When Nietzsche Took Cocaine

Nietzsche at his most dangerous;

"The strong of the future.—To what extent necessity on the one hand and accident on the other have attained to conditions from which a stronger species may be reared: this we are now able to understand and to bring about consciously; we can now create those conditions under which such an elevation is possible.

Hitherto education has always aimed at the utility of society: not the greatest possible utility for the future, but the utility of the society actually extant. What people required were “instruments” for this purpose. Provided the wealth of forces were greater, it would be possible to think of a draft being made upon them, the aim of which would not be the utility of society, but some future utility.

The more people grasped to what extent the present form of society was in such a state of transition as sooner or later to be no longer able to exist for its own sake, but only as a means in the hands of a stronger race, the more this task would have to be brought forward.

The increasing belittlement of man is precisely the impelling power which leads one to think of[ the cultivation of a stronger race: a race which would have a surplus precisely there where the dwarfed species was weak and growing weaker (will, responsibility, self-reliance, the ability to postulate aims for one’s self).

The means would be those which history teaches: isolation by means of preservative interests which would be the reverse of those generally accepted; exercise in transvalued valuations; distance as pathos; a clean conscience in what to-day is most despised and most prohibited.

The levelling of the mankind of Europe is the great process which should not be arrested; it should even be accelerated. The necessity of cleaving gulfs, of distance, of the order of rank, is therefore imperative; but not the necessity of retarding the process above mentioned.

This levelled-down species requires justification as soon as it is attained: its justification is that it exists for the service of a higher and sovereign race which stands upon it and can only be elevated upon its shoulders to the task which it is destined to perform. Not only a ruling race whose task would be consummated in ruling alone: but a race with vital spheres of its own, with an overflow of energy for beauty, bravery, culture, and manners, even for the most abstract thought; a yea-saying race which would be able to allow itself every kind of great luxury—strong enough to be able to dispense with the tyranny of the imperatives of virtue, rich enough to be in no need of economy or pedantry; beyond good and evil; a forcing-house for rare and exceptional plants." [Nietzsche, The Will to Power, 898]

Pezer may be right that it has been indecent to publish these notes. Nietzsche may not have intended these brutal thoughts to be transmitted so matter-of-factly, for just any gangster to run with the rough gist of it. A poetic imperative may have been better.

I am about sure that this was never meant for publication. I believe that because it is not the style one finds in published works, not even in some embryonic form. As for the content, those thoughts did emerge elsewhere. The first group of aphorisms in the book VII of BGE echoes this jotting.
Sometimes one can find considerations of this order expressed in more ‘sympathetic’ forms and, probably, N.’s attitude is comprehensively described in BGE 225. Nevertheless, when push comes to shove… well, yes, it’s brutal. In “those who better humanity” there is this ‘glorification’ of the Law of Manu (3) which is… unsettling. Personally, pictures of the WWII Warsaw getto come to mind every time I read that. And that is something we zealots have to live with.

BGE is from 1886, whereas this note is from 1887. As such, it’s rather echoed here:

“[A]ll ends and all utilities are only signs that a Will to Power has mastered a less powerful force, has impressed thereon out of its own self the meaning of a function; and the whole history of a ‘Thing,’ an organ, a custom, can on the same principle be regarded as a continuous ‘sign-chain’ of perpetually new interpretations and adjustments, whose causes, so far from needing to have even a mutual connection, sometimes follow and alternate with each other absolutely haphazard. Similarly, the evolution of a ‘thing,’ of a custom, is anything but its progressus to an end, still less a logical and direct progressus attained with the minimum expenditure of energy and cost: it is rather the succession of processes of subjugation, more or less profound, more or less mutually independent, which operate on the thing itself; it is, further, the resistance which in each case invariably displayed this subjugation, the Protean wriggles by way of defence and reaction, and, further, the results of successful counter-efforts. The form is fluid, but the meaning is even more so—even inside every individual organism the case is the same: with every genuine growth of the whole, the ‘function’ of the individual organs becomes shifted,—in certain cases a partial perishing of these organs, a diminution of their numbers (for instance, through annihilation of the connecting members), can be a symptom of growing strength and perfection. What I mean is this: even partial loss of utility, decay, and degeneration, loss of function and purpose, in a word, death, appertain to the conditions of the genuine progressus; which always appears in the shape of a will and way to greater power, and is always realised at the expense of innumerable smaller powers. The magnitude of a ‘progress’ is gauged by the greatness of the sacrifice that it requires: humanity as a mass sacrificed to the prosperity of the one stronger species of Man—that would be a progress.” (GM II 12, Levy edition.)

My own suggestion, of course, is to sacrifice those who believe in the immortality of the soul (almost 90% of humankind) so that those who are strong enough to do without that belief may prosper—in the Holocene!

Now we are getting somewhere! The sacrafice. !

The allusion may be prototypical, for in the case of Mayans, 3 persons climbed the pyramid, the king, the hero , and the priest, to sacrafice to the sun, ( not the son)- albeit there may be a connection) with the hero sacraficed.

Nothing new or entirely unique there.

If “echoing” necessarily implies occurrence after something - as, actually, physical echoes do - then ok… Regardless, as much as they are related, it seems to me more a case of overlapping than sharing the same subject. What I see in your quote is mainly a legislative function of WTP and its dynamics. Jakob’s quote is more about a stronger species and sketches something like caste system - and there are those most interesting paragraphs about the “levelling of mankind in Europe” that would become the precondition for the future creation of two races. Anyway, yours is a most beautiful quote.

I tend to agree on this (half-seriously), but I believe the criteria would be more complex and oriented to sort people according to ascending and descending characters - and probably that would be determined through the school of suffering. Besides, when considering rearing, the question about N. and Lamarckism almost inevitably comes to the surface. In the past I was adamant that N. rejected Lamarckism in favour of what we may call evolution orthodoxy. Nowadays I believe he was very strongly inclined to Lamarckism, to the point of being in pain not to openly embrace it. For the case in point, a lamarckian stance would imply that indeed the sons bear the sins of the fathers. That would remain on open question when looking at Jakob’s quote, while, in the case of the Manu’s chandala, Lamarckism is implied.

@Meno_: I don’t agree, killing is not goal here. Then, as for the value of ritual sacrifice, there is at least one clear paragraph (no time to check on my quotes today) in the Antichrist.

What about all those that don’t believe in the immortality of the soul but are nonetheless a drag on the strong? Would you also include in the 90 percent those who don’t affirm the ER? Does not affirming the ER necessarily translate to a belief in an afterlife?

I’m also wondering what victory actually looks like here. If time is circular and affirming ER means willing even the Christians, then is victory just a moment of sorts? (“let your peace be a victory” in the “good war”)… Let all wars from now on be “good wars”?

attano says:

@Meno_: I don’t agree, killing is not goal here. Then, as for the value of ritual sacrifice, there is at least one clear paragraph (no time to check on my quotes today) in the Antichrist.”

I agree, but as things go, as You suggested that Lamarkism and behavior may not either be absolute contrarian concepts, the archetypes could not possibly suggest either an absolute construction, or a defensive deconstruction against either adulation ( The Christ) or the negative (The antichrist)

Considering the basis of such semantic logistical method to solve an ontological problem; things may become clearer.

Sacrafice on the phenomenological level may occur as an obvious daily affair,with believers in the soul not really posing a threat to material acquisition in the sense of trending or transvaluing the ideal into pragmatic utility , a reductive effort that Marxism tried to counterbalance ; through the world.( and it appearently hasn’t worked)- mass sacrifice is the preferred method of silent victimization, where the poor are being progressively impoverished at they’re own expense. Such are manipulated in the name of monetary policy and supply demand functions.

There are millions of families, including hungry children, even now dying of malnutrition and allied illnesses.

These are the real martyrs, the silent sufferers, while tradition has it that price control methods have been noted as vulgar as dumping excess food into the sea to control prices

So with the advent of ‘democracy’ , ‘sacrifice’ has taken on a less delible look, one that has reduced to lower levels of participatory mystique.

But what I really wanted to imply and focus on is the sacraficial shift of religious unto socio economic transformations and how they effect the transition from an idyll of sacrificial motive from Abrahamism to it’s paralogical narratives, and that idea is not present in ‘The Antichrist’
, at least not to my knowledge. That archaic point of view could opine Lamark to it’s most advantaged politically derived suggestion, in order to maximize the perception to the initial motive of reducing scientism to the the least misunderstood level.

That is like converting the social economic theories toward minimalist Freudian economies of the will, to enhance the traditional view around social economic reality.

NM

Well, let’s ‘sacrifice’ those too. No… seriously, it’s really not about killing. The idea is to have a race of slaves to prop those who are ‘superior’, and I guess their beliefs would not be the main criterion (it’s not about ideology either). Sacrifice here means that these people are expendable with a view to a greater good. In some economics perspective we could call that ‘operational costs’, or even ‘investment’, though the victims will by no means reap the benefits.
I am not trying to make it any more palatable than it sounds, but whoever has even a modest experience in some working environment, can see that large organisations do have these expendable members. Obviously, they need not to die, but neither need they in N.’s plan (but if that happens… well, no big deal). And as for ‘dragging the strong’, as soon as there is some predicament, let’s call that ‘crisis’, those people are ditched.
I guess this is nothing you haven’t seen in your lifetime.

Then, no, it’s not about an afterlife, it’s about a comeback. More of the same, no qualitative difference. And, please, consider that in N.’s view individuals are by no means what people mean by the word. The only ‘reality’ would be the ER itself.
Actually, I am kind of oversimplifying here, there are some private notes where the man considered how much a belief in the ER would affect people’s life-view, the ramifications this core belief would spread. In a way, if you focus just on the process, that would be analogous to the destruction triggered by the death of God, but unlike that in a life-affirming sense.

This is interesting and I have no simple, quick answer to that.
As a tentative answer, let’s say that victory is what feels like it and one would know how much that is ‘real’.
At the end of the day, your questions can be said to be ‘the truth’. But, then, you may also want to question the value of truth itself.

@Meno_
Man, you pack a lot of stuff in there. I have to confess that I could not grasp all that you wrote. I guess that when you point out that, in fact, this mass of servants exists already, and it’s not some deranged fairy tale, we agree. And, yes, the white lie of some kingdom of justice awaiting it is what helps them to carry on. Although, let’s be frank, a lot of people do not really believe that. They just content themselves with thinking that they are ‘decent’. And, honestly, I guess we all do that, if only for some time.

90% is just a single decimation. :wink:

No, I don’t think not affirming the ER necessarily translates to a belief in an afterlife; so yes, I would also include (though not necessarily in the 90 percent—see above) those who don’t affirm, if not the ER, then at least the abysmal thought.

Yes, “the short peace”:

“Against the value of that which remains eternally the same (vide Spinoza’s naiveté; Descartes’ also), the values of the briefest and most transient, the seductive flash of gold on the belly of the serpent vita—” (WP 577, Kaufmann trans.)

Similar, to Rheingold.
too many formus too little time!

youtu.be/LfHunhfGzio

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHEqIm1ifRM[/youtube]

Oh! You made me have one of those penny-drop moments.
I just realised that some day this forum will become a clash of vlogs.

(nice, anyway, but are you sure you want to wear that bonnet?)

I think Jakob’s making a logical error. If I consider the fear of permadeath a mark of weakness, then why should I prefer it to rebirth? In fact, I would gladly be reborn in the Hellrealms!

Those who believe in the immortality of the soul usually also believe in a Heavenly afterlife, which may require a stay in Purgatory or even in Hell (and life on Earth is itself often looked at as some kind of Purgatory or Hell), but which is a life of eternal bliss. It’s basically only Buddhism—which rejects the immortality of the soul—which teaches that even such Heavenly afterlives don’t last forever and even the Gods in those Heavens (the Christian and Islamic Gods, for example) must eventually die, and will then probably be reborn in a lower realm (because the intense bliss of the Godrealms is not very conducive to enlightenment).

I don’t think weaklings would really prefer permadeath to rebirth. For example, my—now ex—girlfriend used to dream of permadeath, until I pointed out to her that she wouldn’t be able to enjoy it (experience the contrast between life and permadeath), which was what drove her so desperate as to travel 5,000 miles to come and stay with me for three years. What she’d dreamt of was actually a kind of Heaven: eternal peace! And I think this is typical.

That laughter at the end is really maniacal, by the way.

Hi Attano:

There is a simpler way to look at it:

The Antichrist need not eve. need to be opened, for Sacrafice of the absolute can be read on it’s face, as the negation of Greek ideals. But it is more, of shows a relation of proof between God and Man, a proof pf love: the angel appeared both times, in the case of Abraham it was tappearance to Abraham, who would and could naturally desist from such ultimate proof of love, buy god? He could mot allow himself to be let off, since OT was the test of the literal proof of love toward his very own , a test of which was his own test of a doubt about the intent toward his own creation.

The angel could only appear as a symbol, a metaphor of the whole parable of being as a creation of love! That is what it’s stake.

The Antichrist is a return to a negation of that, a destruction of the Greek elements that the Talmud incorporated into it’self, that bound god, to question the very reasons behind and beneath the whole idea of the test of faith, based on formidable gaps between the creature, the Creation and god. Here, the split between the first and the second covenent, had to ignore the purported effects of god’s denied fear of life, and take on the appearance of a real albeit opposite force to content with, where both, work, ultimately later on, with a new structural heresy involved: the Gnosticism prescription in between working things out, hermetically but without proof through temptation and deliverance through redemption.

There’s definitely a certain percentage of the population that hopes there’s nothing after death so they can just be “rid of themselves” as Jakob says. But this isn’t really that much different than hoping for an “eternal” life after death, in the sense that both are logically impossible. Most people probably just want the easily obtained bliss of some promised after-life.

However, the only “eternity” there is, the only one that can even be experienced is what you quoted earlier:

““Against the value of that which remains eternally the same (vide Spinoza’s naiveté; Descartes’ also), the values of the briefest and most transient, the seductive flash of gold on the belly of the serpent vita—” (WP 577, Kaufmann trans.)”

Even your ex-gf’s “eternal peace” was a transient peace as it was experienced in a dream.

Well, I meant a daydream, but yeah. The only true eternity is indeed Blake’s “eternity in a moment” (also Zarathustra’s gateway “Moment”, ancient Greek kairos, etc.).

Of the percentage of the population which hopes there’s nothing after death, I think the greatest part hasn’t thought it through (like my ex). And I’m not sure it’s logically impossible; why do you say that?

Ollie youre talking about Muslims and Christians. Not about Chinamen or Indians.

Good to know you’d be glad to be reborn though.
Ive just made several videos about the ER + the Big Bang/Heat Death idea, and about the extreme harshness of the idea of reincarnation, which means having to go through endless deaths. Hardly for the weak. This one is just uploading now and will hopefully premiere at midnight.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veXBaqpx1EM[/youtube]

And Attano Im not wearing a bonnet in this one. A scarf. Not on my head either.

Perpetual - please give the logical argument that says eternity of identity is impossible, without basing yourself on the outdated billiard ball model of causality, which is also what sustains the ER, but is pertinently false, as I explain the video.

Glad Blake comes up. He says that the eternal loves the structures of time.

I think I’m talking about exoteric Buddhists and Hindus as well as exoteric Muslims and Christians:

“Pure Land Buddhism […] is a broad branch of Mahayana Buddhism and one of the most widely practiced traditions of Buddhism in East Asia. […] Pure Land Buddhism is built on the belief that we will never have a world which is not corrupt, so we must strive for re-birth in another plane, referred to as the ‘Pure Land’.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land_Buddhism

“The followers of Dvaita (dualistic) schools, in moksha state, identify individual ‘soul, self’ as distinct from Brahman but infinitesimally close, and after attaining moksha expect to spend eternity in a loka (heaven).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Purusharthas_(objectives_of_human_life)

Thanks. Even in late 2017, when I’d just experienced my first birth throe of the Babe of the Abyss (that is, other than on lesser psychedelics—on whose leaving one feeling gross I disagree with perpetualburn—and a few other unheimliche Empfindungen (“uncanny sensations/experiences”), going back well into my childhood)—even back then, I already wrote:

‘Well, for me that [there would not be infinitely many rebirths] would take away the best part: the suggestion that even infinitely many rebirths would be a blessing if spent on trying and liberating others; that such a rebirth is not a burden at all, but on the contrary! that it’s not even a necessary evil, but a boon!—perhaps even the greatest of boons…’
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=424608#p424608

“Good to know you’d be glad to be reborn”

Good news guys,

You have to die and reborn in this life, so that you can be reborn to eternal life.

"https://biblehub.com/john/5-24.htm

and same John ( the disciple that loved Him):

"In John, those who accept Christ can possess life “here and now” as well as in eternity, for they have “passed from death to life”, as in

John 5:24: “He who hears my word, and believes him that sent me, has eternal life, and comes not into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.”