usage, other than that with which, much later, Marx used in his evolving concept of the proletariat. This complex of meanings did reverberate in the terrible conditions, in which the new sweatshops of underpaid labor started to form resentment. The slave mentality, was the result of the new vision of the industrial revolution becoming upon the ideas of the new philosophy of the enlightenment. Freedom, fraternity were the new key words of revolutions to anti-monarchical systems, keen to elevate Everyman. But such elevation came at terrible costs, of purges, beheadings, loss of status of conventional and established families. Kant foreseeing this, since philosophers were at once artists, and try to synthesize, just as Marx did, in material terms.

The liberation of slaves began in so called democratic countries, and culminating in the czarist Russia. I heard of a plot by the Rothchilds, to break absolute power there, incidentally, later, to be the haven of the ideas and the programs that coincided with early Jewish influence there, in the court of Lenin-Sztalin. Beria was a Jew, and his fate is well known, as is Trotsky’s and thousands of purges if intellectuals, both:Jewish and Gentile.

The 64 thousand dollar question is, here, whether it was the Jews, or the conditions of the times, which gave rise to the unforeseen effects of economic manipulation and their effects.

Here, in line with the extended times between the enlightenment-industrial revolution, that it probably would be a good guess, that it was a little of both.
After Kant, the detractors had to show failure on many levels, as there could not be a peacefully unfolding series of political and social psychological transition. It is what it is all about. A beautiful woman surely is much preferred, but when women could no longer entertain in pedigreed salons of enviable taste and refinement, the psychologists came in to help.

Freud was mainly concerned with hysterical Viennese society martins, whose sexual repression became a conscious and disturbing preoccupation. Freud was limited, because of the strata of society he dwelt in. Maybe he did not read the philosophers that well, however the political winds of rebellion from 1848 on implied a very deeply felt and needed change of events.

This is when the controversy between instinct and the will came to the foreground, and it is also in this climate, that, the German philosophers, interpreted, analyzed, and prophesied. The correlation of the transvaluations. Simply on instinctive grounds, was effected by the enormous changes in social standing and political alliance.

The pure reason, and it’s critique, was a sort of apology, and it was on that the architecture of unreason came to lean heavily on the analysis of violence in this age of 200 plus years of revolt.

To claim, that it was a philosophy, held up on ancient pedestals of ideal love and beauty, which caused a re evaluation, both of ideal physical and romantic beauty, is fallacious to some extent.

Kant cleverly tried. But failed in part, except by a kind of wish fulfillment he hoped would carry over
and balance the extreme dis tending of opposite points of view. The result was as predicted , an eternal return from the need to differentiate, and integrate these, sometimes a almost simultaneously.

Nietzhe willed a powerful oscillating power shift between now integrated, then disintegrated groups.
These groups never internalized a lasting peace during these turbulent years of rebellion, the slaves at once desired the freedom they have hoped for for so long, yet at the same time were, unaware of the responsibilities with which such freedoms were necessarily correlated. This is why the eternal return being necessarily and invariably, tied to the will. The cosmological necessity for an ontology of repetition was needed, practically, to anchor the idea to those, for whom nothing else could replace the twilight of the gods. They needed the Deus ex Machina assurance of an irrevocable contract of a master of the domain.

Where do the Jews come into this schema? They were ,prior to their own slave status only mending material, who earned their role of fillers, in case when the social integration did not predominate over the differential disintegration of boundaries, national, regional, international. They had to do this as a survival tool, they had to earn their right of being in a region, where by mutual approbation, they became different by both:choice and fiat.

That they were able to utilize this role , was the result of proving beneficence both to themselves, and to their benefactors, or adopted nationalities

I think a formation of a bigger picture is necessary, rather than set up and artificially presumed and constructed scheme of cause and effect.

92

Refer. to above, folio: Doxa, -Jane Bennett, ‘Agency, Nature, and Emergent Properties’

But to allow me to close the circle, which upon re-reading, appeared flat and incomplete, in regard to the original idea, and the possible intent of the OP, in this regard.

The recurrence was thought not only in reference to this, but as described above, as a general defense of Kant to Leibnitz, as the later answered Locke’s propositions, generally speaking. The foundation had not been completely done away with.

Scopenhauer’s pessimism, based on aesthetic revival, was the main stream in Wagner’s motif, as the world, could not be authentically re-represented, in a socially altered world. Which placed the Kantian synthesis, as insufficient a ground, as ever. It is a static, post industrial world, in which the formal idols fought with, the very idols, which Hume so succinctly
appeared to have wrestled with. It is a parallel universe to this demolition, in which the gods of twilight re appeared. This really appearance is deceptive, Walhalla is a transcendental place, as worthy of the epilogue so sung of Elysian Fields.

If there are no Utopias left, then they have to be manufactured in an untrancendental way. The hopes and redeeming images of salvation have a real function in life. Here is to be found the Rhinegold of deliverance, and it’s true enemy. The reductionism of differentiating the pros and cons, of the true intent of the beginning of this struggle. And what is that? Why, the protestations against the Catholic aristocracy of values. This leaves the philosophers with a mix of political and religious assumptions, unavailable to a definite deductive analysis. They know only too well, that it is the new logical system, which may avail itself to gaining a new ground, the one precisely re-opening the wound of the schism, which cannot be healed with given representations of the world via the will. The will has underwent gross disfigurement, as a result of the sceptical and pessimistic reactions, and a new presentation was urgently needed, as much as Christ was a divine presentation at a time of similarly degraded conditions. Eternity, or Paradise regained became a major movement without which the fragmentation would/could have self-destroyed human consciousness.

The will needed recurrence, as a child needs constant repetitive patterns of recognizable effects. Germany was very troubled most of all, in this potentially torn, and singular collapse, the will had to bring back a deeper ground , an aesthetic preconception of an inherent motif of deliverance.

Now take a faux synthesis, sustainable on this fragile terrain, Sphinx like half this, the being and existence unglued, essentially broken. No wonder, Kant categorically had to connect them, in spite of the formation of aberrant and grotesque masks of denied hate. Who was responsible? Or rather, whose will did the depletion of power could be connected? Christ?

Did He take on a pre-required role, so as to be able to say, “Forgive them, for they do not know of what they are doing”

93

What is nihilism? Look at this forum: nobody shows respect to anybody. Everybody is trying to top the other with their “views” and “messages”, but everything is easy going, tolerant.

But shouldnt the righteous one be coal and fire?

Nihilism is when speeches never end end never produce acts.

If from speeches acts would follow and with an inevitability, then only those whose speeches have proven to be most reliable would have the word and others would be quiet and their messages in numbers lower than of that authority.

94

Division between people is also promoted by the idea that everyone should “think for themselves”. Those who choose to lay trust in others are shamed for doing so. This instills fear of trust. By “thinking for themselves” everyone becomes an “expert” full of “their own opinions”. This ultimately makes people incapable of cooperating with others.

Whether they are aware of the need to cooperate or not is irrelevant: if they are stubborn they won’t be able to cooperate with anyone.

The trick works by exploiting one’s conceit. They tell you: if you walk alone, you will become a master; if you serve them, you will become a slave.

Entire philosophies have been built on the idea that everyone should “think and act for themselves”. Jewish propaganda.

Science, in fact, tells you not to believe. Do not believe anything (other than what Jews tell you.)

If you try to tell people that Jews run the world they will ask you for evidence. But how can you give them the evidence when you are not the one who did the investigation? How do they think they will be able to see the same exact thing that someone else did long time ago and that by undergoing an extenstive process of investigation? It’s impractical. You simply choose to trust those who share your values.

To be able to do what I do people must be freed from the slavery of the fear.

They must be motivated by an ideal. By something that inspires them. By something that is beautiful in itself. Only then will they be able to give up on their egoism and lay trust in the other.

95

Since You did not answer my points, only glossed over verbatim by alluding to trust between people, I shall claim Your response to be inadequate. Not that it was not relevant to the first tier of impressions, that is baic accountability of mutual contracting of issues, which hold people apart. But that such impressions are only the beginning to the process of verifying and cross checking such.

The analysis, even if, it is not a interposition between the claimed historicism giving rise to archaic ideals, is left barren, as does the will to power, to rise above mere rhetoric. Such, will conveniently omit the very well reasoned historical dynamics , which was mentioned in defense of the Jews, and connected to the linear sequence progressing the changing effects of slavery, imperium and ideology. If the intervening variables could,ake any sense, whatsoever, these Doha e to be included in any serious reasoning. The focus on ego content as a function of roles taken, and the displacement of those roles to second tier relevance or importance, shows bias. Such bias is
nothing new, and is still evident in the modern split, between de-fact, and de-jur analysis of placing important focus,of the kind, which will posit excessive

importance to pre-identified sources of signification.

Would, or was such shifts permissible or even
possible under the imperium of the late Czars, or
even the antebellum cotton aristocrats, prior to the American Civil War? No, because the were seen in terms of long standing, conventional social economy.

Convention did not approve, or permit any analysis, because of well established views of social stratification.

The same can be said here. Shifts are difficult to analyze, when there is a reified sense, within which
conditional approaches are even possible. This is
why assassinations and murder are the only way, that extreme social change is at all possible. The events of the 60’s cost numerous murders and
assassinations, of very notable personages, and the
French Rebolution, as well, demanded the head of many.

To be blunt, is complicated it all might seem, it is rather simple. The power to will, is ignited at tremendous cost, and the will to power comes not as result of an anticedant production of mythologically vested conceptions of power sharing, but on the basis of the effects of relationships based on the shifting interplay and focus of roles, sentiments and opportunities. As such, it would appear that any and all analysis of functional, reasonable and apprehandable - variable interpretations, would degrade, with more, not less emphasis on the level of ego, which is a fairly new idea. It would argue backward, when such ideas were not even conceivable, apart from the ideas of power, and the will. I say this fairly certain in that, power prior to the great revolts above mentioned, were disseminated from an irrevocable, power originating in divine right. It was unquestionable, that the subsequent revolutions be not vested in individual ego functions , but in communal ideas, which arose out of the negative sentiments formrd at that time.

Magnus, since You introduced the argument, it would make sense, to support it, by way other then mere sophistry. You brought out the ideas implicit, and any challenge cannot simply be dismissed in the same terms. The focus can not be a challenge as it stands, by leaving the instinctual ego, as the cause in the effect of the argument. Roles need to be explored in depth, and the mere few hundred years it took to displace imperial power, at least loosened slavery from the status of human ownership to at least a machine bound predicated existential form of

96

(Sorry, got interrupted here).

The point being that it is a fact, that the whole existential conflict in Germany could be ascribed in
the twenties and the economic downturn world wide,

and the whole of sentiment was dramatize by tragic motives, whose birth was ascribed to the Aryan
models , yet their demise, became focused, rather

than widened to include such variables, as the effects
of labor related displacement, due to
industrialization.

Not to mention the use of political naïveté as the cause of Jesus’ crucifixion holding the Jews totally

responsible. After all it was Pilot, who washed his

hands, knowing full well, that he could have cut
through the hypocrisy, if he wanted to. He did not,
because of political expediency, of which he was well

aware, and used the occasion, to shift responsibility.

97

Lets sum it up what conservatives, nazis and communists think: “oh, I would so gladly do something with my life, but each time when I try to get out of my home[rented], there is a Jew in front of my door with the shield “STOPPPP”, that is why I am listening The Doors”.

98

Unity is only one part of the puzzle. This is because not every unifying principle is noble.

Unity can be based on shared fear, on shared knowledge, on shared identity, on shared desire for power and many other things all of which are ignoble. Only unity that is based on shared ideal of universal order can be said to be noble.

All other unifying principles, though not necessarily idealizing universal chaos, are opposed to universal order for they would gladly sacrifice it for whatever is deemed to be The Good. This is why we can say that every other unifying principle is egoistic in nature.

Egoism is a term that is not restricted to individual egoism. It can be extended – and should be extended – to encompass collective egoism, or what we call tribalism.

Collective egoism is egoism on social level (e.g. family, clan, tribe, nation, etc.) There may be altruism within the group, but outside of the group there is only egoism.

Some examples: racism, racial egoism; elitism, upper-class egoism; communism, lower-class egoism; anarchism, individual egoism; democracy, majority egoism; feminism, female gender egoism; and so on and so forth.

You always looked to me as someone who merely craves for unity, without any regard for the kind of unity.

You once told me in private that people should unite in the face of shared danger (the danger of extinction, as you said.) This leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. It looks like your sole problem is that you have no companions who will help you preserve your type, whatever your type is.

You are a conservative with a twist of a Nietzsche. You are a fear-monger motivated not by an ideal, but by a fear. A fear of extinction, as you said yourself. You fear that your type will go extinct, disregarding how ignoble your type may be.

You are Jewish in spirit, a Gentile, who despises the so-called “Nazis” simply because he’s been brainwashed to despise them. You are an egoist yourself, except that you’re not an individual egoist, but a collective one. Moreover, since you are full of yourself you will never be able to join anyone’s movement, not even form your own movement, simply because you demand that people think exactly the same things that you do, which is never going to happen.

99

Look, I’m only trying to grasp more clearly what on earth it might mean to “will” eternal recurrence – to “will” it in such a way that you might be able to take the “frame of mind” that it evokes “in your head” and reconfigure it into an experience that is relevant to the manner in which you then construe the meaning of valuing.

And, in particular, when your values come into conflict with another’s. What is the practical – the existential – import by being able to “will” ER?

Something, in other words, that is something other than this:

How then is this relevant to valuing out in a world bursting at the seams with conflicting goods?

If not at all, fine. Or, if I am simply misunderstanding your point, sure, that happens all the time here. But my own trajectory always revolves around the extent to which a “frame of mind” like this is more or less relevant to the question, “how ought one to live?”.

A question which necessarily revolves around valuing.

Well, if you value the “good” here as the birth of the baby then the birth of the baby is certainly evidence of that. And if you value the woman’s right to choose then aborting [killing] the baby is, in turn, evidence of this.

Again, I am only curious to understand how your own sense of valuing [your “value philosophy” and your “value ethics”] is either more or less in sync with what folks like Satyr call the “objective world” — the “natural world”, the “Real World”. Which then becomes the anchor for what they call the “Ideal”. Which then becomes the foundations for what they insist are their own “superior judgments”. Or, instead, the extent to which it is more in sync with what I construe subjectively to be but “personal opinions” or “political prejudices”.

Now I am just confused as to the distinction you are making here between “might makes right” and “right makes might”. Why can’t both sides in the abortion conflict claim that their own narrative reflects the “positive right”? You seem to be arguing that those in power able to enforce their own political agenda can claim this is “logical” because if they weren’t able to enforce their own agenda they wouldn’t be in power. In other words, “positing” rights seems to be embedded solely in having the power to posit them.

But [in my view] you are not really addressing the point that I raise. 2 and 3 are very different from 1 in that 1 is predicated solely on acquiring the brute power necessary to enforce your political agenda over others. In other words it is derived from, among other things, one or another rendition of “the law of the jungle” or “survival of the fittest”. In its most brutish, dog eat dog sense. 2 on the other hand subsumes might in right. Those in power rationalize enforcing an agenda not just because they can but because [they argue] all rational, virtuous and noble men and women must. And 3, while subsumed in political economy, allows for considerable more give and take along the political spectrum from the left to the right. Especially in regard to “social” issues like abortion or homosexuality or capital punishment or animal rights or gun control.

To me this is analogous to arguing that one side has a greater subjunctive [emotional, psychological] commitment to their own point of view. Let’s call this “will”. And yet, as I note to folks like Satyr, how on earth does this make the points that I raise regarding dasein, conflicting goods and political economy go away.

Thus, how close or how far is “cunning” from what, say, the deontologists insist is our moral obligation to do “the right thing”. It being the right thing to do precisely because it is said to be the most rational thing to do. Instead “will” here seems to be a truly murky amalgamation that appeals problematically to reason and to emotion and to instinct.

Or, as you note above, it is all somehow subsumed in this:

The world of doubt. Of complexity. Of ambiguity. Of ambivalence. A world that embodies the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty. Or, as I like to suggest, the world of contingency, chance and change.

Yes, I can live with that.

But, philosophically, must I?

100

The unity we are talking about have been definitely dealt within the social-psychological spectrum of 2 ways of contracting. The noble beast, does not conceive of nobility as such, neither does 'the good vs. the bad enter his thoughts. In fact he is noble naturally. On the other hand, the social contract arising out of fear of those, who are outside the tribe, sees nobility as an earned right, of the exercise of the
Will to power. There is no positioning, posturing, or proposing an ideal without taking these precedents into question. These are facts, arising through and not out of the ontologies which encompassed them.
That is the point. The will has never ever been of a kind, which arose out of the ego, in case of the noble savage, it came about through the participation mystique which transcended human evolution within the context of primal developmental processes. Secondary processes at first worked through magic, by the agency of magicians and charlatans.

Individual ego psychology was inconceivable. Once the historical anamolie separated the individual from the tribe, the herd, then did slave mentality became a significant idea in the understanding of the power struggle, which shifted ground to the fuel needed to excercise the will. Fear then was effected out of the miasma of this naive innocence. This fear, became the evil through which the tribal boundaries became realized. Post nomadic cultures built up mythological ideal to ground and insure that such fears be abated.