The Nietzschean Qizarate

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

So, we’re at the moment where we have to increasingly accept the Nietzscheans are rapidly devolving into a religious rabble of a Qizarate attending to texts increasingly alien with the daily life of reality, Nietzsche’s works are revealed texts, and can be quoted over and beyond empirical knowledge, over the trial and errors and contradictions of one’s existence to it. The Nietscheans on this site tend to split between two main factions, one who are college bred to like Nietzsche, pretend they are approaching him objectively and sceptically, but seeing him in the good light their professor’s taught them to see, not religiously or in a brain washed fashion, or in a social nationalist extreme, but cleaned up and rehabilitated so they can see which quotes he really meant, and which of his followers actually grasped him… and it just happens to fit their culture and conclusions perfectly. I call this subfaction the ‘Banana Deep Throaters’ as that’s what I imagine them all doing South Park style after saying something about Nietzsche, gagging themselves in the process before resuming to talk more bull.

The other half is the more underground thinker (underground cause the allied bombing forced them there), a little more honest in their approach to Nietzsche cause they got into him on their own accord for the most part… not college educated, but learned through books, and not too shy about the elements of Nietzsche that would later on lead to Social Nationalism historically… either they are outright okay with it, such as Cezar… who can accept it or add a twist to it, or are cryptically okay with it, accepting literally the title of Fascism and Swastikas buy try a smoke and mirrors approach to anyone trying to call them on it, thinking it’s okay and elements just need tamed. And of course, there are those who studied history, looked into it’s depths, and said to themselves ‘I know what happened here, I won’t make that mistake, I can make this meaning into a new meaning, much of what he wrote is still good, and can have many meanings. I’m smart enough to know’.

Most professors in time come out of that second camp, and many Neo-Nazis come out of the first two camps. Both come together on the internet and in published works and dance, striking down and meddling other works of other camps within and without their larger movement. Sometimes Nietzsche is a anarchist, othertimes Hitler incarnate. However he is projected, someone else is quick to give the opposite. Whenever a idea is proposed, someone is quick to dispute it and give a alternate meaning. But when let lose, and watched to see what happens, bad shit happens. Somehow this original meaning of Nietzsche begins to reemerge in society in general, just as when Marxism is left unchecked it suddenly evolves in similar patterns in it’s given country.

At root, it’s a dead religion in and of itself… dead in the sense of any religion being a dead or depudiated entity that was proclaimed dead in the 19th century. It now has a priesthood of hypocrites… men preaching it who don’t deserve to preach it… the men who deserve to do so probably are a tad bit busy at the time to bother. It’s reminding me of frank herbert’s Qizarate in Children of Dune, how it broke down from it’s revolutionary roots and became decadent and broke off from it’s root once it had enough independence to do so, building up the same sad and pitiful powerstructures, albeit more potent as it’s useful and still capable of biting. In the Nietzschean case though, this pathetic priesthood isn’t even capable of biting against one who is moderately prepared. I’ve shown enough evidence of this, it’s quite easy to break up their Polanyi style faith, fracturing their republic of Nietzsche, turning them against one another, and then themselves. All your left with at that point is a exposure of their hypocrisy… their will to die, and their will to glower. They have no other recourse from this save the fetal position, or lying to themselves and pretending nothing just happened, continue on with their formulas. This only shows the validity of the Qizarate claim. Every single faction, if it brushes itself off from the collision and continues preaching, even the banana deep throaters, are the Qizarate. The stand against change, against the times and the setting sun in meditation of a absolute and unchangeable truth.

Definition of a Banana Deep Throater: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUH1H-b-N5o[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijDjWp54zLA&feature=related[/youtube]

2

This makes sense to me because the stuff Nietzsche talked about is the stuff of human interaction and that is always complex enough to allow for any number of conflicting and contradictory imterpretations.

But: Is there a way to describe Nietzsche and his ideas that is not just another manifestation of dasein interpreting the world from a point of view?

Is there a real Nietzsche and a real meaning behind his ideas?

Or, instead, as what most other very, very complex things, do we take out of it what we first put into it: “I”?

And how are your ideas about Nietzsche relevant to the world we live in today? Where do they fit into the war in Afghanistan or the Murdoch scandal or the economic crisis or the upcoming presidential election in America or the conflict over Obamacare or China’s role in the world or Trayvon Martin or same sex marriage?

Or, at root, is this just an “academic” dispute?

Re Gervais, it seems obvious: We do not all come into the world created equal. And [all jokes aside] Nietzsche’s and Hitler’s narratives here [different as many argue they are] are or are not germaine as a reaction to this obvious fact.

But who is to say which human “traits” are the most valuable? Or what is to be done with those who come into the world as they are through no fault of their own? Or how a differing approach to raising children born in a particular way can’t change it?

Is intelligence the most important trait? How about emotional depth? How about artistic gifts? How about the ability to make people laugh?

Or compassion? Or social skills? Or charisma? Or strenght? Or beauty? Or athletic gifts? Or sexual prowess?

3

To me it’s pretty clear that you’re thinking of me here. However, though I’ve identified with Fascism in the past, I now think I was wrong about it, and that its fundament is the anger of the angry mob. I would now define Fascism as ochlocracy that tends to turn into monarchy or tyranny (usually tyranny). Question: Was it really the aim of Nazism to establish a new aristocracy? Quaeritur. In any case, “ochlocracy into tyranny” is the diametrical opposite of aristocracy, and thereby of Nietzscheism (aristocratic radicalism): for it’s that side of the triangle whose opposite apex is the rule of a few; and ochlocracy and tyranny are the bad forms of the rule of many and the rule of one, respectively, whereas aristocracy is the good form of the rule of a few.—

4

Both would seem mutually producing the other when in the ascendency of their movement’s given extreme, Fascism and Nietzschean Caste society. That’s the problem with having militant overseers underneath a class of doctors and inventors when it’s highly likely some of the aristorcacy when booted out or leaves voluntarily will end up there. They will still have personality and to a high degree, knowing human psychology, group feeling with elements of the caste above and below to ensure their own power base. This would create a dualism of logistical support and vassalage, sometimes in the same people and institutions and in other eras separate and more dispersed and concealed.

Hitler’s regime tried very hard to create a caste of DIonysian artist and musicians who would lead society… Hitler counted himself amongst that class. They preserved much of the old aristocracy, but also promoted absurd members to it’s forfront… be like me taking over a country and filling the upper posts of government with Cynics… just damn silly and lacks foresight as to the nature of a Cynic- highly capable men, but they like, wouldn’t be beholden to normal systems of rewards and punishments, and might just wander off to sleep in a ditch right before a national security crisis would erupt unexpectedly. Same with fickled artists, highly unreliable group.

But fascism was neither invented by the Nazi nor stopped with their destruction. It always produces aristocracies, and they aren’t always structured in a Nietzschean value system. However your presumption that Hitler’s system resulted in mob rule via anger is incorrect. Esprit de corps is rarely founded on anger, infact it’s a damn rarity. Aristotle saw it’s use, and it’s tried often times before a battle up until the near modern era, but like, very rare for a long term sustainability. You have to look at places like the defense at Leningrad… they were fucking pissed and deep into it. The most disturbing propaganda video I’ve ever seen has come out of that siege. I am certain the Nazis had to of seen it during the siege… that’s when you know you just gotta pack up and go home, they ain’t giving in till their last nerve stops twitching.

Anger is modulated in such regimes, and a more well thought out system of initiative, rewards and punishment, and strong group attachment is encouraged fro the state level down. In early fascism, at the brown shirt state, yeah, it was a angry riot… but that didn’t last very long, and it was no different from the gang tactics of Nero’s rule before the city burnt down. That’s barely the more organized fascism of the mature fascist state. Both sucks balls, but your more likely to survive the first simply due to the fact it’s more chaotic and hot blooded… get that douchebag lured in the alley during a riot, and the brown shirt won’t be accounted for. You can pick off stragglers like this left and right. All they can do is get pissed off and shot a few people as a lesson once they fail to find out who it was who keeps launching counter strikes.

Now, at every level, they will scapegoat the living daylights out of someone. Someone weak and near, as well as big but far away. It’s two forms of threats that people react to rather surprisingly well… not because they are stupid, but evolution tells us historically something along these lines has traditionally been quiet correct. You only need to look at central africa to appreciate this reality most people live with, and their not fascist in the least, playing defense for the most part.

Nietzsche didn’t seem too big into scapegoating, but he did allow for mass manipulation of the people’s minds, exploiting it for every cent it’s worth. I don’t see much of a difference between the two. One caste would overtake the other, producing the next ascendency in it’s turn. Have no clue fucking why anyone would want this silliness. Doesn’t produce more health anywhere this sort of thing takes place, make the people weak, diseased and stunted and the economy backwards and prone to foreign invasion.

5

Baltimore… I caused a young girl to give up on her religion one thanksgiving dinner and enter into philosophy. It was all a reaction from me talking to her grandfather, a former school teacher. She was too young for me, but none the less the need to impress was there, and I knew she was within eyesight of hearing, of seeing, out of the corner of my eye. I should of picked wiser topics. We’re so impressionable with the sight of a flash of charisma and personality. Especially when we’re at our most formative age. It seems like yesterday. Time is a aspect that has not sped up for me like in my teens. My life has slowed down dramatically. This decade has been several decades for me. Never has life gone so slow, and never have my activities been so complex and many. But other people… they grow dramatically fast. I hear she’s now in her masters. How can she, she’s only 16? I don’t know anymore. I cut a swath through the world, and rarely am I aware of what I don’t intend when I am relaxed. It’s the unintended consequences of the interpersonal impressions that I have mastered in half… the projection of, and completely live oblivious, in not knowing what I am projecting when I pass oblivious. I’ld rather past without consequence, or be seen as a idiot and a fool. I am assured by a few it’s this latter, but then I see the results of shit disaster I wreak on occasions when someone unintended is touched and follows, or remembers.

Academic exercise? It’s been a while since I’ve been invited into a classroom. I am intentionally not seeking one out unless I care to exorcise some demon. It’s a land suggesting great potential, but it never quite comes out right. Yes, a end aim is apprehended, and it’s consequential failures. It’s not a ideology, it’s not structured in imagination and values. It’s in the emotions and depth on contact with it. I can’t find the seeking spirit in them… only spirits seeking to be filled. I am disturbed by this, it scares and unnerves me.

Yes. What I say has everything to do with everything. It’s the oddity of my compulsion. Sometimes I don’t quite grasp the gravity of my words until later. It’s a phenomena liken to Berkley’s grasp of imagination… it’s not my own, it’s there and I ride it… a prophetic ass I’ve not created, but have learned to goad and whip until it yelps and moves.

The qizarate sits most firmly in the fading light of the old culture of the madrasa. The university, the serialization of authors and books penetrate ever deeper into Afganistan and Baluchistan. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jTx9MEcA9w[/youtube]
You cannot gain this sort of radicalization without a stimulation of a polarizing entity. When we oppose, we accept and absorb it’s phantom into ourselves. It’s always in reactionary conservative thought ironically it’s survival is assured.

You say Dasein. I note what remains and changes in perceptions in a changing world. We reject and tear so much up and accept the means to it. We see it dilutes or preverts us, and react against it. In this dance of footwork, we can never see how much remains in our lee that we try to stamp out, and how little of what we claim to cherish remains.

The video. Oh… that’s a true Qizarate. They fight for a religion, but in this video, you can see it dying ironically. Look how much more OPEN they are becoming, more integrated. They try to go through the categories of their righteous ways, no one can tell these men they are enslave, not valiant. But look at their tactics, and the world they are accepting, and the means… most importantly the means? They have in every success lost. They are lead forward by men increasingly opposed unconsciously to everything that validates their path forward, they lead the road to this change and perversion. It’s because they accept principles over their old ways. One way or another, soon that road will be paved… by them or the central government. Comprehend this. It’s the nature of every Qizarate to pervert. The lack a golden means to maintain the dependable way forward. They lack a comprehension of this very science. They in time are guaranteed to lose their validity. It happened to even the spartans in time against simplistic strategems. They knew the application of traditions, of their constitution and what sustained them too little and too much and lost it all to a few stratagems.

Pay attention to the rest of you, not just the methods of taking and developing interpretations. You’ll find the mind is alot broader than many give credit for. After all, some men, some societies, remarkably sustain despite change, while others try like hell to sustain and fold. Strategy and tactics spread across the sands of time, to be picked up and considered… but the most important thing to consider is yourself and your aims and the means of getting there prior to this exploration. It’s the eternal mistake of the Qizarate that forgets this. It’s always the means to their undoing. I myself have undone so much, inadvertedly the most. I know this all too well.

6

Interesting, but I am not sure how it pertains to the points I raised.

I’m sorry, but this rather reminds me of an observsation Joan Baez once made about Bob Dylan: “You who are so good with words and at keeping things vague.”

Another example:

Or, instead, is this just an exercise in irony? A way perhaps to expose the distance between rhetoric and reality?

How would you relate this to, say, the brutality inherent in political economy? I’m just trying to get a sense of how seriously to take you. We all come into venues like this with different sets of intentions and motivations. Mine always revolve around value judgments, identity and timeless questions like, “how ought I to live?” and “what is the nature of identity?” and “what are the limits of language and logic?”.

But that’s just me. It doesn’t have to be you or anyone else. Still, how would you reduce your arguments down to what you perceive as “out in the world we live in”?

In my view, Qizarate are dasein situated out in a particular world. A world situated in a particular historical and cultural context ever evolving and changing. Just like us and the world we live in. But it is a world increasingly more difficult to sustain because it has been invaded. It has been thrust into history by Al Qaeda and American imperialism. And now the armies are there. And they want pipelines and all the precious natural resources. But it is not military might that will change them. It is new technologies that bring in new worlds. And it is happening everywhere.

Will they cling to the past [and God] with all of its necessary good and evil or will they create new worlds fraught with ambiguities and uncertainties? Stability and change ever in conflict.

But it would seem their options are always limited to whatever those with wealth and power set as the boundaries of behaviors.

The evangelicals the world over can postpone this change but for how much longer?

And what preoccupies me of course is how change is always just a point of view. There is no necessarily better or worse way to order things.

There are only those able to enforce particular agendas.

Again: eloquently noted but noting what exactly?