The Holochrist: Saving the Holocene with an Xtian Holocaust.

Or: an Immortal Soul-o-caust. A summary of my Nietzschean religious philosophy.

I’m basically an esoteric Vedantika in that I’m a reverse bodhisattva: I don’t strive for the enlightenment of all beings, but rather to the contrary:

“The saḿskáras [conditionings] of all individuals could be withdrawn in one moment if Parama Puruśa [the Supreme Youth] so desired. But He does not because it would stop His entire creative flow and lead to the dissolution of this world. […] To continue the flow of His divine play, it is not desirable that all entities of the vast universe should attain the Supreme stance [enlightenment] at one time[.]” (P.R. Sarkar, Ánanda Márga Philosophy in a Nutshell, Part 5.)


(WP is The Will to Power by Nietzsche; BGE is Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche.)

“The doctrine of the immortality of the soul does not require heroic exertions on the part of its votaries—it is the democratic equivalent of heroic virtue.” (Harry V. Jaffa, “Neumann or Nihilism”.)

“In moving the doctrine of selflessness and love into the foreground, Christianity was in no way establishing the interests of the species as of higher value than the interests of the individual. Its real historical effect, the fateful element in its effect, remains, on the contrary, in precisely the enhancement of egoism, of the egoism of the individual, to an extreme (—to the extreme of individual immortality). Through Christianity, the individual was made so important, so absolute, that he could no longer be sacrificed: but the species endures only through human sacrifice— […]
The species requires that the ill-constituted, weak, degenerate, perish: but it was precisely to them that Christianity turned as a conserving force; it further enhanced that instinct in the weak, already so powerful, to take care of and preserve themselves and to sustain one another. What is ‘virtue’ and ‘charity’ in Christianity if not just this mutual preservation, this solidarity of the weak, this hampering of selection? What is Christian altruism if not the mass-egoism of the weak, which divines that if all care for one another each individual will be preserved as long as possible?—
If one does not feel such a disposition as an extreme immorality, as a crime against life, one belongs with the company of the sick and possesses its instincts oneself—” (WP 246.)

“[T]he Medieval enlightenment was an event in Islamic and Jewish history; it was not an event in Christian history. […] To tyrannize philosophy as the True Philosophy is far more dangerous than banishment[.]” (Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, pp. 139-40.)

“What an affirmative Semitic religion, the product of a ruling class, looks like: the law-book of Mohammed, the older parts of the Old Testament. (Mohammedanism, as a religion for men, is deeply contemptuous of the sentimentality and mendaciousness of Christianity—which it feels to be a woman’s religion.)
What a negative Semitic religion, the product of an oppressed class, looks like: the New Testament (—in Indian-Aryan terms: a chandala [=pariah] religion).” (WP 145.)

Sometimes I’m like “Oh Zero Sum made a new post!” and then I’m like “oh.”

Religions are divisive methods of growing one’s tribe to biblical (pun intended) proportions, nothing more.

All i can think of at this time is, if there is smoke, there must be fire.*

*unless it’s a screen.

Maybe you are trying to be funny but this is supposed to be a serious forum too.

E ban Alexander’s lecture came to mind, and it synch with this forum

An impressive OP I think.

But I think I could put together a rational argument against that.

the sacredness of life is not a christian invention
the christian part is to preserve life at any cost
rather than simply let live
and let die

takes a big grown up man brain I reckon
to do all that thinking
to arrive at the conclusion
that you know better
than your mother herself
what’s best for your mother
but when you’re done playing savior
she will put your g.i. joes away

she will eat you too
she will eat your big man brain
she’ll still be standing here
long after all of this is gone
and you can be sure
that when she requires another mass extinction
she won’t be needing your help

That’s also not true.

In fact the truth is that the Christian invention is that life is the opposite of sacred.

So, I did not read what zero wrote, but if he is defending that life is not sacred, he is defending a Christian position.

Christians believe the same thing as budists: that life is illusion and unimportant.

The Christian reason, for example, to stand against the travesty that is abortion is that it deprives immaterial souls from going through this illusory test to enter the real world after they die. To Christians, life is not real or sacred. It is a punishment from God. In a sense, you are depriving God of his vengeance of giving life.

The real Christian deal is not the sacredness of anything. It is creating the possibility of a world without pain. This world of pain, also known as life, is an illusion and a test for the real world where pain does not exist.

Sort of the precursor of safe spaces.

“What is the good news?”

“The Safe Space is at hand!”

Well, to say that it’s God’s will not to withdraw the conditionings of all individuals is tantamount to saying they could not be so withdrawn, if that’s what you mean.


Yes, and that’s why, after two thousand years of Christianity and its secular successor, Modernity, we now have to kill in addition to letting die.

Ayahuasca is a hallucinogen, my dear; there is in reality no Mother Nature or Mother Earth or Mother Ayahuasca… After all, that’s just the female version of God; and God



“[S]omeone who, like us, has recognized the monstrous accident which has played its game up to this point with respect to the future of humanity—a game in which there was no hand, not even a ‘finger of god’, playing along!—someone who guesses the fate which lies hidden in the idiotic innocence and the blissful trust in ‘modern ideas’, and even more in the entire Christian-European morality, such a man suffers from an anxiety which cannot be compared with any other[.]” (N, BGE 203.)

ok kid whatever you say
we’ll be here
when you’re back a few months later
when a whole new username
and a whole new set of ideas
just don’t get any sauce on your bib ok?

That’s just pathetic.

I shall put the record straight for any worthy readers. The opening sentence of my very first post on this account reads: ‘Mitra-Sauwelios was a false start.’ The Mitra-Sauwelios account was created on Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am Amsterdam time. Before that, I only had the Sauwelios account, which was created on Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm. Mitra-Sauwelios was a false start of my current account (and clearly not a whole new username, for that matter). So there’s account # 1 (Sauwelios), then a false start of account # 2 (Mitra-Sauwelios), and now the rightful account # 2 (Zeroeth Nature). I’ve never had any sock puppets, I’ve always been clear about who I was.

I’ve formulated the reason for the false start as follows: ‘[M]y best friend did not accept my exemption and pushed me on[.]’ (Source:

And I’ve explained what the two account names mean here. (That is to say, their meaning in the sense of their significance; as for their “name meaning”, sauelios means “sun” and zeroth nature means the universe…)

Since females are the limiting factor in reproduction, I think my “final solution” should especially target pre-menopausal women. It’s simply more efficient! :icon-ugeek:

On the other hand, men of course have significantly larger ecological footprints on average, so we should take that into account as well. #wastefulmasculinity

I’m holobored.

I see and I know the above to be an evocation of the very principle that many died for, and others lost their reason for.

The ambiguity in Niet zche is a deliberate smokescreen against a raging illogical fire burning within men’s breast.

The will to power is a covered baseless illogical tenet, whereby the will needs to reorder that which was list by man’s evolving doubt, by a science which was and is was thought to be a replacement for a lost Holocene.

The original fall says literally that, and by the token antiscientific Evolution based in multiple universes, a unification has been sought defensively.

In the idea of multiple , the idea of the reincarnation of the Holocene , was willed to be reinterpreted across the universal template.

What drives this home was the Faustian redemption as a sleight of hand trick.

It is that close, that socialism can upend their eschotologically persuasive inversion.

This again is merely an undefined moment, wherein this objection can be made on any substantive premise of a very remarkably and exquisite work of excellent scholarship.

Huh? :-k

Can only figure by a pseudo objective correspondence , Pedro. as far as I am concerned, it is a matter of talking to my self. vis,
a risky autistic sembling ploy : for Zero his dramatis personae are exported.

A subtle rhetorical shift causing a large interpretational difference.

Everybody talking about me here but not responding when I make my presence known, I’m right here you guys. :-"

Two names beginning with zero: zeroeth and zero sum.

Is our will to power our unresolved need to be whole once more?