Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Qualitative Politics

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2  Next
AuthorMessage
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:27 pm

Rosenzweig vs. Spengler on the Nomadic state:

Quote :
"Drawing upon the arche/re'shiyth of his own Judaic heritage, Rosenzweig questions the logic of geo-philosophy and its privileging of the soil as the basis of political community. In a fragment entitled "Peoples and their Native Soil", that serves as a kind of manifesto against autochthony, Rosenzweig writes:
"The peoples of the world are not content with the bonds of blood. They sink their roots into the night of earth, lifeless in itself, but the spender of life, and from the lastingness of earth they conclude that they themselves will last. Their will to eternity clings to the soul and to the reign over the soil, to the land. The earth of their homeland is watered by the blood of their sons, for they do not trust in the life of a community of blood, in a community that can dispense with anchorage in solid earth. ...For while the earth nourishes, it also binds. Whenever a people loves the soil of its native land more than its own life, it is in danger that... in the end the soul will persist as that which was loved more strongly, and the people will leave their lifeblood upon it. In the final analysis, the people belong to him who conquers the land. It cannot be otherwise, because people cling to the soil more than to their life as a people. Thus the earth betrays a people that entrusted its permanence to earth. The soil endures, the peoples who live on it pass. ...
And so, in contrast to the history of other peoples, the earliest legends about the tribe of the eternal people is not based on indigenousness [Autochthonie]. ...To the eternal people home is never home in the sense of land, as it is to the peoples of the world who plough the land and live and thrive on it, until they have all but forgotten that being a people means something besides being rooted in a land. The eternal people has not been permitted to while away time in any home. It never loses the untrammeled freedom of a wanderer."

vs.

Spengler wrote:
"[The peasant] roots in the earth that he tends, the soul of man discovers a soul in the countryside, and a new earth-boundedness of being, a new feeling pronounces itself. Hostile nature becomes the friend; earth becomes Mother Earth. Between sowing and begetting, harvest and death, the child and the grain, a profound affinity is set up. A new devoutness addresses itself in the chthonic cults to the fertile earth that grows along with man. ...The peasant's dwelling is the great symbol of settledness. It is itself plant, thrusts its roots deep into its "own" soil... this is the condition precedent of every Kultur, which itself in turn grows up out of a mother-landscape, and renews and intensifies the intimacy of man and soil. ...Only in Zivilisation with its giant cities do we come again to despise and disengage ourselves from these roots. Man as civilized, as intellectual nomad, is again wholly microcosmic, wholly nameless. ...Today at the end of this Kultur, the rootless intellect ranges over all landscapes and possibilities of thought. But between these limits lies the time in which a man held a bit of soil to be something worth dying for."

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*


Last edited by Lyssa on Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14431
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Sat Apr 14, 2012 6:21 pm

Why do you think that with Nietzsche the Wanderer takes on a romantic spirit?

In his confessions he paints himself, or the free-spirited, as this nomad living outside the cities, like Zarahturstra, always outcasts and never at home.

Atzmon in his book The Wandering Who? speaks of the creation of the Zionists state, of Israel, as a way of "healing" the Jew from his ailment...and in much of literature it is the nomadic aspect of Judaism, rooted in a history of homeless wandering in deserts and trying to fit in amongst the gentiles or Arabs.
The Jewish spirit, transmitted to the west via Christianity, is based on this soil-less tribe finding a heavenly earth for the one they are missing here.
In Ancient City paganism is described as this connection to the soil, via the hearth.

Was Nietzsche a closet Jew in his heart? Did he not admire Jesus and Socrates, the brain-child of Plato who offered his Ideals to found the connecting bridge between Jerusalem and Rome?
Weininger speaks of hating in others what we most despise in ourselves...he also relates genius with a kind of schizophrenia - multiple personalities living within one person, making his aware of all parts of humanity.
Did not Nietzsche live a sort of nomadic existence himself?

Weininger also thought that both female and male coexisted in all humans and the level of masculinity and femininity could be reduced to a mathematical formula...where a man who was, for example, 30% female and 70% male would be most attracted to a woman who was 70% female and 30% male...thusly making one complete human: the notion of completion is evidence of his Jewishness.

Did he not kill himself in his twenties?
Did not Heisman also kill himself?
Did not both these Jews not share a realization of what Jewishness was and how it related to Arianism?

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:28 pm

Satyr> Why do you think that with Nietzsche the Wanderer takes on a romantic spirit?
In his confessions he paints himself, or the free-spirited, as this nomad living outside the cities, like Zarahturstra, always outcasts and never at home. Atzmon in his book The Wandering Who? speaks of the creation of the Zionists state, of Israel, as a way of "healing" the Jew from his ailment...and in much of literature it is the nomadic aspect of Judaism, rooted in a history of homeless wandering in deserts and trying to fit in amongst the gentiles or Arabs.
The Jewish spirit, transmitted to the west via Christianity, is based on this soil-less tribe finding a heavenly earth for the one they are missing here.
In Ancient City paganism is described as this connection to the soil, via the hearth.
Did not Nietzsche live a sort of nomadic existence himself?


If you look at the origins of 'The Wandering Jew', he wanders from a curse and for redemption for slandering/mocking Christ. He is 'condemned to wander' till the last judgement of Christ. This is an intra-politic intra-semitic anti-semitic coinage.
You'll have to distinguish this from the Faustian spirit and the Dionysian spirit, both of which wander to push past boundaries in search of expanding the limits of consciousness, seeding new civilizations on its way... its an aggressive thrust and a compelling thirst - their strength and restlessness itself pushes them into newer frontiers. To 'cling' to anything is tantamount to a decay and stagnation, even a 'suffering'... they feel the drive to infinity, to knowledge, to conquest. N. defines the free-spirit as one whose heart is so bound and firm and 'rooted', that the spirit is able to travel far and wide. It refuses to live under the sun, and wants to create its own sun under which to live...
N. cites Prometheus, Odysseus, Hercules, Oedipus, Dionysos, Alexander, etc. as essentially Aryan Wandering archetypes characterized by their drive for transgression. They are restless, constantly self-overcoming spirits who cannot be contained. They are an excess.

N.'s Wanderer wandered because he felt 'at home and homeless' everywhere and nowhere... 'at home' because he was a realist and vehemently opposed any idealisms, and 'homeless' because the world itself was untimely for him, to receive him, his teachings... the Bismarckian age of petty politics, the crude intra-state wars pained him because he was already thinking in terms of a Unified-Europe, a Pan-Europa... a Grand Politics of an Aryan Conquest. He couldn't identify with the Germans of his time who engaged in such oxymoronic anti-semitism of which he understood the ones to benefit from such foolishness would inevitably be the Jews, because they tend to prevail under unfavourable circumstances more, and the idea was to make the Germans stop from creating these unfav. condtns. for the Jews.
He thought that the Germans were not German enough for a real Nationalism and (intra-White)Racialism; they were fighting and squandering themselves over bread-crumbs when they could be 'leading' the whole of Europe! He thought the authentic Germanics had a Genius for Leadership, this was their natural calling and he felt homeless to be living amidst such times. The sight of that climate made him melancholy but also more affirmative of where the current events of his time would necessarily lead to and where it 'could' lead to... he had to put a distance of centuries and Wander into the future, to create a Direction.

In the foll. first quote, he affirms that it is Rootedness to Soil that helped create such enduring characters, and because of commercialization - the natural state of things cannot be refuted away, he claimed one would have to become strong and have character to stay rooted! So rootedness went both ways for him.

Lastly, to Heid., Man was essentially Home-less because he has lost his "dwelling", from the oblivion of his Being-ness. What Heid. and Spengler speak at the microcosmic level of soil and rootedness, Nietzsche's entire Zarathustra, as the Wanderer, was to teach, "Remain true to the Earth" - he spoke of rootedness and soil at the macrocosmic level. The meaning of the Dionysian/Faustian Wandering itself is about In-Corporating, Em-Bodying, the limitless expanse into a Home and Rootedness. Hence the, "Overman is the Meaning of the Earth". N. does not deny the man-who-tills-the-soil, but only enlarges him and the Scale of the Soil... Zarathustra and the Thousand Year Reich is an Apollonian longing for a more longer, more durable, more Eternal paganism and pagan (over)man - a thousand years of firming and being firmed by the soil... ! If it took 10 scales to create a Homer, a 100 to create a Caesar or a Napoleon or a Goethe, then imagine what would kind of Aryan Character would be the result of a 1000 scale spanning stable soil... NS of course was about creating/breeding such a race of man, to which extent, Hitler in the MK, declared his war, as a War for a 1000 year Peace. In this, he echoed TSZ word for word [the chapter on War].
Although Nietzsche's life appears to 'us' as a romantic, he was not one; he was a Classicist in all deadly seriousness, and in the pure Greek sense of the term.

Gilad Atzmon merely fears the anti-semitic backlash because of political Zionism because of the repercussions it would have on the expanse of the more subtler "cultural zionism"... he is merely Kafkaesque and champions the leftist cause.
The other Atzmon - Ariella, also writes on this topic between Hellenic Rootedness and Hebraic Wandering; in case you have not read:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If you'd like to read more on Rosenzweig and the degree of what he means by Semiticism - to the extent he calls Islam, a 'paganism'!... :
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'll leave your question further with the foll. quotes, which I think cover the meaning and distinction of Aryan Nomadicism and the spirit of Its Wandering; incidentally, my winter thesis was on this.


"The former means for obtaining homogeneous, enduring characters for long generations: unalienable landed property, honouring the old (origin of the belief in gods and heroes as ancestors). Now the breaking up of landed property belongs to the opposite tendency: newspapers (in place of daily prayers), railway, telegraph.
Centralization of a tremendous number of different interests in a single soul, which for that reason must be very strong and protean." [Nietzsche; WTP, 67]

"For institutions to be possible there must exist a sort of Will, Instinct, Imperative, which cannot be otherwise than anti-liberal to the point of wickedness: the Will to tradition, to authority, to responsibility for Centuries to come, to SOLIDARITY in long family lines forward and backward 'in infinitum'. If this Will is present, something is founded which resembles the 'imperium Romanum' ". [Nietzsche; Twilight, 9.39]

"I know that everything essential and great originated from the fact that the human being had a homeland and was rooted in tradition." [Martin Heidegger]

"For me Heidegger is the greatest philosopher of the century, perhaps one of the very great philosophers of the millennium: but I am very pained by that because I can never forget what he was in 1933. He has a very great sense for every thing that is part of a landscape; not the artistic landscape, but the place in which man is enrooted. It is absolutely not a philosophy of the émigré! I would even say that it is not the philosophy of the emigrant. To me, being a migrant is not being a nomad. Nothing is more enrooted than the nomad. But he or she that emigrates is fully human: the migration of man does not destroy does not demolish the meaning of being." [Emanuel Levinas]

"Since the Jew has never had a State which was based on territorial delimitations, and therefore never a civilization of his own, the idea arose that here we were dealing with a people who had to be considered as Nomads. That is a great and mischievous mistake. The true nomad does actually possess a definite delimited territory where he lives. It is merely that he does not cultivate it, as the settled farmer does, but that he lives on the products of his herds, with which he wanders over his domain. The natural reason for this mode of existence is to be found in the fact that the soil is not fertile and that it does not give the steady produce which makes a fixed abode possible.
...The Aryan himself was probably at first a nomad and became a settler in the course of ages. But yet he was never of the Jewish kind. The Jew is not a nomad for the nomad has already a definite attitude towards the concept of 'work', and this attitude served as the basis of a later cultural development, when the necessary intellectual conditions were at hand. There is a certain amount of idealism in the general attitude of the nomad, even though it be rather primitive. ...But not even the slightest trace of idealism exists in the Jewish character. The Jew has never been a nomad, but always a parasite, fattening on the substance of others.
If he occasionally abandoned regions where he had hitherto lived he did not do it voluntarily. He did it because from time to time he was driven out by people who were tired of having their hospitality abused by such guests. Jewish self-expansion is a parasitic phenomenon; since the Jew is always looking for new pastures for his race. But this has nothing to do with nomadic life as such...
A State which is territorially delimited cannot be established or maintained unless the general attitude towards work be a positive one. If this attitude be lacking, then the necessary basis of a civilization is also lacking. That is why the Jewish people, despite the intellectual powers with which they are apparently endowed, have not a culture, certainly not a culture of their own." [Hitler; Mein Kampf, p.253, 255]

"Faustian Culture... An infinitesimal music of the boundless world-space - that is the deep unresting longing of this soul..." [Spengler]

"What is it that calls forth this feeling of infinity, abandonment and loneliness? What is that feeling which we encounter so strongly imprinted on no other race and culture soul known to us? There have been sufficient references to the manifold differences in the souls of peoples and to the eternal restlessness of Faustian natures and to
their feeling of infinity, but we still have not been brought to real consciousness. The Indian had a feeling of eternity and this is ancient Aryan property.
...The Faustian man penetrates into the infinite, profoundest depths, but he is essentially solitary ..... But that is only possible because he experiences inwardly an immortality unique only to himself. He elevates him self from an environment as a person, because he is personality. He senses his immortal unique soul. That soul is an eternally active master which searches for strength, time, and spacelessness. It is released from all that is earthbound. It is completely unique. That is the secret of the Germanic Nordic soul, the primal phenomenon, as Goethe would call it, beyond which we no longer seek, perceive or explain anything and which we should only respect in order to permit it to take its place within us.
The Semitic fatalism which recognises all causation as unalterable. Spengler is not aware of the real Faustian "Alone, I will". He does not see racially spiritual forces shape worlds. Rather, he invents abstract schemes—destiny—to which we have to subject ourselves.
Logically in its conclusion, this doctrine denies race, personality, personal value and every really culture promoting impulse—in a word, the heart of the heart of Germanic man." [A.Rosenberg, Myth of the Twentieth Century]

"We aeronauts of the spirit!— All those brave birds which fly out into the distance, into the farthest distance—it is certain! somewhere or other they will be unable to go on and will perch down on a mast or a bare cliff-face—and they will even be thankful for this miserable accommodation! But who could venture to infer from that, that there was not an immense open space before them, that they had flown as far as one could fly! All our great teachers and predecessors have at last come to a stop [...] it will be the same with you and me! Other birds will fly farther! This insight and faith of ours vies with them in flying up and away; it rises above our heads and above our impotence into the heights and from there surveys the distance and sees before it the flocks of birds which, far stronger than we, still strive whither we have striven, and where everything is sea, sea, sea!— And whither then would we go? Would we cross the sea? Whither does this mighty longing draw us, this longing that is worth more to us than any pleasure? Why just in this direction, thither where all the sums of humanity have hitherto gone down? Will it perhaps be said of us one
day that we too, steering westward, hoped to reach an India—but that it was our fate to be wrecked against infinity? Or, my brothers. Or?—" [Nietzsche; Daybreak, 575]

"German philosophy as a whole - Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, to name the greatest - is the most fundamental form of romanticism and homesickness there has ever been: the longing for the best that ever existed. One is no longer at home anywhere; at last one longs back for that place in which one would want to be at home, because it is the only place in which one would want to be at home: the Greek world! But it is in precisely that direction that all bridges are broken - except the rainbow bridges of concepts! ...One wants to go back, through the Church Fathers to the Greeks... one still relishes the exit from antiquity, Christianity, as an entrance to it..." [Nietzsche; WTP, 419]

"I conjure you, my brethren, remain true to the earth, and believe not those who speak unto you of superearthly hopes! Poisoners are they, whether they know it or not.
Despisers of life are they, decaying ones and poisoned ones themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so away with them!
Once blasphemy against God was the greatest blasphemy; but God died, and therewith also those blasphemers. To blaspheme the earth is now the dreadfulest sin, and to rate the heart of the unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth!
Once the soul looked contemptuously on the body, and then that contempt was the supreme thing:--the soul wished the body meagre, ghastly, and famished. Thus it thought to escape from the body and the earth.
Oh, that soul was itself meagre, ghastly, and famished; and cruelty was the delight of that soul!" [Nietzsche, TSZ Prologue]

"And who could divine what thoughts then passed through Zarathustra's soul? Apparently, however, his spirit retreated and fled in advance and was in remote distances, and as it were "wandering on high mountain ridges," as it stands written, "between two seas, - Wandering between the past and the future as a heavy cloud”." [N.; TSZ; Drunken Song, 2]

"We who are homeless. Among Europeans today there is no lack of those who are entitled to call themselves homeless in a distinctive and honorable sense: it is to them that I especially commend my secret wisdom and gaya scienza. For their fate is hard, their hopes are uncertain; it is quite a feat to devise some comfort for them—but what avail? We children of the future, how could we be at home in this today?
We feel disfavor for all ideals that might lead one to feel at home even in this fragile, broken time of transition; as for its "realities," we do not believe that they will last.
The ice that still supports people today has become very thin; the wind that brings the thaw is blowing; we ourselves who are homeless constitute a force that breaks open ice and other all too thin "realities."
We "conserve" nothing; neither do we want to return to any past periods; we are not by any means "liberal"; we do not work for "progress"; we do not need to plug up our ears against the sirens who in the market place sing of the future: their song about "equal rights," "a free society," "no more masters and no servants" has no allure for us. We simply do not consider it desirable that a realm of justice and concord should be established on earth (because it would certainly be the realm ofthe deepest leveling and chinoiserie); we are delighted with all who love, as we do, danger, war, and adventures, who refuse to compromise, to be captured, reconciled, and castrated; we count ourselves among conquerors; we think about the necessity for new orders, also for a new slavery—for every strengthening and enhancement of the human type also involves a newkind of enslavement.
Is it not clear that with all this we are bound to feel ill at ease in an age that likes to claim the distinction of being the most humane, the mildest, and the most righteous age that the sun has ever seen?
...The "religion of pity" to which one would like to convert us—oh, we know the hysterical little males and females well enough who today need precisely this religion as a veil and make-up. We are no humanitarians; we should never dare to permit ourselves to speak of our "love for humanity"; ou rkind is not actor enough for that. Or not Saint-Simonist [utopian socialist] enough, not French enough. ...
Humanity! Has there ever been a more hideous old woman among all old women—(unless it were "truth": a question for philosophers)? No, we do not love humanity; but on the other hand we are not nearly "German" enough, in the sense in which the word "German" is constantly being used nowadays, to advocate nationalism and race hatred and to be able to take pleasure in the national scabies of the heart and blood poisoning that now leads the nations of Europe to delimit and barricade themselves against each other as if it were a matter of quarantine. For that we are too openminded, too malicious, too spoiled, also too well informed, too "traveled": we far prefer to live on mountains, apart, "untimely," in past or future centuries, merely
in order to keep ourselves from experiencing the silent rage to which we know we should be condemned as eyewitnesses of politics that are desolating the German spirit by making it vain and that is, moreover, petty politics: to keep its own creation from immediately falling apart again, is it not finding it necessary to plant it between two deadly hatreds? must it not desire the eternalization of the European system of a lot of petty states?
We who are homeless are too manifold and mixed racially and in our descent, being "modern men," and consequently do not feel tempted to participate in the mendacious racial self-admiration and racial indecency that parades in Germany today as a sign of a German way of thinking and that is doubly false and obscene among the people of the "historical sense." We are, in one word—and let this be our word of honor— good Europeans, the heirs of Europe, the rich, oversupplied, but also overly obligated heirs of thousands of years of European spirit. As such, we have also outgrown Christianity and are averse to it—precisely because we have grown out of it, because our ancestors were Christians who in their Christianity were uncompromisingly upright: for their faith they willingly sacrificed possessions and position, blood and fatherland. We—do the same. For what? For our unbelief? For every kind of unbelief? No, you know better than that, friends! The hidden Yes in you is stronger than all Nos and Maybes that afflict you and your age like a disease; and when you have to embark on the sea, you emigrants, you, too, are compelled to this by—a faith!" [Nietzsche; JW, 377]

"Odin touched me, God of Sight, that I should walk alone.
I wander hidden ways at night and talk to tree and stone.
Seeking wisdom is more meet than foolish people's mirth
and Hroptr's ecstasy more sweet than man's in Middle-Earth.
You Warrior, why you rage and roam I'll never understand.
While others seek a peaceful home, you fight in foreign lands.
What drives you to the dance of spears until you die or win?
Both friends and foes will shun and fear one who wears Berserk skin.
Odin touched me, God of War, that I may never rest.
His battle-rapture makes me roar, his fury fills my breast.

Into the fray I lead my men, red ruin in our wake,
and when the frenzy takes me, then I fight for fighting's sake."
[Michaela Macha, Three Ways]

"Armed with rucksack and lute, blond youths and girls were to be seen restlessly wandering on every road from the North Cape to Sicily, faithful votaries of the roving god. Later, towards the end of the Weimar Republic, the wandering role was taken over by thousands of unemployed. By 1933 they wandered no longer, but marched in their hundreds of thousands. The Hitler movement literally brought the whole of Germany to its feet, from five-year-olds to veterans, and produced the spectacle of a nation migrating from one place to another. Wotan the Wanderer was on the move.
Wotan is a restless wanderer who creates unrest and stirs up strife and works magic. He was soon changed by Christianity into the devil, and only lived on in fading local traditions as a ghostly hunter who was seen with his retinue (the Wild Hunt) flickering like a will o'the wisp through the stormy night.
...'We are driven to conclude that Wotan must, in time, reveal not only the restless, violent, stormy side of his character, but also his ecstatic and mantic qualities. National Socialism will not be the last word. Things must be concealed in the background which we cannot imagine at present, but we may expect them to appear in the course of the future." [Carl Jung, Wotan]

""Who are thou?" asked Zarathustra vehemently, "what do you here? And why call you yourself my shadow? you are not pleasing to me."
"Forgive me," answered the shadow, "that it is I; and if I please you not - well, O Zarathustra! therein do I admire you and your good taste.
A wanderer am I, who have walked long at your heels; always on the way, but without a goal, also without a home: so that truly, I lack little of being the eternally Wandering Jew, except that I am not eternal and not a Jew.
What? Must I ever be on the way? Whirled by every wind, unsettled, driven about? O earth, you have become too round for me!
'Where is - my home?' For it do I ask and seek, and have sought, but have not found it. O eternal everywhere, O eternal nowhere, O eternal - in-vain!"
Thus spoke the shadow, and Zarathustra's countenance lengthened at his words. "you are my shadow!" said he at last sadly.
"your danger is not small, you free spirit and wanderer! you have had a bad day: see that a still worse evening does not overtake you!
To such unsettled ones as thou, seems at last even a prisoner blessed. Didst you ever see how captured criminals sleep? They sleep quietly, they enjoy their new security.
Beware lest in the end a narrow faith capture you, a hard, rigorous delusion! For now everything that is narrow and fixed seduces and tempts you." [Nietzsche; TSZ, The Shadow]

"The modern legend of the isolate and embattled individual: the hero as outsider. He thinks more, knows more, and suffers more than other men do, and is as a consequence elevated above them. Whatever he has of value he has created out of himself, for apart from himself there is only “the compact majority,” which is always wrong. When he speaks he is usually misunderstood, but he can in any case be understood only by isolated and embattled individuals such as himself. In the end he removes himself to a distance at which he and the compact majority become mutually invisible, but his image is preserved in his icon: the man who goes alone." [Hollingdale (1996); The legend of Nietzsche, p.87]

"Philosophy, as I have hitherto understood and lived it, is a voluntary living in ice and high mountains – a seeking after everything strange and questionable in existence, all that has hitherto been excommunicated by morality. [(1993), p.4]
...I do not wish to persuade anyone to philosophy: it is inevitable, it is perhaps also desirable, that the philosopher should be a rare plant. [(1987), WTP, 420]
...The trust in life is gone: life itself has become a problem. Yet one should not jump to the conclusion that this necessarily makes one gloomy. Even love of life is still possible, only one loves differently. It is the love for a woman that causes doubts in us.
The attraction of everything problematic, the delight in an x, however, is
so great in such more spiritual, more spiritualized men that this delight flares up again and again like a bright blaze over all the distress of what is problematic, over all the danger of uncertainty, and even over the jealousy of the lover. We know a new happiness." [Nietzsche; JW, Preface, 3]

"The Solitary.
I hate to follow and I hate to lead.
Obey? Oh no! And govern? No indeed!
Only who dreads himself inspires dread.
And only those inspiring dread can lead.
Even to lead myself is not my speed.
I love to lose myself for a good while,
Like animals in forests and the sea,
To sit and think on some abandoned isle,
And lure myself back home from far away,
Seducing myself to come back to me." [Nietzsche; JW, Prelude in German Rhymes, 33]

"The whole of my 'Zarathustra' is a dithyramb in honour of solitude, or, if I have been understood, in honour of purity." [Nietzsche Letter]


_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14431
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:34 pm

Then to this wandering Jew one can also juxtapose the more noble nomad, the Native American, who although wanders from place to place feels an affinity with the land and its creatures.
He wanders upon the land not detached form it. One is at home upon the land not alienated and an outcast, seeking redemption in the heavens.

We can say that one wanders in spirit but remains firm upon the land: or one's masculinity is rooted on a dominion over one's female side...the earth being the representation of the feminine.
For the Jew the female body, the earth, is something despicable, alienating, shameful...he looks upward to be taken off the earth.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:36 pm

Satyr> Was Nietzsche a closet Jew in his heart? Did he not admire Jesus and Socrates, the brain-child of Plato who offered his Ideals to found the connecting bridge between Jerusalem and Rome?


It is said he admired Jews openly and so therefore despite his every single attack on them, and larger perspective and thrust of his pro-Aryan philosophy, he can be cast as a closet-jew!
It is said he attacked Jews openly and so therefore he never even overcame his ressentiment and the author of the AntiChrist was a closet-xt.!

One cannot even call the above a smear campaign or defamation, because N. already anticipated great wars would be fought in his name; he even worked towards this provocation - to start a war, because he found everyone sleeping comfortably - the jews in their manipulations, xts. in their spreading the disease of comfort, and the germans in their foolish narrow nationalism and anti-semitism... everything natural was getting denaturalized in this slumber.

"To make the individual uncomfortable, that is my task."
—Spring-Summer 1875 5 [178]

So the one thing that can be clearly said anyway, is that he was not a "closet" anything - whatever he did, he did Openly. He intended to start a war by provoking every single one; he spared nobody. Regarding what he was and his heritage, he never denied it;

"It cannot be effaced from a man’s soul what his ancestors have preferably and most constantly done: whether they were perhaps diligent economizers attached to a desk and a cash-box, modest and citizen-like in their desires, modest also in their virtues; or whether they were accustomed to commanding from morning till night, fond of rude pleasures and probably of still ruder duties and responsibilities; or whether, finally, at one time or another, they have sacrificed old privileges of birth and possession, in order to live wholly for their faith—for their "God,"—as men of an inexorable and sensitive conscience, which blushes at every compromise. It is quite impossible for a man NOT to have the qualities and predilections of his parents and ancestors in his constitution, whatever appearances may suggest to the contrary. This is the problem of race. Granted that one knows something of the parents, it is admissible to draw a conclusion about the child: any kind of offensive incontinence, any kind of sordid envy, or of clumsy self-vaunting—the three things which together have constituted the genuine plebeian type in all times—such must pass over to the child, as surely as bad blood; and with the help of the best education and culture one will only succeed in DECEIVING with regard to such heredity.—And what else does education and culture try to do nowadays! In our very democratic, or rather, very plebeian age, “education” and "culture” MUST be essentially the art of deceiving—deceiving with regard to origin, with regard to the inherited plebeianism in body and soul. An educator who nowadays preached truthfulness above everything else, and called out constantly to his pupils: "Be true! Be natural! Show yourselves as you are!"—even such a virtuous and sincere ass would learn in a short time to have recourse to the FURCA of Horace, NATURAM EXPELLERE: with what results? “Plebeianism” USQUE RECURRET. [FOOTNOTE: Horace's "Epistles,” I. x. 24.]" [BGE, 264]

That said, he also said this about himself;

"I do not by any means know atheism as a result; even less as an event: it is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questionable, too exuberant to stand for any gross answer. God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers—at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think!"
—Ecce Homo, Why I Am So Clever, 1

"Have I been understood?— Dionysus versus the Crucified.—"
—EH, Why I Am a Destiny, 9

Will it be enough to simply say that N. considered and called himself an Immoralist, the disciple of Dionysos in Ecce Homo and the meaning of his work was 'Dionysos vs. the Crucified' as war in the ongoing war of Rome against Judea? No, apparently it may not be enough.

One by one then.


1. Christ.

Nietzsche separated Christ from Paul's Christ; Christ's Glad Tidings of the heart from Pauline Xt., and Xt. from the institution of the Church. I suggest reading the Will to Power.

To N., Christ was against any kind of self-defence, against maintaining one's rights, hence against any kind of victory in personal triumph, not being obliged to anyone in spite of distress or death, a spiritual independence and pride beneath a life of poverty, against any 'state', 'structure', 'politics, political 'forms' of any sort', any sense of 'person' - and therefore against any concept of sin, redemption or atonement, , against judgements, against discrimination, oaths, justice, against enmity, against things, history, rites, dogmas, against resistance or putting up of 'form' of any sort, against institutions of any sort.

N. believed, to Christ, Bliss was not something promised afterward, but a way of life, of living - of being purely inward, not a 'system or form' of beliefs - how to act and not what to believe;
'To suffer anything at any cost and at any length so that one's Inner Peace isn't disturbed.' - The "pleasure" of Blessedness as its own justification, for which one is ready to suffer anything... a hyper-hedonism; but without the preaching of any after-life paradise. Christ kept the concept of happiness Real and in this life.
N. thought Paul barbarized Christ, and Pauline Xt. and the Church was the anti-thesis of everything Christ stood for - forms and power structures were precisely what Christ had opposed. N. thought Christ-ianism - could both only be possible as a private form of existence within a highly Political State! where peace was maintained and one could therefore be free to live with one's inner-peace undisturbed, with no need at all for any god or metaphysics or science. He remarked if Christ lived long enough, he would have recanted his own way of living.
To N., Christ represented the highest hypersensitivity to Reality, to forms. He suffered Reality itself.
He blamed Christ for opening his teachings to all sorts of rabble and the disinherited, when he should have simply lived out his inner-peace within himself - to set an example by living, not preaching. His absurd hatred and jewish ressentiment Corrupted the innocent, he Corrupted Life. Paul merely took advantage of this and magnified the already present insurrection against everything in power, pagan Rome as well as the Jews - anti-semitism begins here. He hence says, Democracy, Christ-ian Socialism, Anarchism is Xt. made Natural.
Lastly, he coins a phrase 'Christ-souled-Roman-Caesar' to expound that a Christ [the one who resists nothing] is only possible within a Caesar, and a Caesar is only possible if he overcomes the Christ [pitying] within himself first.
The meaning of the Dionysian is Not to oppose Christ-ianism/Xt. (both) by refuting or ignoring it, but to overcome it "Through it" to the other side...
“To wait and to prepare oneself; to await the emergence of new sources; to prepare oneself in solitude… to overcome everything Christian through something supra-Christian, and Not Merely to Put it Aside – for the Christian doctrine was the counterdoctrine to the Dionysian." [WTP,1051]
If this "Affirmation" of everything Christ-ian/Xt. in the Dionysian Overcoming is read as "Admiration" for Christ or Xt., so be it.
N. never denied anything, including his own heritage, that was his way of overcoming his ressentiments.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:38 pm

2. Socrates and Plato.


I think the quotations speak quite directly here.

"If all goes well, the time will come when one will take up the memorabilia of Socrates rather than the Bible as a guide to morals and reason... The pathways of the most various philosophical modes of life lead back to him... Socrates excels the founder of Christianity in being able to be serious cheerfully and in possessing that wisdom full of roguishness that constitutes the finest state of the human soul. And he also possessed the finer intellect." [The Wanderer and his Shadow]

"This irreverent thought that the great sages are types of decline first occurred to me precisely in a case where it is most strongly opposed by both scholarly and unscholarly prejudice: I recognized Socrates and Plato to be symptoms of degeneration, tools of the Greek dissolution, pseudo-Greek, anti-Greek (Birth of Tragedy, 1872). ...In origin, Socrates belonged to the lowest class: Socrates was plebs. We know, we can still see for ourselves, how ugly he was.
But ugliness, in itself an objection, is among the Greeks almost a refutation. Was Socrates a Greek at all? Ugliness is often enough the expression of a development that has been crossed, thwarted by crossing. Or it appears as declining development. The anthropologists among the criminologists tell us that the typical criminal is ugly: monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo. But the criminal is a decadent. Was Socrates a typical criminal? At least that would not be contradicted by the famous judgment of the physiognomist which sounded so offensive to the friends of Socrates. A foreigner who knew about faces once passed
through Athens and told Socrates to his face that he was a monstrum—that he harbored in himself all the bad vices and appetites.
And Socrates merely answered: “You know me, sir!” ... With Socrates, Greek taste changes in favor of dialectics. What really happened there? Above all, a noble taste is thus vanquished; with dialectics the plebs come to the top... Socrates was the buffoon who got himself taken seriously: what really happened there?...
One chooses dialectic only when one has no other means. One knows that one arouses mistrust with it, that it is not very persuasive. Nothing is easier to erase than a dialectical effect: the experience of every meeting at which there are speeches proves this. It can only be self-defense for those who no longer have other weapons. One must have to enforce one’s right: until one reaches that point, one makes no use of it. The Jews were dialecticians for that reason; Reynard the Fox was one—and Socrates too?" [Twilight, The Problem of Socrates]

"Socrates represents the moment of the profoundest perversity in the history of values." [WTP, 430]

"The real philosophers of Greece are those before Socrates. - with Socrates something changes." [ib., 437]

"The dying Socrates. I admire the courage and wisdom of Socrates in everything he did, said - and did not say. This mocking and enamored monster and pied piper of Athens, who made the most overweening youths tremble and sob, was not only the wisest chatterer of all time: he was equally great in silence. I wish he had remained taciturn also at the
last moment of his life; in that case he might belong to a still higher order of spirits. Whether it was death or the poison or piety or malice - something loosened his tongue at that moment and he said:
"O Crito, I owe Asclepius a rooster." This ridiculous and terrible "last word" means fr those who have ears: "O Crito, life is a
disease." Is it possible that a man like him, who had lived cheerfully and like a soldier in the sight of everyone, should have been a pessimist?... Socrates, Socrates suffered life! And then he still revenged himself - with this veiled, gruesome, pious, and blasphemous saying. Did a Socrates need such revenge? Did his overrich virtue lack an ounce of magnanimity? - Alas, my friends, we must overcome even the Greeks!" [JW, 360]


From Twilight of the Idols , sec. 'What I owe to the Ancients';

"... Please do not throw Plato at me. I am a complete skeptic about Plato, and I have never been able to join in the customary scholarly admiration for Plato the artist. The subtlest judges of taste among the ancients themselves are here
on my side. Plato, it seems to me, throws all stylistic forms together and is
thus a first-rate decadent in style ... Plato is boring.
In the end, my mistrust of Plato goes deep: he represents such an aberration from all the basic Greek instincts, is so moralistic, so pseudo-Christian (he already takes the concept of "the good" as the highest concept) that I would prefer the harsh phrase "higher swindle" or, if it sounds better, "idealism" for the whole phenomenon of Plato.
We have paid dearly for the fact that this Athenian got his schooling from the Egyptians (or from the Jews in Egypt?).
In that great calamity called Christianity, Plato represents that ambiguity and fascination, called an "ideal," which made it possible for the nobler spirits of antiquity to misunderstand themselves and to set foot on the bridge leading to the Cross. And how much Plato there still is in the concept "church," in the construction, system, and practice of the church!
My recreation, my preference, my cure from all Platonism has always been Thucydides. Thucydides and, perhaps, Machiavelli's 'Il Principe' are most closely related to me by the unconditional will not to delude oneself, but to see reason in reality--not in "reason," still less in "morality."
...In the end, it is courage in the face of reality that distinguishes a man like Thucydides from a man like Plato: Plato is a coward before reality, consequently he flees into the ideal; Thucydides has control of himself, consequently he also maintains control of things.
...How could one possibly judge the Greeks by their philosophers, as the Germans have done, or use the Philistine moralism of the Socratic schools as a clue to what was basically Hellenic! After all, the philosophers are the decadents of Greek culture, the counter-movement against the ancient, noble taste (against the agonistic instinct, against the polis, against the value of race, against the authority of descent).
The Socratic virtues were preached because the Greeks had lost them...
As the key to understanding the older, inexhaustibly rich and even overflowing Greek instinct, I was the first to take seriously that wonderful phenomenon which bears the name of Dionysus, which is only explicable in terms of an excess of force..."

"Plato... Is Plato's integrity beyond question? - But we know at least that he wanted to have taught as absolute truth what he himself did not regard as even conditionally true: namely, the separate existence and separate immortality of "souls". ...Plato - that instinctve Semite and anti-Hellene..." [WTP, 428, 195]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:48 pm

3. Jews.


One needs to understand how N. perceived his milieu and the onset of Nihilism as a result of Judaeo-xt. values. He thought after Greek thought declined with Socrates and took a turn for the worst, the last great Hellene was Pyrrho, and though he came after Socrates, he was in spirit a pre-Socratic. N. called him the Greek Buddhist.
N. thought the goal-positing power to overcome nihilism was weak in Europe because of the weariness brought about by j-xt. The values of the latter triumph because they cloak them in the morality of "good". By introducing the ER, a Buddhistic Nihilism, N. hoped to expose the j-xts. to the weight of crushing Nihilism, in the face of which they will have to fight and wage war and earn their place and thus expose their own immorality - thereby becoming unable to hide and conserve themselves in moral values. Simultaneously, the Germans who needed to be conserving in times of this spiritual weariness were actually squandering themselves away in reactionary petty nationalisms and foolish anti-semitism. The ER was meant to provoke these 'fools' to conserve and inspire them to fight a greater war, by "using" and "assimilating" the jews and jewish "genius" for money, capitalism, commerce, logic, and Acting ! "under" German genius for Political Leadership. [N. observed that Jews rule through the cunning of morality, because they lack the genius for the Political... they are Opportunists and not Conquerors, and a good 'Prince' would know how to exploit this weakness tactfully.]

"Generally in war the best policy is to take a state intact; to ruin it is inferior to this...To win one hundred-victories in onehundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." [SunTzu, The Art of War]

N.'s Dionysian style was the above - to fight without fighting. To not destroy anything, but to merely snatch away the privileges of the enemy and subject them, to take them intact and make something useful out of them. He valued the art of Command more than the impulse to merely Destroy. Commanding was a kind of schadenfroh to him... a malice with a good conscience. If the Jews prevail in unfavourable circumstances and persecutions, then the first step in subjugating them would be to make conditions favourable against them... - no anti-semitism. The secular Jews could/must be made to work for an European agenda.

Lets examine the main passages where he openly "admires" the Jews; where he highlights where and how the Jews could be useful "for" Europe.

"The problem of the actor has troubled me for the longest time. I felt unsure (and sometimes still do) whether it is not only from this angle that one can get at the dangerous concept of the "artist" - a concept that has so far been treated with unpardonable generosity. Falseness with a good conscience; the delight in simulation exploding as a power that pushes aside one's so-called "character", flooding it and at times extinguishing it; the inner craving for a role and mask, for appearance; an excess of the capacity for all kinds of adaptations that can no longer be satisfied in the service of the most immediate and narrowest utility - all of this is perhaps not only peculiar to the actor?
Such an instinct will have developed most easily in families of the lower classes who had to survive under changing pressures and coercions, in deep dependency, who had to cut their coat according to the cloth, always adapting themselves again to new circumstances, who always had to change their mien and posture, until they learned gradually to turn their coat withe very wind and thus virtually to become a coat - and masters of the incorporated and inveterate art of eternally playing hide-and-seek, which in the case of animals is called mimicry - until eventually this capacity, accumulated from generation to generation, becomes domineering, unreasonable, and intractable an instinct that learns to lord it over other instincts, and generates the actor, the "artist" (the zany, the teller of lies, the buffoon, fool, clown at first, as well as the classical servant, Gil Blas; for it is in such types that we find the pre-history of the artist and often enough even of the "genius").
In superior social conditions, too, a similar human type develops under similar pressures; only in such cases the histrionic instinct is usually barely kept under control by another instinct; for example, in the case of "diplomats". Incidentally, I am inclined to believe that a good diplomat would always be free to become a good stage actor if he wished - if only he we were "free".
As for the Jews, the people who possess the art of adaptibility par excellence, this train of thought suggests immediately that one might see them virtually as a world-historical arrangement for the production of actors, a veritable breeding ground for actors. And it really is high time to ask: What good actor today is not - a Jew? The Jew as a born "man of letters", as the true master of the European press, also exercises his power by virtue of his histrionic gifts; for the man of letters is essentially an actor: He plays the "expert", the "specialist". " [JW, 361]

- [A Good-European would even have to be Jew-like today to mask his way up... ]


"The people of Israel. One of the spectacles which the next century will invite us to witness is the decision regarding the fate of the European Jews. It is quite obvious now that they have cast their die and crossed their Rubicon : the only thing that remains for them is either to become masters of Europe or to lose Europe, as they once centuries ago lost Egypt, where they were confronted with similar alternatives. In Europe, however, they have gone through a schooling of eighteen centuries such as no other nation has ever undergone, and the experiences of this dreadful time of probation have benefited the individual to a greater degree than it has the community as a whole. As a consequence of this, the resourcefulness of the modern Jews, both in mind and soul, is extraordinary.
Amongst all the inhabitants of Europe it is the Jews least of all who try to escape from any deep distress by recourse to drink or to suicide, as other less gifted people are so prone to do. Every Jew can find in the history of his own family and of his ancestors a long record of instances of the greatest coolness and perseverance amid difficulties and dreadful situations, an artful cunning in fighting with misfortune and hazard. And above all it is their bravery under the cloak of wretched submission, their heroic spernere se sperni that surpasses the virtues of all the saints.
People wished to make them contemptible by treating them contemptibly for nearly twenty centuries, and refusing them access to all honourable positions and dignities, and by pushing them further down into the meaner trades and under this process indeed, they have not become any cleaner. But contemptible ? They have never ceased for a moment from believing themselves qualified for the very highest functions, nor have the virtues of the suffering ever ceased to adorn them. Their manner of honouring their parents and children, the rationality of their marriages and marriage customs, distinguishes them amongst all Europeans. Besides this, they have been able to create for themselves a sense of power and eternal vengeance from the very trades that were left to them (or to which they were abandoned). Even in palliation of their usury we cannot help saying that, without this occasional pleasant and useful torture inflicted on their scorners, they would have experienced difficulty in preserving their self-respect for so long. For our self-respect depends upon our ability to make reprisals in both good and evil things. Nevertheless, their revenge never urges them on too far, for they all have that liberty of mind, and even of soul, produced in men by frequent changes of place, climate, and customs of neighbours and oppressors, they possess by far the greatest experience in all human intercourse, and even in their passions they exercise the caution which this experience has developed in them. They are so certain of their intellectual versatility and shrewdness that they never, even when reduced to the direst straits, have to earn their bread by manual labour as common workmen, porters, or farm hands. In their manners we can still see that they have never been inspired by chivalric and noble feelings, or that their bodies have ever been girt with fine weapons : a certain obtrusiveness alternates with a submissiveness which Is often tender and almost always painful.
Now, however, that they unavoidably inter-marry more and more year after year with the noblest blood of Europe, they will soon have a considerable heritage of good intellectual and physical manners, so that in another hundred years they will have a sufficiently noble aspect not to render themselves, as masters, ridiculous to those whom they will have subdued. And this is important ! and therefore a settlement of the question is still premature. They themselves know very well that the conquest of Europe or any act of violence is not to be thought of; but they also know that some day or other Europe may, like a ripe fruit, fall into their hands, if they do not clutch at it too eagerly. In the meantime, it is necessary for them to distinguish themselves in all departments of European distinction and to stand in the front rank : until they shall have advanced so far as to determine themselves what distinction shall mean. Then they will be called the pioneers and guides of the Europeans whose modesty they will no longer offend.
And then where shall an outlet be found for this abundant wealth of great impressions accumulated during such an extended period and representing Jewish history for every Jewish family, this wealth of passions, virtues, resolutions, resignations, struggles, and conquests of all kinds where can it find an outlet but in great intellectual men and works ! On the day when the Jews will be able to exhibit to us as their own work such jewels and golden vessels as no European nation, with its shorter and less profound experience, can or could produce, when Israel shall have changed its eternal vengeance into an eternal benediction for Europe: then that seventh day will once more appear when old Jehovah may
rejoice in Himself, in His creation, in His chosen people and all, all of us, will rejoice with Him !" [Daybreak, 205]

"It must be taken into the bargain, if various clouds and disturbances—in short, slight attacks of stupidity—pass over the spirit of a people that suffers and WANTS to suffer from national nervous fever and political ambition: for instance, among present-day Germans there is alternately the anti-French folly, the anti-Semitic folly, the anti-Polish folly, the Christian-romantic folly, the Wagnerian folly, the Teutonic folly, the Prussian folly (just look at those poor historians, the Sybels and Treitschkes, and their closely bandaged heads), and whatever else these little obscurations of the German spirit and conscience may be called. May it be forgiven me that I, too, when on a short daring sojourn on very infected ground, did not remain wholly exempt from the disease, but like every one else, began to entertain thoughts about matters which did not concern me—the first symptom of political infection. About the Jews, for instance, listen to the following:—I have never yet met a German who was favourably inclined to the Jews; and however decided the repudiation of actual anti-Semitism may be on the part of all prudent and political men, this prudence and policy is not perhaps directed against the nature of the sentiment itself, but only against its dangerous excess, and especially against the distasteful and infamous expression of this excess of sentiment; —on this point we must not deceive ourselves. That Germany has amply SUFFICIENT Jews, that the German stomach, the German blood, has difficulty (and will long have difficulty) in disposing only of this quantity of “Jew"—as the Italian, the Frenchman, and the Englishman have done by means of a stronger digestion:—that is the unmistakable declaration and language of a general instinct, to which one must listen and according to which one must act. "Let no more Jews come in! And shut the doors, especially towards the East (also towards Austria)!"—thus commands the instinct of a people whose nature is still feeble and uncertain, so that it could be easily wiped out, easily extinguished, by a stronger race. The Jews, however, are beyond all doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race at present living in Europe, they know how to succeed even under the worst conditions (in fact better than under favourable ones), by means of virtues of some sort, which one would like nowadays to label as vices—owing above all to a resolute faith which does not need to be ashamed before "modern ideas", they alter only, WHEN they do alter, in the same way that the Russian Empire makes its conquest—as an empire that has plenty of time and is not of yesterday—namely, according to the principle, “as slowly as possible"!
A thinker who has the future of Europe at heart, will, in all his perspectives concerning the future, calculate upon the Jews, as he will calculate upon the Russians, as above all the surest and likeliest factors in the great play and battle of forces. That which is at present called a “nation” in Europe, and is really rather a RES FACTA than NATA (indeed, sometimes confusingly similar to a RES FICTA ET PICTA), is in every case something evolving, young, easily displaced, and not yet a race, much less such a race AERE PERENNUS, as the Jews are such “nations” should most carefully avoid all hot-headed rivalry and hostility! It is certain that the Jews, if they desired—or if they were driven to it, as the anti-Semites seem to wish—COULD now have the ascendancy, nay, literally the supremacy, over Europe, that they are NOT working and planning for that end is equally certain. Meanwhile, they rather wish and desire, even somewhat importunely, to be insorbed and absorbed by Europe, they long to be finally settled, authorized, and respected somewhere, and wish to put an end to the nomadic life, to the “wandering Jew",—and one should certainly take account of this impulse and tendency, and MAKE ADVANCES to it (it possibly betokens a mitigation of the Jewish instincts) for which purpose it would perhaps be useful and fair to banish the anti-Semitic bawlers out of the country. One should make advances with all prudence, and with selection, pretty much as the English nobility do. It stands to reason that the more powerful and strongly marked types of new Germanism could enter into relation with the Jews with the least hesitation, for instance, the nobleman officer from the Prussian border it would be interesting in many ways to see whether the genius for money and patience (and especially some intellect and intellectuality—sadly lacking in the place referred to) could not in addition be annexed and trained to the hereditary art of commanding and obeying—for both of which the country in question has now a classic reputation But here it is expedient to break off my festal discourse and my sprightly Teutonomania for I have already reached my SERIOUS TOPIC, the “European problem,” as I understand it, the rearing of a new ruling caste for Europe." [BGE, 251]

- [There's much irony and suggestiveness here comparing the two back to back; note how he's goading and provoking the Germans to think Big, beyond simply Germany, by emphasizing the already far-seeing Jewish desire for becoming Masters of Europe... In Daybreak [1881], he's subtly putting a conditional "meantime" suggesting the Jews first distinguish themselves as a blessing For Europe, while in BGE [1886], he's instructing the Germans to exploit this weakening of the Jewish instinct and their drive to be absorbed as a European function. N.'s playing simulatenously.

In WTP, 383, 384, he writes,

"Instead of taking into service the great sources of strength, those impetuous torrents of the soul that are so often dangerous and overwhelming, and economizing them, this most shortsighted and pernicious mode of thought, the moral mode of thought, wants to make them dry up. ...This is the same logic as: "if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out." ...Overcoming of the affects? - No, if what is implied is their weakening and extirpation. But putting them into service: which may also mean subjecting them to a protracted tyranny (not only as an individual, but as a community, race, etc.). At last they are confidently granted freedom again: they love us as good servants and go voluntarily wherever our best interests lie."

By putting them into service, which is to say, by subject-ing them, as subjects, they voluntarily go the way of protecting the best interests of their Master.

WTP, 769 - "...while a crude injury done him certainly demonstrates our power
over him, it at the same time estranges his will from us even more - and thus makes him less easy to subjugate."

N. understood that Anti-semitism was actually thwarting Jewish subjugation. An irony. Crude Anti-semitism was against the logic of the smallest expenditure, the strength of a far-seeing economy, i.e. anti-semitism was only draining Europe - Europe was ex-hausting its Self, using itself up. But when one makes voluntary subjects of those subjugated, naturally one needs to spend less and less of oneself.

N.'s thoughts on the 'Jewish Question' are similar to how he perceived the evolution of Greek grandness; he writes,

"The bravery of the Greek consists in his struggle with his Asiaticism; beauty is not given to him, as little as is logic or the naturalness of customs - it is conquered, willed, won by struggle - it is his victory." [WTP, 1050]

In the BGE quote above, he remarks, for the thinker who has the future of Europe at heart, he will take into consideration the Jews and the Russians as factors to calculate upon. Considering this is how he 'calculated' on Russia as an external factor, one can likewise draw the direction of his thoughts wrt the Jews as an internal factor;

"It may need not only wars in India and Asian involvements to relieve Europe of the greatest danger facing it, but also internal eruptions, the explosion of the empire into small fragments, and above all the introduction of the parliamentary imbecility, including the obligation upon everyone to read his newspaper at breakfast. I do not say this, because I desire it: the reverse would be more after my heart I mean such an increase in the Russian threat that Europe would have to resolve to become equally threatening, namely to acquire a single will by means of a new caste dominating all Europe, a protracted terrible will of its own which could set its objectives thousands of years ahead — so that the long-drawn-out comedy of its petty states and the divided will of its dynasties and democracies should finally come to an end. The time for petty politics is past: the very next century will bring with it the struggle for mastery over the whole earth — the compulsion to grand politics." [BGE, 208]

Just as he counts on the Russian threat to compel Europe to becoming strong, he plays a similar card when he admires the Jews in the Daybreak quote above.

Lastly, Conway presents a really sinister picture of N.!;
(while Conway believes N. called for a racial assimilation and breeding out of extinction of the Jews, I think N. rather suggested a selective eugenics opposed to and to counter the Jewish Intermarriage among the German Nobility that was already happening... ! He opposed Jewish assimilation. Note how acute is his concern for the German Digestion.)

"...he acknowledged no moral scruple that would have prevented him from treating the Jews (or anyone else) as disposable means to a glorious end. He crudely refers to “the quantum of ‘Jew’” that various European nations were able (or not) to “digest” (BGE, 251), which indicates that he thought of the Jews as reducible in principle to measurable “quanta” of power and utility. ...If, as he claimed, the course of European civilization was determined by the polar opposition between “Rome” and “Judea,” then he could not realistically have hoped to renew the cause of “Rome” without vanquishing “Judea” in the process. In this light, his overtures toward the Jews take on a distinctly sinister cast. He welcomed them into his new European order, but only on the condition that they would no longer pose a threat to his planned consolidation of imperial power. ...As a representative of the grand expansionist ambitions of the empire, Pilate refused to lower his hyperopic gaze to consider seriously the local struggles of the Jews. He was unsentimental, “nobly scornful,” indifferent, and loyal only to the empire. In fact, he was like the Roman Empire itself, for he cared only about the maintenance and expansion of imperial power. He was only minimally—and therefore optimally—human, and he thus resembled those embodied forces of nature whom Nietzsche extols as the apotheoses of human flourishing.
On this retelling of the story, Pilate was the first to confront the imperial dilemma that Nietzsche now faced—namely, what is to be done about the Jews? By merit of his alleged show of indifference, moreover, Pilate responded to this dilemma in a way that Nietzsche deemed admirable. He consequently honors Pilate not only for his selfless service to the empire, but also for his resolve in giving the Jews their due. As Nietzsche explains, Pilate does not persuade himself “[t]o take a Jewish affair seriously. One Jew more or less—what does it matter?” (A, 46).23 This declaration of indifference is chillingly amoral, and we should certainly wonder about Nietzsche’s admiration for its putative wisdom. ...In fact, it was not Pilate who targeted the Jews for indifference and noble scorn, but Nietzsche. He regarded the Jews as the most potent enemies of the Roman Empire. Perhaps the case could be made that Pilate displayed an indiscriminate indifference to the affairs of the Jews and all other peoples living under his jurisdiction. But it was Nietzsche who singled out the Jews as the people whom imperial aspirants cannot afford to ignore. He consequently placed in the mouth of Pilate a teaching that was his alone—namely, that the pursuit of empire requires a “noble scorn” for the Jews. His homage to Pilate thus involves a bit of creative ventriloquy and more than a bit of indirect self-congratulation.
Nietzsche’s portrayal of Pilate thus affords us a productive insight into his own designs on empire.
"In the whole New Testament there is only a single figure who commands respect[:] Pilate, the Roman governor. To take a Jewish affair seriously—he does not persuade himself to do that. One Jew more or less—what does it matter? The noble scorn of a Roman, confronted with an impudent abuse of the word “truth,” has en- riched the New Testament with the only saying that has value— one which is its criticism, even its annihilation: “What is truth?”" (A, 46)
The advanced decay of European culture had amplified the comparative advantage of the Jews in strength and spirit. Whereas Pilate is applauded for not “tak[ing] a Jewish affair seriously,” Nietzsche allows that he must “take into account the Jews” (BGE, 251). Giving the Jews their due thus required him to bestow upon them the (comparative) honors they deserved.
Another part of his concern was strategic in nature. As we have seen, Pilate is reported by Nietzsche to have subscribed to the principle “one Jew more or less.” This means that Pilate feared neither the Jews nor the fledgling Christ cult as threats to the mighty empire. According to Nietzsche, however, this was a strategic mistake, for the Jews were ultimately responsible for the demise of the empire (GM, I:16). Pilate’s underestimation of the Jews and early Christians, compounded by similar miscalculations by other imperial functionaries, thus rendered the empire vulnerable to those “cunning, stealthy, invisible, anemic vampires” who eventually “drained” the empire of its vitality (A, 59). Pilate’s stolid indifference toward the Jews may have been an expression of Roman “nobility,” but it was also a strategic blunder. Champions of empire, Nietzsche has learned, cannot afford the luxury of indifference toward the Jews.
Nietzsche did not take lightly the repeated failures of “Rome” in its struggles with “Judea.” With Europe plunged into the throes of pandemic decay, the relative strength of the Jews was greater and more obvious than ever before. Active measures needed to be taken to ensure their smooth assimilation into the new empire. In fact, if their strength and spirit could be productively transfused into the new empire, then he could claim for himself an impressive double victory. He would have succeeded not only in neutralizing the most formidable opponent to the consolidation of imperial power in the history of Western civilization, but also in harnessing the spirit of the Jews for the task of rejuvenating European culture.
...He reaches out to the Jews, moreover, in a book whose title—Beyond Good and Evil—leaves little to the imagination. ...His proposal of a truce between “Rome” and “Judea” masks a veiled wish to energize “Rome” and neutralize “Judea” by means of European assimilation. His overtures to the Jews are therefore strategic, although not exclusively so, and they are consistent with his more enduring suspicions of the Jews as the enemies of empire." [Daniel Conway, Nietzsche's Imperial Aspirations]

If one really wants to understand how much he was hated and feared by the Jews, read Geoff Waite's 'Exquisite Corpse' - a hostile Marxist book that shudders at the violence of N.'s thoughts against the jews, etc.

His other remarks of 'admiration' on the Jews:

"The Jews, again, took a different view of anger from that held by us, and sanctified it : hence they have placed the sombre majesty of the wrathful man at an elevation so high that a European cannot conceive it. They moulded their wrathful and
holy Jehovah after the images of their wrathful and holy prophets. Compared with them, all the Europeans who have exhibited the greatest wrath are, so to speak, only second-hand creatures." [Daybreak, 38]

"The Jews, being a people which, like the Greeks, and even in a greater degree than the Greeks, loved and still love life, had not cultivated that idea to any great extent: the thought of final death as the punishment of the sinner, death without resurrection as an extreme menace: this was sufficient to impress these peculiar men, who did not wish to get rid of their bodies, but hoped, with their refined Egypticism, to preserve them for ever. (A Jewish martyr, about whom we may read in the Second Book of the Maccabees, would not think of giving up his intestines, which had been torn out : he wanted to have them at the resurrection : quite a Jewish characteristic !)" [Daybreak, 72]

"The Jews are the strangest people in world history because, confronted with the question whether to be or not to be, they chose, with a perfectly uncanny deliberateness, to be at any price: this price was the radical falsification of all nature, all naturalness, all reality, of the whole inner world as well as the outer. They defined themselves sharply against all the conditions under which a people had hitherto been able to live, been allowed to live; out of themselves they created a counter-concept to natural conditions -- they turned religion, cult, morality, history, psychology, one after the other, into an incurable contradiction to their natural values. We encounter this same phenomenon once again and in immeasurably enlarged proportions, yet merely as a copy: the Christian church cannot make the slightest claim to originality when compared with the "holy people. " That is precisely why the Jews are the most catastrophic people of world history: by their after-effect they have made mankind so thoroughly false that even today the Christian can feel anti-Jewish without realizing that he himself is the ultimate Jewish consequence." [AC, 24]

"What we may conclude from fantastic ideals. Where our deficiencies are, there also is our enthusiasm. The enthusiastic principle "love your enemies " had to be invented by the Jews, the best haters that ever existed ; and the finest glorifications of chastity have been written by those who in their youth led dissolute and licentious lives." [Daybreak, 377]

"Psychologically considered, the Jewish people are a people endowed with the toughest vital energy, who, placed in impossible circumstances, voluntarily and out of the most profound prudence of self-preservation, take sides with all the instincts of décadence -- not as mastered by them, but because they divined a power in these instincts with which one could prevail against "the world. " The Jews are the antithesis of all décadents: they have had to represent decadents to the point of illusion; with a non plus ultra of histrionic genius they have known how to place themselves at the head of all movements of décadence ( -- as the Christianity of Paul -- ) in order to create something out of them which is stronger than any Yes-saying party of life. Décadence is only a means for the type of man who demands power in Judaism and Christianity, the priestly type: this type of man has a life interest in making mankind sick; and in so twisting the concepts of "good" and "evil, " "true" and "false, " as to imperil life and slander the world." [AC, 24]

"The symbol of this struggle is called 'Rome against Judaea, Judaea against Rome'." [GM, 1.16]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14431
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:49 pm

But then Plato and his caricature of Socrates have become the very representatives of Hellenism in our modern times.

The pre-Socratics are neglected the academics choosing instead the ones closest in memetic affiliation to the modern age.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:50 pm

4. Ambiguity.



The 'closet' remark brings up N.'s style of play and ambiguity in his writings. Let N. himself clear this up too.

"Or similarly: “Our highest insights must — and should — sound like follies and sometimes like crimes when they are heard without permission by those who are not predisposed and predestined for them.” [BGE, 30]

and,

"One not only wants to be understood when one writes, but also quite as certainly not to be understood. It is by no means an objection to a book when someone finds it unintelligible: perhaps this might just have been the intention of its author, perhaps he did not want to be understood by "anyone”. A distinguished intellect and taste, when it wants to communicate its thoughts, always selects its hearers; by selecting them, it at the same time closes its barriers against "the others". It is there that all the more refined laws of style have their origin: they at the same time keep off, they create distance, they prevent "access" (intelligibility, as we have said,) while they open the ears of those who are acoustically related to them.
...Finally, my brevity has still another value: on those questions which pre-occupy me, I must say a great deal briefly, in order that it may be heard yet more briefly. For as immoralist, one has to take care lest one ruins innocence, I mean the asses and old maids of both sexes, who get nothing from life but their innocence; moreover my writings are meant to fill them with enthusiasm, to elevate them, to encourage them in virtue. I should be at a loss to know of anything more amusing than to see enthusiastic old asses and maids moved by the sweet feelings of virtue: and "that have I seen" said Zarathustra." [JW, 381]


_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:52 pm

Satyr> Weininger...
Did he not kill himself in his twenties?
Did not Heisman also kill himself?
Did not both these Jews not share a realization of what Jewishness was
and how it related to Arianism?


No idea about Weininger,, glossed through him at 18 and didn't(/don't) want to explore his area of interest.
Arianism is diff. from Aryanism; atleast in N. circles, it is differentiated, with the former meaning a sort of Blavatskian theosophy and belief in Christ and Christ-ianity, etc. See: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

But yes, Heisman's a tragic figure. Even his death is a cruel Jewish logic - that it takes death and martyrdom to add substance to a cause/belief; that only death can prove veracity of a hundred percent objectivity... [belief = truth and dying = proof of truth].
The pathetic and painful part was knowing that Heisman knew this and felt 'compelled' to do it anyway... to prove a point he knew would be meaningless to the Jews anyway. And how right he was... no conscience from Harvard. I shuddered at his self-violence. Logically, Judaism should be producing more and more Heismans - he is not rare, he is its honest natural and logical outcome - he is exactly what is to be expected if one were intelligent and he was, but the fact people like him are merely one or two, shows how deep and heavy the j-xt. investment is, in its hellish schizoid messianic project. N. highlights one of its most shameful and relevant aspects for any free-thinker, that has morphed into thought-policing today;

"Doubt as sin.— Christianity has done its utmost to close the circle and declared even doubt to be a sin. One is supposed to be cast into belief without reason, by a miracle, and from then on to swim in it as in the brightest and least ambiguous of elements: even a glance towards land, even the thought that one perhaps exists for something else as well as swimming, even the slightest impulse of our amphibious nature—is sin! And notice that all this means that the foundation of belief and all reflection on its origin is likewise excluded as sinful. What is wanted are blindness and intoxication and an eternal song over the waves in which reason has drowned!" [Daybreak, 89]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14431
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:29 pm

To be anti-Semitic is to play into the Semitic game.
To hate the Jew is to reinforce his victim psychology, pulling towards him all the wronged and vulnerable of every race and from every nation, turning them into Jews in spirit, or if this be bonded with Platonic idealism, turning them into Christians.

This I how they turned Romans against Rome and appeal to the masses when times are tough.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:16 pm

Satyr> Then to this wandering Jew one can also juxtapose the more noble nomad, the Native American, who although wanders from place to place feels an affinity with the land and its creatures.
He wanders upon the land not detached form it. One is at home upon the land not alienated and an outcast, seeking redemption in the heavens.
We can say that one wanders in spirit but remains firm upon the land: or one's masculinity is rooted on a dominion over one's female side...the earth being the representation of the feminine.
For the Jew the female body, the earth, is something despicable, alienating, shameful...he looks upward to be taken off the earth.

Yes, you see this in their origins too - the chthonic animal that represents the earth - the evil serpent and the expulsion and downfall of adam condemned to wander, etc.

Like the 'wandering jew' has been a xt. condemnation, I wonder if the 'wandering gypsy' was the equivalent jewish condemnation; from wiki:
"The English term gipsy (or gypsy) originates from the Greek word Αιγύπτιοι (Aigyptioi, whence Modern Greek γύφτοι gifti), in the erroneous belief that the Romanies originated in Egypt, and were exiled as punishment for allegedly harboring the infant Jesus."

Whether the above is true or not, atleast the Greek perception of them was such. Perhaps the Axis bias against the gypsies had something to do with this jewish root and not a superficial one. So much gets buried in history.

Along with the Native Americans, even the Mongols and the Bedouins, both even today, exemplify nomadic cultures. To distinguish them from the Aryan would be a monumental study in itself. The Mongol expansion under Genghiz Khan who united the nomads... and the subsequent imperial expansion of their sub-Kahns... and on the other hand, there's something about the Faustian/Dionysian restless self-overcoming... while the expansion of the former becomes an ends in itself - they expand as culture preservers, the Aryan is distinguished by an Idealism in its (self-)aggressive-transgressiveness - they have ever been culture re-new-ers. So we could say the degree or rate of flow/variations is an Aryan mark.

"The purest idealism is unconsciously equivalent to the deepest knowledge.
...How necessary it is to keep realizing that idealism does not represent a superfluous expression of sentiment, but that in truth it has been, is, and always will be the premise for what we call human culture—yes, that it alone created the concept, "man." It is to this inner attitude that the Aryan owes his position in the world, and to it the world owes man. For it alone formed from pure spirit the creative force which, by a unique pairing of the brutal fist and intellectual genius, created the monuments of human culture." [Hitler.; MK., 298-99]

Satyr> But then Plato and his caricature of Socrates have become the very representatives of Hellenism in our modern times.
The pre-Socratics are neglected the academics choosing instead the ones closest in memetic affiliation to the modern age.

While N. opposes the semiticization of Socrates and the Socratization of Plato, in his lecture on the Greek State, N. credits Plato for atleast keeping intact the goal of the State - the production of the Genius, despite Plato banishing the military/artistic genius from the ruling realm of the pyramid, despite Plato banning from the Artist-Tyrant his natural, overflowing drive for violence and cruelty;

"That in his perfect state he did not place at the head the genius in
its general meaning, but only the genius of wisdom and of knowledge,
that he altogether excluded the genial artist from his state, that was
a rigid consequence of the Socratic judgment on art, which Plato, in
the struggle against himself, had made his own. This more external and
almost incidental gap must not prevent us from recognizing in the
total conception of the Platonic state the wonderfully great
hieroglyph of a profound and eternally to be interpreted esoteric
doctrine of the connection between state and genius. What we believed
we could divine of this cryptograph we have said in this preface." [N., The Greek State]

And yes, in modern times, is it any surprise, why the J-Xt. fundamentalist neo-cons. looked to Leo Strauss and his "recovery" of Plato...
Strauss on Jerusalem vs. Athens:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Eyes> The great experiment of the enlightenment is coming to and end, it is time for Europeans to shift the other way, and protect ourselves from the Jews, who play the Promethean and Dionysian, but are closet Epimetheans, but their Epimethius is not fit to rule, they should go to Zion, they shall receive no aid from us, we shall rule our lands.

Heisman astutely traced the roots of modern jewish capitalism even prior to the Anglo-Norman war. But here's a brief relating free-mkt. theory to the Anglo-Norman affair; Davis doesn't go deep enough though;
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14431
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:59 pm

Lyssa wrote:
Like the 'wandering jew' has been a xt. condemnation, I wonder if the 'wandering gypsy' was the equivalent jewish condemnation; from wiki:
"The English term gipsy (or gypsy) originates from the Greek word Αιγύπτιοι (Aigyptioi, whence Modern Greek γύφτοι gifti), in the erroneous belief that the Romanies originated in Egypt, and were exiled as punishment for allegedly harboring the infant Jesus."
Yes...this is true.
Although why the gypsies have failed to meet the Jewish standard must be explained by the fact that they lack any historical cohesion.

Schlomo Sand claims that the Jewish identity is mostly a fabrication....and Artzmon, along with many others, agrees with the idea that modern Jewry is mostly held together by the religion of then holocaust. It is only the horror of the Holocaust and the sense of victimization that the Jew needs which binds different peoples under one title.

The Invention of the Jewish People - Schlomo Sand

I would say that the gypsies simply lack this common ground of being victims to bind them into one. They are, and remain, the true outsiders in Europe.

We can see this bonding effect of sharing a victim identity in both the women's movement, feminism, and now the men's movement.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Thu May 10, 2012 3:44 pm

Satyr> Yes...this is true.
Although why the gypsies have failed to meet the Jewish standard must be explained by the fact that they lack any historical cohesion. ...I would say that the gypsies simply lack this common ground of being victims to bind them into one. They are, and remain, the true outsiders in Europe.


There has been a confusion in this because every wandering group suddenly came under the collective group called gypsies.
While this link argues for the Jewish connection after discrediting the label of 'gypsy' by the British colonizers to all nomadic groups;
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
this one speaks of how the NS regime tended to not see the gypsies as a cohesive people in the same sense as the Jews. They tended to differentiate between wanderers and settlers such that "Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS and a central figure in the Third Reich, noted in his diary one short sentence: Keine Vernichtung d. Zigeuner (‘No extermination of the Gypsies’)":
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


The gypsies under the NS were seen more as a 'nuissance' who didn't contribute to productivity; the NS bias was directed against their Wandering nature and seen as a criminality:
"A Bavarian law of July 16,1926, outlined measures for “Combatting Gypsies,Vagabonds, and the Work Shy” and required the systematic registration of all Sinti and Roma.
The law prohibited Gypsies from “roaming about or camping in bands,” and those “Gypsies unable to prove regular employment” risked being sent to forced labor for up to two years. This law became the national norm in 1929.
When Hitler took power in 1933, anti-Gypsy laws remained in effect.

Heinrich Himmler Memorandum, December 8, 1938:

Experience gained in combating the Gypsy nuisance, and knowledge derived from race-biological research, have shown that the proper method of attacking the Gypsy problem seems to be to treat it as a matter of race. Experience shows that part-Gypsies play the greatest role in Gypsy criminality. On the other hand, it has been shown that efforts to make the Gypsies settle have been unsuccessful, especially in the case of pure Gypsies, on account of their strong compulsion to wander. It has therefore become necessary to distinguish between pure and part-Gypsies in the final solution of the Gypsy question. To this end, it is necessary to establish the racial affinity of every Gypsy living in Germany and of every vagrant living a Gypsy-like existence. I therefore decree that all settled and non-settled Gypsies, and also all vagrants living a Gypsy-like existence, are to be registered with the Reich Criminal Police Office-Reich Central Office for Combating the Gypsy Nuisance.
The police authorities will report (via the responsible Criminal Police offices and local offices) to the Reich Criminal Police Office-Reich Central Office for Combating the Gypsy Nuisance all persons who by virtue of their looks and appearance, customs or habits, are to be regarded as Gypsies or part-Gypsies."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Satyr> modern Jewry is mostly held together by the religion of then holocaust. It is only the horror of the Holocaust and the sense of victimization that the Jew needs which binds different peoples under one title.

Yes, persecution fuels cohesion.

"Holocaustianity":

"Similar to the formulations of Israeli philosopher Adi Ophir, the dogmas of this Holocaust Religion can be articulated as religious commandments:

1.Remember what Amalek has done to thee!
2.Thou shall never compare The Holocaust with any other Genocide!
3.Thou shall never compare the Nazi crimes with those of Israel!
4.Thou shall never doubt the number of 6 million Jewish victims!
5.Thou shall never doubt the Nazi Judeocide!
6.Thou shall never doubt the right of Israel to exist as the Jewish state!
7.Thou shall not criticize the leading Jewish organizations and the Israeli government!
8.Thou must never criticize Jewish organizations and the Zionist leadership for abandoning the European Jewry in the Nazi era!
9.Thou shall not doubt the central Role of Hitler in the industrialization of the extermination of the Jews!"
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


The Secular Religion of “the Holocaust,” : a Tainted Product of Consumer Society
by Robert Faurisson -

"THE RELIGION OF “the Holocaust” is a secular one: it belongs to the lay world; it is profane; in actuality, it has at its disposal the secular arm, that is a temporal authority with dreaded power. It has its dogma, its commandments, its decrees, its prophets and its high priests. As one revisionist has observed, it has its circle of saints, male and female, amongst whom, for example, Saint Anne (Frank), Saint Simon (Wiesenthal) and Saint Elie (Wiesel). It has its holy places, its rituals and its pilgrimages. It has its sacred (and macabre) buildings and its relics (in the form of cakes of soap, shoes, toothbrushes, …). It has its martyrs, its heroes, its miracles and its miraculous survivors (in the millions), its golden legend and its righteous ones. Auschwitz is its Golgotha. For it, God is called Yahweh, protector of his chosen people, who, as said in one of the psalms of David (number 120), recently invoked by a female public prosecutor, Anne de Fontette, during the trial in Paris of a French revisionist, punishes “lying lips” (by, incidentally, sending them the “sharp arrows of the mighty, with coals of juniper”). For this religion, Satan is called Hitler, condemned, like Jesus in the Talmud, to boil for eternity in excrement. It knows neither mercy, nor forgiveness, nor clemency but only the duty of vengeance. It amasses fortunes through blackmail and extortion and acquires unheard-of privileges. It dictates its law to the nations. Its heart beats in Jerusalem, at the Yad Vashem monument, in a land taken over from the natives; in the shelter of a 26-foot high wall built to protect a people who are the salt of the earth, the companions of the “Holocaust” faith rule over the goy with a system that is the purest expression of militarism, racism and colonialism.

A quite recent religion whose growth has been meteoric

Although it is largely an avatar of the Hebraic religion, the new religion is quite recent and has exhibited meteoric growth. ...

A religion that embraces consumerism

As a rule, consumer society places religions and ideologies in difficulty or danger. Each year, growth in both industrial production and business activity creates in peoples’ minds new needs and desires, truly concrete ones, lessening their thirst for the absolute or their aspiration towards an ideal, factors that religions and ideologies feed on. Besides, the progress of scientific thinking makes people more and more sceptical as to the truth of religion’s stories and the promises it gives them. Paradoxically, the only religion to prosper today is the “Holocaust” religion, ruling, so to speak, supreme and having those sceptics who are openly active cast out from the rest of mankind: it labels them “deniers”, whilst they call themselves “revisionists”.

These days the ideas of homeland, nationalism or race, as well as those of communism or even socialism, are in crisis or even on their way to extinction. Equally in crisis are the religions of the Western world, including the Jewish religion, and in their turn but in a less visible manner, so are the non-Western religions, themselves confronted by consumerism’s force of attraction; whatever one may think, the Moslem religion is no exception: the bazaar attracts bigger crowds than the mosque and, in certain oil-rich kingdoms, consumerism in its most outlandish forms poses an ever more insolent challenge to the rules for living laid down by Islam.

Roman Catholicism, for its part, is stricken with anaemia: to use Céline’s phrase, it has become “christianaemic”.

But whereas Western beliefs or convictions have lost much of their substance, faith in “the Holocaust” has strengthened; it has ended up creating a link – a religion, according to standard etymology at any rate, is a link (religat religio) – that enables disparate sets of communities and nations to share a common faith. All in all, Christians and Jews today cooperate heartily in propagating the holocaustic faith. Even a fair number of agnostics or atheists can be seen lining up with enthusiasm under the “Holocaust” banner. “Auschwitz” is achieving the union of all.

The fact is that this new religion, born in the era where consumerism expanded so rapidly, bears all the hallmarks of consumerism. It has its vigour, cleverness and inventiveness. It exploits all the resources of marketing and communication. The vilest products of Shoah Business are but the secondary effects of a religion that, intrinsically, is itself a sheer fabrication. From a few scraps of a given historical reality, things that were, after all, commonplace in wartime (like the internment of a good part of the European Jews in ghettos or camps), its promoters have built a gigantic historical imposture: the imposture, all at once, of the alleged extermination of the Jews of Europe, of camps allegedly equipped with homicidal gas chambers and, finally, of an alleged six million Jewish victims.

A religion that seems to have found the solution to the Jewish question

A religion that, previously, groped along with its sales methods
(Raul Hilberg’s recantation)

I suggest that sociologists undertake a history of the new religion by examining the extremely varied techniques in line with which this “product” was created, launched and sold over the years 1945-2000..."

Contd. at: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Satyr> The Invention of the Jewish People - Schlomo Sand

Thanks for the link.

One more note describing the Jewish Wandering nature to delay death at any cost:

"In 1838, the left wing Hegelian thinker, Karl Gutzkow, dramatically presented the
image of the Jew and Judaism as it was shaped by the "Jewish Question," that is, by the
question of whether or not Jews should be politically emancipated and admitted as citizens
to the modern nation-state. In this instance, the question was raised in Germany by
Gutzkow in the following terms:

"Ahasverus [the eternal, wandering Jew] is the tragic consequence of Jewish hopes. There is
embodied so painfully in this individual just that which the Jews wish collectively for
themselves. There is in Judaism despair because though they would gladly die, they cannot.
Certainly, the stubborn clinging to life by the Jews is a tragedy among their misfortunes. A
messianic hope, which cannot be relinquished by even the most enlightened and purified
Jews, tethers them to a bleak existence. . . .
For Judaism has never had the urge to self-destruction [Selbstvernichtung]. It has always been greedy to preserve and maintain itself for a triumphant future. Ahasverus' tragic fate is not his violent and unsuccessful search for death, but rather his exhausted dusk-watch, his
outliving of himself, his obsolescence. Time itself always remains young: new peoples arise,
new heroes, new empires. Only Ahasverus stays on, a living corpse, a dead man who has not yet died."

This image of the Jewish people as a "living corpse" is a representation that haunts the very
formulation and raising of the Jewish Question, not only--but especially--in Germany. As indicated by the phrases that describe the Jews as an "Ahasverus…, a dead man who has not yet died," Gutzkow represents the tragedy of the Jews as the prolongation and obsolescence of their existence, not as their "search for death."" [Susan Shapiro, The Uncanny Jew]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Edit: The Wandering nature of the Jew and living at any cost like a 'living corpse' that distinguishes it from the aryan pagan, is a deification of Suffering itself as life's end;
I forget to include Schopenhauer's remark here;
"The inmost kernel of Christianity is the truth that suffering — the Cross — is the real end and object of life." [On Suicide]


Satyr> We can see this bonding effect of sharing a victim identity in both the women's movement, feminism, and now the men's movement.

Yes.


_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:15 am

Schopenhauer wrote:
"The genuine religion of the Jews … is the crudest of all religions (die roheste aller Religionen.) The ongoing contempt for Jews, amidst their contemporary peoples, may have been to a large degree due to the squalid (armsälig) qualities of their religion. ... In any case the essence of any religion consists, as such, in its persuasion that it provides for us, namely that our actual existence is not only limited to our life, but that it remains timeless. The appalling (erbärmlich) Jewish region does not fulfil this; indeed, it does not even try to. ... Therefore, this is the crudest and the worst of all religions consisting only in an absurd and outrageous (empörend) theism. ... While all other religions endeavour to explain to the people by symbols and parables the metaphysical significance of life, the religion of the Jews is entirely immanent and furnishes nothing but a mere war-cry (Kriegsgeschrei) in the struggle with other nations." [Parerga, pp. 136–137].

Schopenhauer and his relevance to the post-modern hyperreality and victim culture:


Quote :
"Pareto, as a valiant disciple of Schopenhauer’s methods, notes that "many people are not socialists because they have been persuaded by reasoning. Quite the contrary; these people acquiesce to such reasoning because they are (already) socialists."

The process that started with the abstraction of the objective, as a result of the mass media, has ended now in integral reality, as the postmodern author Jean Baudrillard writes.  The virtual itself is “negationist,” or denial-prone. The virtual takes away the substance of the real. “We are living in a society of historical denial by virtue of its virtuality.”

Disbelief reigns everywhere, even if there are solid and empirical proofs of the opposite. No longer is some historical or political event perceived as “real” or truthful. For instance the memory of the Holocaust functions today as the largest civic religion of the West. The Holocaust is a system of belief serving not only a commemorative goal; it is also a cognitive paradigm for interpreting all aspects of our contemporary society. The issue, however, is no longer the body count of people who died in the Holocaust; rather, the issue is the fact that the postmodern virtual world by definition minimizes or maximizes the hyperreal at the expense of the real.  

This rule of the hyperreal or the double applies now to all grand narratives, especially those teeming with victimological themes. Even honest historians or social theorists can no longer be taken as real.  Why? The big postmodern question will immediately start hovering over their heads: What if that guy is telling the lies? What if he does not tell the truth? Victimologies, and victimhoods no longer sound persuasive as they have found their media hyper-substitutes, which either re-enact, or deactivate the real past crime.  

Therefore, the modern media and politicians must make post-prophylactic political decisions in a desperate attempt to dismantle the previous real, i.e., the previous bad decision, the previous inaction by making it up to the real victim with an overkill of repenting rhetoric and post-prophylactic decision making (massive security checks at airports, always new mass commemorations, etc). If the lives of the masses of people who perished cannot be restored, let us restore their memory by the hyperreal media! Why resuscitate the living, when the resuscitation of the dead is a far better business?  

The disadvantage of living in the real world is that life in it is drab, frightening, or boring; the advantage of the “doubled” life lies not only in the fact that such life does not exist, but that such life doesn’t even have to exist in order for us to believe it to be true and real! In other words, this desire for a spectral world is not so much a desire for something different, as it is a desire to get rid of the real world.  

Who are the new paradigms or role models of our hyperreal postmodernity? Once upon a time the role model for Western man was a rugged individual, a Prometheus unbound, a war hero, a conqueror like Cortez, Columbus, or General Lee. Today the will for the hyperreal requires his double or his denial, or better yet the “doubled denial.”  As a result, the new role models for the West are the degenerates, the retards, the non-Whites, the pederasts, the pathetic and the perverts. Baudrillard: “The Courtier was the most remarkable figure of the aristocratic order. The Militant was the most remarkable figure of the social and revolutionary order. The Penitent is the most remarkable figure of our advanced postmodern democratic politicians.”

Even if real racism and fascism are dead and gone, they need to be resurrected in a negative doubled manner in order to give the mourners an opportunity to repent for the failed duty to prevent it from happening. Never again, never again! — this is a  new war cry of our hyperreal discourse.

This strategy of the hyperreal “never again”, is directed not only at preventing similar events from happening again in the future — as expressed in the forms of a myriad of  memorial centers commemorating the Holocaust. It is also meant to be a tool of unravelling, in a vicarious and imaginary way, of the real past historical disaster that befell the Jews or the non-Whites. Likewise, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are waged today as the post- prophylactic double; indeed, they are not just the wars for stopping the terror; they are the wars for removing the past sins of the political class, which led to the real terror of the dreadful 9/11! The goal is now to retroactively cancel out the inflicted national disgrace and humiliation of the ruling elites. This is why the actual wars and our public discourse all over the West are “non-events”. Never again, never again!    

And this is why the hyperreal or the double are pure illusions. They cannot last."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*


Last edited by Lyssa on Sun Dec 04, 2016 12:04 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14431
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:11 am

Very good post.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:57 am

One gleans about the distinction of Hellenism from Hebraism even from a hostile account.
What I note is the latter's pre-occupation with self-salvation and taking the earthly so literally, that no wonder everything concerned with the Hebraic spirit is always so materialistic and existential and psychoanalytic.
Its an addendum to N.'s remark in the AC. that the Jews being too ressentimentally Active were not nihilists themselves, they were the founders of nihilistic movements. To one concerned with self-salvation, the fact that detachment cannot come to characterize the Hebraic spirit like it does the Hellenic, is a valuable observation in our favour.


William Barrett wrote:
"Hebraism contains no eternal realm of essence, which Greek philosophy was to fabricate, through Plato, as affording the intellectual deliverance from the evil of time. Such a realm of eternal essences is possible only for a detached intellect, one who, in Plato's phrase, becomes a "spectator of all time and all existence." This ideal of the philosopher as the highest human type—the theoretical intellect who from the vantage point of eternity can survey all time and existence—is altogether foreign to the Hebraic concept of the man of faith who is passionately committed to his own mortal being. Detachment was for the Hebrew an impermissible state of mind, a vice rather than a virtue; or rather it was something that Biblical man was not yet even able to conceive, since he had not reached the level of rational abstraction of the Greek. His existence was too earth-bound, too laden with oppressive images of mortality, to permit him to experience the philosopher's detachment.

All of this carries us beyond Arnold's simple contrasting of moral man with intellectual man, though his basic distinction isleft intact and in fact deepened. To sum up:

( 1) The ideal man of Hebraism is the man of faith; for Hellenism, at least as it came to ultimate philosophic expression in itstwo greatest philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, the ideal man isthe man of reason, the philosopher who as a spectator of all timeand existence must rise above these.

( 2) The man of faith is the concrete man in his wholeness.Hebraism does not raise its eyes to the universal and abstract; itsvision is always of the concrete, particular, individual man. The Greeks, on the other hand, were the first thinkers in history; they discovered the universal, the abstract and timeless essences, forms, and Ideas. The intoxication of this discovery (which marked noth-ing less than the earliest emergence and differentiation of the ra-tional function) led Plato to hold that man lives only insofar ashe lives in the eternal.

( 3 ) There follows for the Greek the ideal of detachment as the path of wisdom which only the philosopher can tread. The word"theory" derives from the Greek verb theatai, which means to be-hold, to see, and is the root of the word theater. At a theater weare spectators of an action in which we ourselves are not involved.Analogously, the man of theory, the philosopher or pure scientist, looks upon existence with detachment, as we behold spectaclesat the theater; and in this way he exists, to use Kierkegaard's ex-pression, only upon the aesthetic level of existence. The Hebraic emphasis is on commitment, the passionate in-volvement of man with his own mortal being (at once flesh and spirit), with his offspring, family, tribe, and God; a man abstracted from such involvements would be, to Hebraic thought,but a pale shade of the actual existing human person.

(4) The eternal is a rather shadowy concept for the Hebrewexcept as it is embodied in the person of the unknowable andterrible God. For the Greek eternity is something to which manhas ready and continuous access through his intellect.

(5) The Greek invented logic. His definition of man as the ra-tional animal is literally as the logical animal, to zoon logikon; or even more literally the animal who has language, since logic de-rives from the verb legein, which means to say, speak, discourse.
Man is the animal of connected logical discourse. For the Hebrew the status of the intellect is rather typified bythe silly and proud babbling of Job's friends, whose arguments never touch the core of the matter. Intellect and logic are thepride of fools and do not touch the ultimate issues of life, whichtranspire at a depth that language can never reach, the ultimatedepth of faith. Says Job at the end of the Book: "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee."

( 6) The Greek pursues beauty and goodness as things that are identical or at least always coincident; in fact he gives them asingle name, the beautiful-and-good, to kalokagathia.
The Hebraic sense of sin, to which Matthew Arnold alludes, is too muchaware of the galling and refractory aspects of human existence tomake this easy identification of the good and the beautiful. Thesense of the sinfulness of Biblical man is the sense of his radicalfinitude in its aspect of imperfection. Hence his good must some-times wear an ugly face, just as beauty for him may be the shiningmask of evil and corruption.

This sketch of a comparison perhaps tilts the balance a littletoo heavily on the side of Hebraism. It is necessary, however, tocorrect the impression left by Matthew Arnold (and he is here aspokesman for a view that is still prevalent) that the main contentof Hebraism is its energy and will toward morality. We have toinsist on a noetic content in Hebraism: Biblical man too had his knowledge, though it is not the intellectual knowledge of theGreek. It is not the kind of knowledge that man can have throughreason alone, or perhaps not through reason at all; he has it ratherthrough body and blood, bones and bowels, through trust andanger and confusion and love and fear; through his passionateadhesion in faith to the Being whom he can never intellectuallyknow. This kind of knowledge a man has only through living, notreasoning, and perhaps in the end he cannot even say what it ishe knows; yet it is knowledge all the same, and Hebraism at itssource had this knowledge." [William Barrett, Irrational Man; p.51]

Irrational Man

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*


Last edited by Lyssa on Sun Dec 04, 2016 12:02 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14431
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:14 pm

This explains the Judaic obsession with emotion: love/hate...and how they draw identity from them.
Lyssa wrote:

Its an addendum to N.'s remark in the AC. that the Jews being too ressentimentally Active were not nihilists themselves, they were the founders of nihilistic movements. To one concerned with self-salvation, the fact that detachment cannot come to characterize the Hebraic spirit like it does the Hellenic, is a valuable observation in our favour.
Heisman called this the "Jewish Paradox".
We can say that it's a tactic of inversion. They sell to those they compete against what will guarantee their own victory.
They teach nihilism so as to make their own deficiencies supreme.

It's a method.
Train those you battle against that violence, kin selection, discrimination, ego is reprehensible, make them suffer an automatic reaction to them, and then have your own discrimination, ego, violence, and kin reign over them all. A self-enslaving method that does not even require much overseeing.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:48 pm

Satyr wrote:
Schlomo Sand claims that the Jewish identity is mostly a fabrication....and Artzmon, along with many others, agrees with the idea that modern Jewry is mostly held together by the religion of then holocaust. It is only the horror of the Holocaust and the sense of victimization that the Jew needs which binds different peoples under one title.

The Invention of the Jewish People - Schlomo Sand


Invention of the Jewish People

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14431
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:15 pm

If you have this on PDF can you send it to me?

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:52 pm

Satyr wrote:
If you have this on PDF can you send it to me?

Sure.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Sun Sep 02, 2012 9:51 pm

I'm neither an anti-semite, nor an anti-anti-semite; I'm pro-pagan, and pro-Aryan.

When one points out Real Historical Facts like the Pagan Foundations of Europe and its Incomparable spiritual legacy; one is accused of being jealous and called an anti-semite.
But its interesting how it doesn't stop there.
The new form now includes Vegetarianism and Veganism. If one doesn't eat meat Because the angry god said it was good to sacrifice; one is an Anti-semite! Vegetarians and vegans are Sinners... and Evil.

I place my thoughts on this here since it belongs more to Politics than lifestyle choices or ethics.

In the Pagan Tantric view for example, the delight in the 5 Ms called the 'pancha makaras' - wine, meat, fish, grain, and woman [the sanskrit names of which all begin with M, and hence 5 Ms.]  were ordained for an intermediary classes of beings called "viras" - one dominated by passion and who couldn't control his senses. Sacrifice of Meat and the Enjoyment of it was "Literal" only for such who couldn't rise to the level of beings above him called the Divyas or the Divine-masters for whom the 5 Ms were merely metaphors for a Symbolic Sacrifice corresponding to the five elements of nature;

Quote :
"The Mother of the Universe must be worshipped with these five elements, namely, wine, meat, fish, grain, and woman, or their substitutes. By their use the universe itself is used as the article of worship (Upacara). The Mahanirvana (VII. 103-111) says that wine which gives joy and dispels the sorrows of men is Fire; flesh which nourishes and increases the strength of mind and body is Air; fish which increases generative power is Water, cereals grown on earth and which are the basis of life are Earth, and sexual union, which is the root of the world and the origin of all creation, is Ether. They thus signify the Power (Shakti) which produces all...

Thus "wine" may be wine (Vira ritual), or it may be coconut water (Pashu ritual) or it may mean the intoxicating knowledge of the Supreme attained by Yoga, according as it is used in connection with the Vira, the Pashu, or the Divya respectively. The 5 Ms are thus threefold, namely, real where "wine" means wine, substitutional where wine means coconut water or some other liquid, and symbolical or divine where it is a symbol to denote the joy of Yoga-knowledge. The Pashu worships with the substitutional Tattvas mentioned later and never takes wine, the Vira worships with wine, and the Divya's "wine" is spiritual knowledge.

The method borrows, it is said, that of Yoga not to frustrate, but to regulate enjoyment. Conversely enjoyment produces Yoga by the union of body and spirit."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

We note that with the Divyas or the Highest Class representing the domination of the senses, the Sacrifice of meat is not prohobited, but the Sacrifice remains, as on a symbolic level of concordance with nature as an element or as a Real process such as the pursuit of spiritual knowledge taking the place of wine.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*


Last edited by Lyssa on Sun Dec 04, 2016 12:00 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:45 pm

Poison IV wrote:
A world become one, of salads and sun- only a fool would say that....
.....
The man on the street, dragging his feet don't wanna hear the bad news....
You do his 9-5, drag yourself home half alive, and there on the screen- a man with a dream

....any man on the street has murder in his eyes
You feel. No. Pain.

And you're younger than you realize....

I heard it was you
Talkin bout a World where all is free
It just couldn't be
And only a fool would say that

- Steely Dan


Or another favorite of mine:


When everything feels like the movies, yeah, you bleed just to know you're alive....-(Iris) Goo Goo Dolls


Oh and in addition to your little quip there about what and what-not to worship (i.e. the G-d of Israel), might I chime in and let you know that I'm really not looking to be worshipped, but that's your perogative.

And I find the parallels of pagans bowing down to grain as compared to the grain that bowed down to Joseph indicating a promise sent from G-d interesting. I would much rather have such a privilege from the high and mighty Creator looking down on me, giving me the rule over life and agriculture, wouldn't you?


"Someone who eats meat, after honoring the gods and ancestors, when he has bought it, or killed it himself, or has been given it by someone else, does nothing bad. [Laws of Manu; 5.32]"

Aryans never shied away from righteous-"violence"; the difference is we never saw sacrifice or life as a "sin" that could be redeemed with such killing as Judaism does.

To us, there is no 'God' before whom we submit like slaves and who stands apart us; to us, divinity is interconnected in all beings as Blake wrote,

"To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower"

The grain to us IS the world which IS our Self. Everything is a perpetual sacrifice. The grain is the sacrifice of rain and rain is that of the sun and the sun that of the Year and the year that of the divine innate order, a harmony that is our self as well from whose Orderly actions fuels the Year as a self-rolling wheel to turn again...
When we worth-ship this grain, we pay homage to Our Self.

"Let a man worship his Self only as his true state." [Brihad Upanishad]

To the Tantric Divya-class of men, vegetarianism simply meant by-passing all the intermediary stages when it doesn't take meat to be grateful to celebrate your Self; when the sensitivity and awareness is so high... killing animals becomes the self-disciplinary pursuit of killing the symbolic beasts within oneself first and experiencing such self-joy...

Now imagine how some semitic American soldiers in Afghan celebrated eid and the sacrifice of sheep; you bemoaned the loss of violence today, would this do for you?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Is this the kind of activism and protection against animals become a Vicious Threat to Jewish Identity?

While those degenerates do not reflect general jewish behaviour perhaps, what makes you Conclude enforcing animal protection laws, an immediate case of anti-semitism?!


_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14431
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:19 pm

What of plants?

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:28 pm

@Poison, From 1.10 to 3.22 is an old brief documentary on how slaughter is done by the Jews:
Despite the title, its an unbiased doc.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The recent ban in some countries against this method of slaughtering is jewish objection to anesthetize the animal with shots before killing it. Is there a verse or something that says suffering adds to the delight of Yahweh and pleases him? Does a less painful method of killing animals make the sacrifice "incomplete"? Would love to hear more on what your book says on this.

What does Derrick say is the 'higher purpose' of animals - as in wild-animals, and how does he know they understand that?

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:46 pm

Poison IV wrote:
And I'm done with the Jewish topic. It's obvious you have nothing but hatred for Jews

Where did I show that?

Every quote and material provided so far has been a Fact recorded in Your books and in history. I never made up anything.

Quote :
and you're going to continue using radical tactics to frame them in any way you can.

Is providing documentary footage of how slaughter is done radical tactics?
I was merely asking a question.
In other words, you don't know Why your book insists a suffering animal makes a better sacrifice.
You simply tried to defend your Rabbi and his call to lift the ban without understanding your own heritage and history.



_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:55 pm

Poison IV wrote:


They talk to him, he's a real modern day snow white...

Quote :
If Jews, in your mind, developed the idea for G-d, the one and only, then intelligent people are prone to believe that their patterns lead to a higher order.


All this reminds me of that Nietzsche quote where he laughed at how man first puts meaning into the world and then goes about exclaiming how he discovered Truth and a pre-existing order.... much like how Mr.Bean sends a card to himself and feels so warm and wonderful for getting it...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:05 pm

Poison IV wrote:
Lolz,, Derrick Jensen is now a Rabbi.

Silly, I'm talking of Sachs call to lift the ban on jewish way of slaughter.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14431
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:16 pm

Poison IV wrote:
Quote :


What does Derrick say is the 'higher purpose' of animals and how does he know they understand that?

They talk to him, he's a real modern day snow white...

And I'm done with the Jewish topic. It's obvious you have nothing but hatred for Jews, and you're going to continue using radical tactics to frame them in any way you can.
What a coward and a cunt you are, me dear.

If you are "done with Jews" then they are not done with you.
You are one, whether you like it or not, or whether you try to make it into a positive or not.
Not only are you infected but you belong to a majority in your immediate environment where this is considered "self-evident".

All you see are symbols supporting your delusions not even realizing that you belong to a civilization, based on appropriating and rendering inert symbols.
You cannot think outside the "Simulacrum" you imbecile, and so everywhere you turn you find examples supporting your delusions.
If some douche-bag looks at you at the red-light thinking "I want to bang her" you hypothesize that he's a C.I.A. agent, watching you because.....because, you imbecile, you... YOU., a stupid female, twenty year-old moron in Florida, are so fuckin' important.

You see secret messages in pop-culture which deals with public, subliminal messaging, and not secrets, you moron.
You've placed yourself in the center of your own world-view, to make yourself feel more important and significant, other than that ass and tits promising to young males a future.
You, tuts, are a dim-at...a classic female moron and, to be honest, in comparison to others you are flaky and border-line insane.
Tell your moms to give you the meds your brother is taking.

Your entire family is fucked...no cops0iracy, dear, basic genetics.

Imagine...this cunt once wanted to tell me about blood-types and how her's was not compatible with my own, more common, one.
A retard lost in her own hyperbole....supported by a system that simply loves stupidity.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:17 pm

Lyssa wrote:


The recent ban in some countries against this method of slaughtering is jewish objection to anesthetize the animal with shots before killing it. Is there a verse or something that says suffering adds to the delight of Yahweh and pleases him? Does a less painful method of killing animals make the sacrifice "incomplete"? Would love to hear more on what your book says on this.

Ah, so nothing Is explained; no wonder no one can tell and jews get angry, because they themselves have been told "it is so" and are commanded to accept and obey it...

"The laws of shechita are not given in the text of the Torah. Rather, the Torah only writes that the slaughter shall be "as I have instructed you." (Deut. 12:21) In Orthodox Judaism this is often cited as one proof that Moses received an Oral Torah along with the text.
Reform Judaism does not require observance of the laws of kosher."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If reformed judaism doesn't require kosher observance, then the german and other govts. are Not discriminating against jewish faith. Why is the Rabbi then raving about? Another example of manufactured victim-complex...


_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14431
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:31 pm

There are 7 billion (seven) people on this earth, presently.

Of those half, 3.5 billion (three-point-five) are female.

Of those approximately half, 1.8 billion aprox.(around one-point-eight) are of age where they are fertile.

How many of those really matter?

The system is built around generalities not individuals.
It does not give a shit about some moron living in Florida, U.S.A. thinking that every damn helicopter passing over her middle-class house is looking at her, or that every degenerate,s ex-crazed, American moron, passing outside her door, is looking at her because she has "inside information".
The only thing she ha sis a piece of as and tits and a pretty face with nothing nothing it but mush.

Only a simpleton would feel attracted to this beyond the immediate, short-term, physical.
This is why only "young boy" are "positive enough" for her these days...they and old fucks wanting to bag a young one.

Where's her daddy?
Nowhere.
Another imbecile who is all pretense and no substance.
A mother who's a whore...or the easiest approximation to one in this modern world.

What's left for her to feel loved and important and valuable?
Yes...

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14431
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:37 pm

Poison IV wrote:
Angry
Old
White
Men

I love being white...for obvious reasons. my heritage is the last thing I would complain about.
Being a nigger would be hell.

I love being old...because cunts like this cunt have no effect on me, like they do on simpleton, testosterone-driven, young boys; like the [color=indigo]]Dragon[/color.

I love being male....what's the alternative? Female?
I think I'll stick to this, less stunted, more cerebral, less involved, sexual type.
Menstruating, once a month, and gestating and being dumb as shit? No thanks.

I love being hateful...it identifies me in all this fake, lovey-dovey, bullshit twats, like you, think sublime or magical.
What I despise, like the virus that makes me ill, is what defines me.

If you hear of a twat who claims demons and spirits and gods visit her at night, run....don't even bother banging them before...just....fuckin'.... RUN!!!!

Thank my ancestor's but this twat failed to seduce me as she would have some douche-bag living in a truck in a WalMart parking lot and twice arrested for sexual misconduct.
No tits and ass is worth that price.

Jerk-off....no pussy is worth it when its of this quality.




_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14431
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:44 pm

Are you baiting, my sweet?
Such need.

I intend to get older and angrier.
You can return to your more "positive" young boys.
Maybe one of them owns a truck and can park it in a KMart parking lot and he's not a peeping-tom.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:50 pm

Lyssa wrote:
"as I have instructed you." (Deut. 12:21) In Orthodox Judaism this is often cited as proof

Historicity means Nothing, and yet you hear them always say they are the most historical people; double-stadards spilling everywhere...

From 1:05 onwards; she says history doesn't matter, lol




_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:58 pm

She is saying the history of whoever lived there doesn't matter. Whatever the Bible says, goes.

Revelation is not a scientific proof. Real realities of who lived there is a realistic claim than some God saying I said so... how laughable.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Mon Sep 24, 2012 5:59 pm

Lyssa wrote:
She is saying the history of whoever lived there doesn't matter. Whatever the Bible says, goes.

Revelation is not a scientific proof. Real realities of who lived there is a realistic claim than some God saying I said so... how laughable.

Leo Strauss, widely acclaimed jewish political-philosopher claims because revelation is of non-human origin [and true scientific thinking in the manner of Socrates should keep every kind of questioning alive as the proper way of Philosophical life], reason can never be the means or grounds for refuting extra-rational claims. He debunks Spinoza on this basis and establishes a mirror-relation between the Prophet and the Philosopher. Just like Socrates claims Philosophers regulate esotericism of 'truths' to maintain and create the best-regime [arista politeia], the Prophet reveals God's word too terrifying for ordinary people to come into contact directly, and hence obedience to law for their own well-being is the highest Philosophical activity in order that the best kingdom of god can be established.

That such remarks have been given credibility and considered as 'serious contributions' by all philosophical schools, shows why people like the woman in that video can blissfully stake their claims in the imaginary...

Some excerpts from David Janssens' 'Between Athens and Jerusalem' on the thoughts of Strauss;


David Janssens wrote:
"As Strauss succinctly puts it, “The Bible is a human book—in this one sentence we can sum up all the presuppositions of Spinoza’s Bible science.”
Although this presupposition warrants the possibility of a scientific approach, it is far from obvious that it has a sufficient scientific foundation itself, Strauss continues. From a religious point of view, to say the least, it is unacceptable. For a believer, the Bible derives its specific authority from its nonhuman, divine origin: its contents were revealed by God himself and subsequently written down by man. This premise, of course, leads to an en- tirely different exegesis. Hence, when Spinoza posits the basic assumption of his scientific hermeneutics, he first has to confront a rival hermeneutics. If he wants to see his interpretation accepted, he is first compelled to subvert the traditional reading of the Bible. In other words, he must successfully re- fute the rival point of view before he can go on to found biblical science.
Moreover, there is a second argument that shows the priority of the critique of religion over biblical science. This becomes apparent when one looks at the relationship between the Treatise and Spinoza’s other great work, the Ethics. From the central teaching of the Ethics, the impossibility of revelation follows logically. When God is identified with the unchange- able and intelligible order of nature, every supernatural and inscrutable intervention is excluded, such as revelation or creation ex nihilo.26 The only divine laws are the eternal and immutable laws of nature, and God’s activity coincides with the reign of causal necessity, understood as logical necessity. For God to violate his own laws by declaring his will in a mirac- ulous way would amount to a logical contradiction.27 The same holds for man: to act against divine will or natural necessity is impossible. According to Spinoza, the unity of will and understanding of God or nature are oper- ative in everything that is, including human action. Carrying this doctrine of “predestination” to its extreme, he denies the existence of sin.

At this point, however, Spinoza introduces a crucial proviso: he states that unprejudiced reason cannot regard a miracle as a supernatural phenomenon, since it cannot claim to know the limits of the power of nature. From the perspective of unprejudiced reason, what theology calls a miracle is at most a problem that cannot be explained on the basis of current knowledge of nature.57 In a letter to his friend Henry Oldenburg, Spinoza expresses this condition in a succinct manner:
I venture to ask you whether we petty men possess sufficient knowl- edge of nature to be able to lay down the limits of its force and power, or to say that a given thing surpasses its power? No one could go so far without arrogance. We may, therefore, without presumption ex- plain miracles as far as possible by natural causes. When we cannot explain them, nor even prove their impossibility, we may well sus- pend our judgment about them and establish religion, as I have said, solely by the wisdom of its doctrines.
By means of this “deferral,” Spinoza’s positive critique deploys a silent but deadly power, Strauss points out. Even in its limited form, the right of reason is the basis for the legitimate expectation of progress in our knowledge of the limits of nature. In the light of this expectation, the expe- rience of miracles—recorded and situated in the past—loses its demonstra- tive power. The fact that in biblical times an event was held inexplicable and thus attributed to divine intervention does not imply that it must re- main unexplained. Critical scientific observation and analysis of the event, combined with historical research, may eventually yield a purely natural ex- planation. Until such an explanation has been found, however, to deduce without further ado the existence of an omnipotent God from the current knowledge of nature is inadmissible. From this perspective, the biblical ac- counts are indeed nothing more than “prejudices of the ancient people,” the fruit of the primitive and associative mode of thinking Spinoza deems characteristic of the Bible as a whole.
As long as the limits of nature are insufficiently known, unprejudiced “positive” reason cannot recognize any phenomenon as a miracle. How- ever, the reverse also holds: all that reason can successfully claim against theology is the postponement of judgment and additional research. As long as no definitive result is available, the possibility remains that the biblical events related as miracles will prove to be miracles after all. Therefore, the positive critique must be buttressed by further investigation into the relia- bility and credibility of biblical miracle stories. Strauss calls this supple- mentary critique “philological-historical,” as it assesses the Bible’s literary and historical consistency and examines biblical authorship.

Strauss asserts: “But what is Spinoza actually proving? In fact, noth- ing more than that it is not humanly possible that Moses wrote the Penta- teuch, and that the text of a book should come down to us through the centuries without any corruption of the text at any single passage.”
This brings us to the positive critique itself. Contrary to Spinoza’s claim, there is no foundational relationship between the metaphysical and the positive critique, Strauss holds. The positive critique, which aims to demonstrate that miracles cannot be known by reason, is based on the recognition that we are ignorant of the power of nature, and that it would be presumptuous to limit this power by referring to divine intervention. This claim, however, differs fundamentally from the more sweeping con- tention of the metaphysical critique that the power of nature is unlimited, from which it follows that divine intervention is impossible.63 Hence, the positive critique can never go as far as the metaphysical critique: it can only submit that miracles cannot be known to scientific reason, not that they are impossible. The positive critique, Strauss argues, “merely proves that mir- acles are not recognizable as such by the truly unbelieving mind which does not openly assume—or surreptitiously smuggle in—an element of faith. Reason devoid of faith, engaged in the pursuit of scientific inquiry, shows itself as immune to miracles.”

But how effective is reason’s declaration of independence against a po- sition that claims to be based on something that precedes all human judg- ment? According to Strauss, the critique based on experience and reason misses its target, not only because positive reason postpones judgment, but also because it fails to do justice to an important principle of revealed reli- gion. The positive spirit is characterized by a “will to immediacy” that aims to stay as close as possible to present experience and that refuses any other guidance.75 Viewed from this perspective, the tradition of revelation is based on something located in a remote past and hence a prejudice under suspi- cion. Since tradition and presence are mutually exclusive, the former can only throw a misleading veil over the latter. This presupposition, however, ignores the fact that, for a believer, mediation by a tradition is an essential condition for the presence of revelation. From a religious point of view, im- mediately hearing and seeing revelation in a direct confrontation with God is deadly for man.76 Only a prophet with superhuman powers is able to en- dure the tremendum, the terror that attends the presence of God.77 Prophetic mediation, which creates a safe distance with regard to the “inhu- man” character of revelation, is the source of tradition’s authority, Strauss argues. By permanently representing revelation, it answers to the “will to mediacy” of the God-fearing believer, whose pious obedience is based on the recognition that the tradition continually reveals and expresses God’s will. This principle of continuous mediation thus allows revelation to be ex- perienced by all believers as a covenant that is continually renewed:
If the will to mediated hearing of revelation is grounded in actual hearing of revelation, then the tradition of revealed religion, and with this the obedience to the tradition and the fidelity to that tradition is grounded in the actual hearing of the present revelation. Then all cri- tique of prejudice, and even more, all critique of the “rigidity” (Starrheit) of the tradition from the point of view of “experience,” cannot touch the seriousness and the depth of the will, grounded in immediate hearing, to mediacy.78

In Strauss’s analysis, then, the believer’s “will to mediacy” appears as an equal opponent of the positive spirit’s “will to immediacy.” The conse- quences of this equality, moreover, do apply not only to revelation, but also to miracles in general. The positive critique, it is true, asserts that miracles are unknowable to unbelieving reason, so that an impartial, scientific de- termination is impossible.79 However, Strauss asks, isn’t the mere intention to ascertain scientifically itself based on a blind and premature dismissal of the specific doubt and expectation that attend the experience of miracles? Even the followers of Baal, for example, did not experience the events on Mount Carmel as scientific observers, but with doubt, expectation, and the readiness to see a miracle that would decide between Jehovah and Baal. It is only because of this disposition that they were able to recognize the miraculous ignition of Elijah’s altar as a sign of the God of Israel and convert. Miracles, Strauss stresses, cannot create faith, but they presuppose a principal readiness to believing in a higher power. ...According to Maimonides, reason can do no more than deduce the greater probability of creation. Hence, it must be assisted by revelation. The latter does not contradict reason, but completes it and transcends its limits.

These falasifa, as they were called in Arabic, attempted to reconcile Greek philosophy and Islam by presenting the prophet Mohammed as a philosopher, seer, statesman, lawgiver, and founder of the perfect state.18 Maimonides, who was familiar with the work of Alfarabi and who similarly attempted to harmonize philosophy and Ju- daism, adapted this approach by presenting Moses as the perfect legislator.
As Strauss goes on to show, however, the prophetology of the falasifa itself points to an even older source. In the introduction to a treatise entitled On the Parts of the Sciences, Avicenna states that the science dealing with prophecy is a part of the practical sciences, more specifically of political sci- ence.19 The goal of prophecy, he explains, is primarily political, since the prophet’s principal task is to provide political guidance to the community. In the same treatise, he points to the source of this particular view:
Of this, what has to do with kingship is contained in the book [sic] of Plato and of Aristotle on the state, and what has to do with prophecy and the religious law is contained in both of their books on the laws . . . this part of practical philosophy [viz. politics] has as its subject matter the existence of prophecy and the dependence of the human race, for its existence, stability, and propagation, on the religious law.

Moreover, Plato’s work provides justification for the subordinate posi- tion of philosophy under the revealed law, which proved to be an important point of divergence between Maimonides and Aristotle. In the Republic, Socrates forbids the philosophers “what is now permitted,” namely, to remain outside the cave and devote themselves to contemplation in splendid isolation, “and not be willing to go down again among those prisoners or share their labors and honors, whether they be slighter or more serious.”24 Hence, Socrates proposes legislation that compels the philosophers to be concerned for and participate in the life of the political community. Only when they obey these laws and dedicate themselves to the common good can a truly harmo- nious state come into being, as opposed to the existing states that are gov- erned “in a dream.”25 According to Strauss, Plato’s Socrates thus subjects philosophy to “the state by means of the harsh commandment of the lawgiver, which considers the order of the whole and not the happiness of the parts. The philosopher is subordinate to the state, subordinate to the law. Philosophy must justify itself before the state, before the law: it is not simply sovereign.”

Nevertheless, Socrates formulates a specific requirement the law has to meet. It can claim the philosopher’s obedience only if it is truly divine, that is, if its ultimate goal is the perfection of the soul, which is tantamount to philosophizing. Thus, in the Laws, the Athenian Stranger names pru- dence and intelligence as the most important among “the divine goods” or- dained by the divine law.

According to the falasifa, the revealed law fulfills this requirement more than any other law. On the one hand, it surpasses the understanding of the philosopher and thus legitimately commands his obedience.28 On the other hand, it aims above all at the perfection of the soul: both the Torah and the Koran command man to acquire knowledge, the highest form of which is knowledge of God and creation. For the falasifa, this means that the law not only allows but also obliges them to philosophize, since this is the way toward knowledge of God. Thus, it is no coincidence that the prophetology of Maimonides and the falasifa appeals to Plato, Strauss argues. Living, in fact, under the au- thority of a religious law, they had no other choice: “The Platonism of these philosophers is given with their situation, with their standing in fact under the law.”30 Platonic political philosophy provides them with the means to justify their philosophic activity.


In his autobiographical prefaces, Strauss spells out his critique of cultural Zionism in more detail. As he argues there, cultural Zionism’s al- leged return to Jewish tradition was insincere and bound to fail, since it was based on a profound modification of the Jewish tradition. Inspired by the thought of German Idealist thinkers like G. W. F. Hegel and Johann Gottlieb Fichte, cultural Zionism understood the Jewish tradition as “high culture” (Hochkultur), the product of the Jewish “folk spirit” (Volksgeist). In doing so, however, it departed from the tradition’s self-understanding, which traced the origin of Jewish culture not to a human, but to a divine act. According to the tradition, the people of Israel were distinguished from all other peoples by divine election through receiving the revealed law. As a result, the Jewish people is what it is by dint of something that cannot be reduced to the “folk spirit,” national culture, or national con- sciousness. Strauss observes:
And if you take these things with a minimum of respect or seriousness, you must say that they were not meant to be products of the Jewish mind. They were meant to be ultimately “from Heaven” and this is the crux of the matter: Judaism cannot be understood as a culture. . . .The substance is not culture, but divine revelation.26

If cultural Zionism wanted to remain consistent in its objections to political Zionism, it had no choice but to transform itself into religious Zionism, Strauss asserts. This, however, implied a profound change in pri- orities: “when religious Zionism understands itself, it is in the first place Jewish faith and only secondarily Zionism.”27 If religion prevails over po- litical concerns, the reconstitution of the Jewish state is no longer exclu- sively nor essentially a matter of human intervention, but it becomes dependent on the coming of the Messiah, who will inaugurate tikkun, the great restoration. Religious Zionism is based on the conviction that the Jewish Question is an absolute problem, the result of a divine dispensation. From this perspective, the difficulties of the “unreal” life in exile are an in- alienable part of a divine providence unfathomable to man. They are signs that indicate the Jewish people have been elected by the creator to assume the sufferings of the world and to receive and spread ultimate salvation. Since these ordeals are imposed by a superhuman power, they can be ended only by that same power. Every attempt to achieve this goal by merely human means must therefore be rejected as blasphemous and false. Ac- cording to religious Zionism, the insolubility of the Jewish Question is the core of Jewish identity. The establishment of the state of Israel may seem to be the end, but it is, in fact, a continuation by other means of the galut, a relative solution to what is, in fact, an absolute problem.

From the neoorthodox perspective, Zionists were apostates who had been unable to resist the temptations of modern European culture, and who had abandoned religious faith in divine providence for the sake of a secular trust in progress and human autonomy. In this way, neoorthodoxy argued, Zion- ism had surrendered Judaism to the power, the discretion and the mutual quarrels of the modern nation states and undermined Jewish resilience. In its view, the failure of assimilation proved that Jews could find salvation only in theocracy, faith, and obedience to the revealed Law. Instead of trying to find a place among the other nations, the Jews ought to remain in exile, since the latter could be truly ended only by the coming of the Messiah. The violence of the goyim or non-Jews had to be endured resignedly, in the knowledge that justice ultimately was on the side of the Jewish people.
Strauss forcefully dismisses these accusations as well as the view under- lying them. In his rejoinder, he charges his opponents with dangerous polit- ical naïveté as well as with intellectual dishonesty. To begin with, he argues that neoorthodoxy’s angry polemic against Zionism hardly contributes to alleviating the predicament of German Jews.

Second, its simplistic presen- tation of the relationship between the Jewish people and the other peoples as a matter of “justice against injustice” constitutes a serious obstacle to reach- ing a viable political balance of powers. Third, he objects to the fact that, in spite of its antipolitical discourse, neoorthodoxy nevertheless deploys a polit- ical strategy that is not devoid of demagoguery: its defense of theocracy mo- bilizes the fundamental religious premises primarily because of their political utility, not because of their meaning and content.
According to Strauss, religious neoorthodoxy deploys a purely conse- quentialist argument. It preaches faith and obedience to Mosaic law by sys- tematically emphasizing their salutary consequences, such as national unity, social cohesion, the fulfillment of psychological needs, or the even force of habit. If the law is upheld for these reasons, it argues, faith in the fundamental religious dogmas is wont to follow. For Strauss, this view amounts to an outright reversal of priorities. The only valid reason for obe- dience to the law, he rejoins, is the existence of God and the authority of Mosaic revelation.29 If the law is to be obeyed, it is to be obeyed because it is the will of God, revealed by him directly and miraculously to Moses, and not because obedience has salutary consequences. By giving precedence to human concerns over God and the Torah, neoorthodoxy forgets “that re- ligion deals first with ‘God’ and not with the human being.” The view that the deeper meaning of the law consists in its “therapeutic” effects nullifies the seriousness of faith, and culminates in rigid dogmatism. Strauss’s dis- missal is particularly scathing: “For the sake of such a ‘deeper’ meaning of the Law one swallows the dogmas whole, unchewed, like pills. One asserts that that without inspiration the Law would lose its binding force, and one forgets that one doesn’t base it on inspiration at all.”30

Political Zionism’s appeal to the “will” of the Jewish people ultimately proves to beg the question. Mere normalization, Strauss notes, is not enough: “‘A people like all other peoples’ cannot be the program of self- critical Zionism.”40 Clearly, this puts him in a very difficult position. On the one hand, the Jewish people cannot survive without politics: the closed world of faith and galut has been definitely and irretrievably destroyed by modern science and modern politics. On the other hand, it cannot survive with pol- itics alone: its legacy continues to emit a claim that is constitutive of Jewish identity and thus cannot be ignored.41 This claim, however, inevitably points back to religion, which, properly understood, is apolitical and even excludes politics.

According to Strauss, Athens and Jerusalem represent two fundamen- tally irreconcilable and incompatible views of the right life. According to the first, only the philosophical, theoretical life leads to true human happiness. This view leads to an ambiguous relationship to the theological-political order of the city: philosophy as an activity is transmoral and transpolitical, but the philosopher is a political being subject to the authority of the city and its laws. As a result, the philosopher’s obedience to this authority can only be ambiguous. According to the second view, only the practical, moral life of pious obedience to the divine will leads to felicity.94 This view can- not be dismissed forthwith, Strauss stresses. Revelation offers the most pro- found foundation and the most coherent defense of the superiority of the moral-practical life over the theoretical life as the way to happiness.95 Be- cause of this quality, it is the only worthy opponent of philosophy in its orig- inal meaning. The latter can call revelation into question, but it cannot refute it, for this would presuppose that it has found a definite answer to the question of the right life. Conversely, revelation cannot compel the philoso- pher’s assent with the argument that such assent is of the greatest impor- tance for his salvation: in the philosopher’s view, this would only confirm the importance of raising the question of the right life, and thus demon- strate the necessity of philosophy.

Finite, relative problems can be solved; infinite, absolute problems cannot be solved. In other words, human beings will never create a society which is free of contradictions. From every point of view, it looks as if the Jewish people were the chosen people in the sense, at least, that the Jewish problem is the most manifest symbol of the human problem as a social or political problem." [Between Athens and Jerusalem]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*


Last edited by Lyssa on Sun Dec 04, 2016 12:08 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Tue May 07, 2013 8:46 am

Quote :
"The desert gave birth to civilization.

Mesopotamia and Egypt both came into being in hot, dry desert climates alive with palm fronds, braying donkeys and the squeaking of shadufs drawing up water from wells. Camels, Bedouins, veils and dust: mud brick buildings, red granite cliffs, turquoise skies and crescent-shaped boats going up and down rivers and waterways. Canals splayed across the land like dendrites in a primitive nervous system shooting strips of water across muddy fields to nourish thin and spindly shafts of grain. Heat, flies and dusty pink horizons. Groves of date palms and tamarisk trees the only shelter from a burning disc in the heavens that settles at dusk to a glowing coal where the sky meets the earth.

Such is the world from out of which High Civilization emerged: mathematics and writing, astronomy and sculpture, monumental architecture and cylinder seals, gods and theogonies. A world of mental striations as topologically convoluted as a farmer’s network of fields interlaced by canals and ditches. A world of cracked plaster walls and crumbling roofs; of frayed reedwork boats and threadbare linen clothing; of cows, sheep and goats.

This is the world of the first great cities. But, take note: it is also the world that gave birth to the three great monotheisms, founded by Moses, Jesus and Mohammed: all religions favored by the desert, and all inimical—utterly—to life in cities. The three monotheisms bear the hatred of cities within them like striations in woodgrain: the Bedouin’s antipathy to life in cities, for they were all born, these gods—this God—out in the red granite cliffs beneath sagging palm fronds where lizards dart across rocks. As the French theoretician Regis Debray put it: “The city closes man in on himself; the desert opens him up to the Other. The polytheist prefers the vegetal, embellishments and valleys; his despiser prefers the mineral, abrupt canyons, limestone cliffs limned with geological phantasmagoria.”[1]

The desert is the home of monotheism, as Ernst Renan once put it.

And monotheism is a type of religiosity that is inherently, and structurally, opposed to life in cities, for it is a religion of nomads and camel drivers; of goat-herders and men living in tents, like the prehistoric Jacob wandering with his sons across the desertscapes of Palestine. The 10th Commandment, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house,” may actually be an injunction to the nomad to keep his eyes on the grainy, shimmering horizons and the arcing wave-shaped, wind-blown dunes and away from the cities of the plain, nestled and secure within the mental wombs of their ancient protective gods.

And, just as in chaos theory, in which large effects ultimately result from very small initial conditions, so the monotheistic shepherd’s antipathy to cities will later become the general incommensurability of the Abrahamic worldview with science. The Scientific Civilization, also built by the West, is a civilization that comes out of life in cities, that is to say, the Medieval world of walled cities, towns and hamlets whose capitalistic metabolism nourished the very conditions out of which the scientific mentality could grow and thrive; the Monotheistic Society, though, is a world rooted in the horizontal life of nomads, goats, donkeys, camels and tents. Hence, in the Book of Genesis, Cain (whose name means “smith”) is cursed from the very beginning: nothing good, this text says, can come from technology or the worldview that leads to life in cities. Cain’s son Enoch is the builder of the world’s very first city, and his descendant Tubal-cain becomes the world’s first master of metallurgy. It is thus no coincidence that the Bible portrays Cain as the one who introduces murder into the world, for the Abrahamic vision thereby equates technology with cities, corruption and death. The city builder who, unlike the nomad, is locked into place and is therefore constrained to move vertically, can only ever give birth to his Towers of Babel, those impious and hubristic ladders to the heavens which confer on the city builder his heaven-storming arrogance.

Cain is the farmer; Abel the shepherd. But the excess produce of the farmer will require huge silos and storage buildings within which to store the grain, and soon, this will lead to the necessity for protective enclosures such as walls, armies and temples. One of the very first cities, in fact, the Samarran site of Tell es Sawwan (circa. 6000 BC), was nothing more than a collection of seven large storage silos for grain which, in later levels of the site, gave birth to a walled compound, one of the world’s first walled settlements, in fact. Gilgamesh was later regarded as a builder of walls, but the animal man Enkidu, on the other hand, climbs his way up from the deserts to the inside of the protective womb of Uruk itself: he was precisely the sort of dusty fellow that Gilgamesh had built his walls to keep out. However, Gilgamesh’s partnership with this proto-Martu was prophetic of the future of Near Eastern religion, which would unfold, not from the life of the city dweller, as in the days of the ancients, but from the dwellers in tents who had, from time immemorial, circled the cities as roving satellites. Gilgamesh was, in a sense, the lord of civilization’s past (hence, the true significance of his role as keeper of the dead, for the dead are merely bits of fossilized Past); while the future belonged to the Enkidus who claimed the world of cliffs and valleys, steppes and plains as their home.

The world’s most ancient deity of writing, the Sumerian goddess Nisaba, also happened to be the goddess of grain, for writing was originally invented in Sumer as a means of keeping track of economic flows going in and out of the temples: grain to this god and its priesthood; barley for that man and his fieldwork, etc. Thus, writing, like the first walls, and the farmer’s act of reaping and threshing and storing his grain, is part of the new womb-world of enclosures that the first cities brought into being.

But it is precisely such enclosures that the monotheistic shepherd blows apart: the Tower of Babel must be stopped by introducing foreign languages to break down its lines of communication so that it can no longer be built; the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah must be flattened by divine wrath for their incubation of bizarre and polymorphic forms of sexuality; the earliest cities themselves wrecked by a gigantic Flood, which washes them away like so much ruined silt and debris from the river’s ebb tide.

The monotheistic nomad, and his invisible God, wants nothing of enclosures, which recall too much of the womb and the Great Mother. He wants only open, endless vistas shimmering from one muddy horizon to the next; wants only the freedom to move about unconstrained and wander from one desert spring to the next; wishes only to follow the ancient desert trails of his Bedouin forebears who have tracked the endless, featureless wastes of the desert scrub before him.

For our blackboard, then, another formula: Bondage vs. Freedom; arborescence vs. mobility; submission to a king vs. the shattering visions of the Prophets.

...The religions of the Middle East are, in essence, anti-urban. Moses’ vision ends up grinding the cities of Canaan into pieces, beginning with the city of Jericho. Joshua’s assault on Jericho is an extension of the Mosaic vision. Joshua is a proxy for Moses, but the antipathy to the city is very evident. Likewise, with Christ’s assault on the Temple when he goes into Jerusalem, a place which he loathes as a den of corruption and vice. Moses-Joshua’s assault on Jericho is structurally identical to Christ’s assault on Jerusalem (the Temple that is later destroyed by the Romans is a kind of destruction of the city by proxy again. The Roman destruction of Jerusalem is a kind of delayed effect of Christ’s antipathy toward it). Mohammad’s assault on Mecca is also structurally similar.
Paul is another matter. He is the essence of the urban mind: multilingual, cosmopolitan, multiethnic. He is the reason why Christianity became universal. But Paul is not an originator of the Vision, which he inherited from the mind of Christ, an illiterate rural peasant. Paul must take the Vision and transform it into something cosmopolitan by inventing the proto-Christian literature of the epistle as the new medium with which to transmit the Vision.

Scientific civilization, on the other hand, is entirely urban. Newton and Darwin in London and Einstein in Vienna are all situated in urban milieus and their cosmologies actually represent the mind of these cities, the urban mentality itself, translated into a world picture. The cosmology of science is an extension of the macrosphere of the modern world city onto the cosmos itself.
Our Abrahamic religions are antipathetic to the scientific civilization not so much because they are religions but because they originate in a type of mentality — i.e. the desert wilderness — that is inherently poliphobic and anti-urban. These religions of the desert wilderness and their world views are extensions and projections of the Mind of the Desert onto the cosmos itself. This is why they are, to this day, in total conflict with the Scientific Civilization and its own projection of the Mind of the City onto the cosmos. Both mentalities are trying to accomplish something that is very different from each other’s and very much at odds."

The Desert and the Three Monotheisms

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Fri Sep 06, 2013 7:13 pm

Summary of Schmitt's concept of the Political

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Sat May 31, 2014 6:55 pm

Lyssa wrote:
Rosenzweig vs. Spengler on the Nomadic state:

Quote :
"Drawing upon the arche/re'shiyth of his own Judaic heritage, Rosenzweig questions the logic of geo-philosophy and its privileging of the soil as the basis of political community. In a fragment entitled "Peoples and their Native Soil", that serves as a kind of manifesto against autochthony, Rosenzweig writes:
"The peoples of the world are not content with the bonds of blood. They sink their roots into the night of earth, lifeless in itself, but the spender of life, and from the lastingness of earth they conclude that they themselves will last. Their will to eternity clings to the soul and to the reign over the soil, to the land. The earth of their homeland is watered by the blood of their sons, for they do not trust in the life of a community of blood, in a community that can dispense with anchorage in solid earth. ...For while the earth nourishes, it also binds. Whenever a people loves the soil of its native land more than its own life, it is in danger that... in the end the soul will persist as that which was loved more strongly, and the people will leave their lifeblood upon it. In the final analysis, the people belong to him who conquers the land. It cannot be otherwise, because people cling to the soil more than to their life as a people. Thus the earth betrays a people that entrusted its permanence to earth. The soil endures, the peoples who live on it pass. ...
And so, in contrast to the history of other peoples, the earliest legends about the tribe of the eternal people is not based on indigenousness [Autochthonie]. ...To the eternal people home is never home in the sense of land, as it is to the peoples of the world who plough the land and live and thrive on it, until they have all but forgotten that being a people means something besides being rooted in a land. The eternal people has not been permitted to while away time in any home. It never loses the untrammeled freedom of a wanderer."

vs.

Spengler wrote:
"[The peasant] roots in the earth that he tends, the soul of man discovers a soul in the countryside, and a new earth-boundedness of being, a new feeling pronounces itself. Hostile nature becomes the friend; earth becomes Mother Earth. Between sowing and begetting, harvest and death, the child and the grain, a profound affinity is set up. A new devoutness addresses itself in the chthonic cults to the fertile earth that grows along with man. ...The peasant's dwelling is the great symbol of settledness. It is itself plant, thrusts its roots deep into its "own" soil... this is the condition precedent of every Kultur, which itself in turn grows up out of a mother-landscape, and renews and intensifies the intimacy of man and soil. ...Only in Zivilisation with its giant cities do we come again to despise and disengage ourselves from these roots. Man as civilized, as intellectual nomad, is again wholly microcosmic, wholly nameless. ...Today at the end of this Kultur, the rootless intellect ranges over all landscapes and possibilities of thought. But between these limits lies the time in which a man held a bit of soil to be something worth dying for."






Quote :
"The history of mankind as a whole is tragic. But the sacrilege and the catastrophe of the Faustian are greater than all others, greater than anything Æschylus or Shakespeare ever imagined. The creature is rising up against its creator. As once the microcosm Man against Nature, so now the microcosm Machine is revolting against Nordic Man. The lord of the World is becoming the slave of the Machine, which is forcing him — forcing us all, whether we are aware of it or not — to follow its course. The victor, crashed, is dragged to death by the team.” — Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics

The unique characteristics of Faustian civilization, as Spengler described it, are now leading Europe to destruction. The Faustian is characterized by a drive towards the infinite, a will to break through the boundaries that limit man, whether they be intellectual or physical. Spengler calls the prime symbol of the Faustian soul “limitless space.”[1] Like Goethe’s Faust, Faustian civilization seeks infinite knowledge.

However, as this civilization declines, limitless space becomes an all-consuming maw that threatens the survival of all traditions, the all-encompassing extension of the Faustian soul ensnaring all the peoples of the world in its decline. Faustian man, detached from the earth, is on course to share the fate of Icarus. The fruits of the Faustian mind — rationalism, universalism, liberalism, industrialism, and globalization — threaten identity and heritage on a global scale.

While it is true that all civilizations, no matter what their particulars are, are bound to die as all living organisms are bound to die, the unique characteristics of the Faustian decline are uniquely disastrous. Whereas the ethnic Romans and Persians survived the collapse of the Roman and Persian empires, Western man’s dying civilization threatens to physically eliminate him, while also spreading the contagion of liberalism to non-Western cultures.

The Faustian tendency to break down barriers has transmogrified into the toxic global homogenization of cultures and peoples in the waning stages of Western civilization, that enables foreign and internal threats to multiply. The Faustian mindset must be discarded if Western Europeans and their descendants ever hope to create another great civilization in the ruins of this one.

One of the root causes of the current situation is universalism, which does not respect the particular qualities of an ethnos. The Faustian concept of space necessitates universalism. We may take the Faustian embrace monotheism as a starting point for this tendency. As Spengler wrote, “The plurality of separate bodies which represents Cosmos for the Classical soul, requires a similar pantheon — hence the antique polytheism. The single world-volume, be it conceived as cavern or as space, demands the single god of Magian or Western Christianity.”[2] Instead of separate moral universes, the Faustian worldview accepts only one.

While this monotheistic worldview is not unique to Faustian civilization, the Magian soul’s cavern infers a certain limit to its sovereignty, as we see in Islamic theology, where the world is divided separate houses, one of which is the house of Islam, Dar al-Islam. The unbounded space of the Faustian soul merges seamlessly into the Hebrew Bible’s conception of space. In On Being a Pagan, Alain de Benoist characterizes the latter, “The universe is thus conceived in the Bible as a world with no spatial boundaries.”[3]

National borders, borders between religions, between ethnic groups, are erased in the Faustian mind, indeed no group has embraced biblical universalism to the extent that Faustian civilization has. No other civilization has ranged so far and so wide in their efforts to impose their morality upon the entirety of the world. Even the most ferocious of the Islamic expansions, including the Salafist trends of our day, pale in comparison to the sustained attempt of the West to convert the rest of the globe. We see these efforts in the Crusades of the Teutonic Knights against the pagan Balts, the Swedes waging war on the Orthodox Slavs of Novgorod, the Spaniards’ attempts to convert the Indian populations of the Americas, the civilizing mission of the British Empire, and into this day and age with America’s global War on Terror.

While some men may look upon these events as great triumphs of Western Civilization, they are really milestones in a trend of globalization reaching its pinnacle now. Faustian civilization, in many ways like the most Salafist strains of Islam, sees the need to impose a single moral vision upon the world, whether it be a colonial nation’s particular strain of Christianity, or liberal democracy.

Under Roman rule, different customs and beliefs could coexist within certain moral boundaries, a cosmos of separate moral planets. In contrast, the Faustian man believes that his particular morality extends to the ends of the earth. Hence Kant’s dictum, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.”

Thus international organizations and courts trample upon the sovereignty of peoples. The particulars of a man himself are stripped away, he is no longer German, an English, or Chinese, he is “man,” in the abstract. Any attempts to resists this alleged universal morality common to mankind are deemed criminal. Those who do not fall into line are primitives, heretics, or, to use more modern parlance, rogue states.

On the opposite end, the Faustian civilization is rendered rootless. There is nothing that could stand in the way of limitless space for there is no law without a universal character according to him. There can no longer be different standards of morality for different classes, genders, or any other social division. No longer is there a way of action and a way of contemplation, a way of kings and a way of priests, a way of men and a way of women, there is simply a universal way. Faustian civilization turned towards egalitarianism.

Political liberalism can be seen as the extension of a certain Anglo-Saxon mindset that grew under Christianity. Alain de Benoist states in The Problem of Democracy, “liberal democracies are rooted not so much in the spirit of ancient democracy as in Christian individualism, the rationalism of the Enlightenment, and the Anglo-Saxon Protestant spirit. In these democracies, the ‘citizen’ is not he who inhabits a history and a destiny through his belonging to a given people, but a rather an abstract, atemporal, and universal being, which regardless of any belonging, is the holder of ‘human rights’ decreed to be unalienable.”[4] Hence, politics ceased to be defined by the conditions of the polis itself. In the democracies of Ancient Greece, political freedoms were derived from being a member of a specific community, generally that which one was born into from autochthonous stock. In contrast to Classical civilization, Faustian civilization invented the universal rights of man, which appear to guarantee freedom from the bonds of community. Once again the theme of the replacement of the particular by the universal is evident. The rooted pillar of classical civilization is replaced by the infinite field of the Faustian."

Contra Faustian Man


Quote :
"The rootless political existence develops into rootless personal existence. The Faustian tendency towards uprooted modes of existence finds expression in postmodern philosophy. The boundless space of Faustian man is the home of the rhizome of Deleuze and Guattari, “It has neither beginning nor end.” The rhizome shares with Faustian physics a focus on motion and dynamics as opposed to discrete static objects, “It is composed not of units but of dimensions, or rather directions in motion.” Compare this with the Faustian focus on force, “There is no Western statics — that is, no interpretation of mechanical facts that is natural to the Western spirit bases itself on the ideas of form and substance, or even, for that matter, on the ideas of space and mass otherwise than in connexion with those of time and force.”[5] In both cases, the focus on actual substance, being, is reduced.

The criticism of being in their seminal text A Thousand Plateaus, displays certain Faustian characteristics as well. Here the rhizome is contrasted with the tree. Once again the symbol of rootedness is attacked by Faustian thought, with its additive and expansive qualities. “The tree imposes the verb ‘to be’, but the fabric of the rhizome is the conjunction, ‘and…and…and…’. This conjunction carries enough force to shake and uproot the verb ‘to be’.”

The contrast between the dynamic and the static becomes open conflict in the postmodernity of declining Faustian civilization where its expansiveness becomes full deterritorialization. What seems like abstract philosophy has a very real presence in the world. In the nomadic lifestyles imposed by many careers, where relocation across the face of the globe has become normal, in the fluid identities and fragmented subcultures of American youth, in global electronic networks, in globalization’s erosion of local economies, the rhizome dominates. Faustian dynamism and limitlessness has resulted in a world of scattered and broken spirits.

Due to the inherently limited nature of the physical world, the Faustian mind tends toward abstraction. Spengler’s discussion of the different conceptions of mathematics in instructive in this instance. “The beginning and end of the Classical mathematic is consideration of the properties of individual bodies and their boundary-surfaces; thus indirectly taking in conic sections and higher curves. We, on the other hand, at bottom know only the abstract space-element of the point, which can neither be seen, nor measured, nor yet named, but represents simply a centre of reference. The straight line, for the Greeks a measurable edge, is for us an infinite continuum of points.”[6] Classical mathematics is rooted in physical reality. It focuses on measurable quantities and physical shapes and surfaces. In contrast, Faustian mathematics is not constrained by what humans can touch, measure, or observe. We cannot count an infinite number of objects, nor have i (the square root of -1) of them, yet these concepts are integral to our mathematical system.

This retreat into the mind exacerbates the conflict between the physical and the intellectual. Instead of balance between mind and body, the Faustian mind gravitates towards logocentrism, a term most would associate with Derrida, but was coined by Conservative Revolutionary philosopher Ludwig Klages in his work The Intellect As Antagonist of the Soul.[7]

This movement towards the mental abstraction moves man away from the instinctive, the vital. Thus the Faustian tendency towards starry eyed idealism. Otto Reche speaks of “the powerfully rousing and simultaneously tragic song about the Nordic race and its idealism.”[8] At its worst it becomes a world denying tendency. Instead of experiencing the world in its mystery and majesty, we reduce it to what D. H. Lawrence termed a “thought form” a construct of abstract laws and facts existing only in our minds. As he says in “Introduction to the Dragon,”

. . . our sun and our moon are only thought-forms to us, balls of gas, dead globes of extinct volcanoes, things we know but never feel by experience. By experience, we should feel the sun as the savages feel him, we should ‘know’ him as the Chaldeans knew him, in a terrific embrace. But our experience of the sun is dead, we are cut off. All we have now is the thought -form of the sun. He is a blazing ball of gas, he has spots occasionally, from some sort of indigestion, and he makes you brown and healthy if you let him.[9]

Nietzsche correctly identified the retreat into the world of reason as a symptom of weakness. He states in the essay “Reason in Philosophy” from Twilight of the Idols, “To divide the world into a ‘real’ and ‘apparent’ world … is only a suggestion of decadence – symptom of declining life.” It is no great surprise that the West has wholeheartedly endorsed the Enlightenment program of rationalism, and its political emanation, liberalism. While rationalism is the mark of all declining civilizations throughout history, it aligns most intensely with the Faustian, whose affinity for abstraction was present at its birth. Indeed, we see in no other civilization an ideology like Enlightenment liberalism. Liberalism is a uniquely Western illness emerging from the Faustian decline.

Related to the Faustian tendency towards abstraction is the technical sophistication of Faustian civilization. Inventions spring from the unbounded Faustian mind. From the tools of abstract mathematics Faustian man has constructed the most precise and powerful theories of physical forces known to man. The combination of unlimited thought and dynamism enabled never before seen technological breakthroughs.

Indeed, not content with being in the world, Faustian man sought to create an artificial paradise. Spengler characterizes this attitude in Man and Technics “To build a world oneself, to be oneself God — that is the Faustian inventor’s dream, and from it has sprung all our designing and re-designing of machines to approximate as nearly as possible to the unattainable limit of perpetual motion.”

Spengler was keenly aware of the consequences of this mechanical world. In industrial societies the rise of alienation is seen, “And now, since the eighteenth century, innumerable ‘hands’ work at things of which the real role in life (even as affecting themselves) is entirely unknown to them and in the creation of which, therefore, they have inwardly no share. A spiritual barrenness sets in and spreads, a chilling uniformity without height or depth.”

No longer is the producer a traditional craftsman who handles the creation of goods from start to finish. He is merely performing one action of many required for the assembly of an object. The laborer’s dignity is diminished on the factory floor. This in turn breeds social conflict between the laborers and the managerial class. “The tension between work of leadership and work of execution has reached the level of a catastrophe. The importance of the former, the economic value of every real personality in it, has become so great that it is invisible and incomprehensible to the majority of the underlings. In the latter, the work of the hands, the individual is now entirely without significance.”

In addition to the social consequences, there are irreversible and wide-ranging ecological consequences. The depletion of natural resources, the elimination of species, the poisoning of our food, and water supplies, anthropogenic climate change. It is not alarmist to state that technology threatens life on earth. Spengler noted in 1931, “All things organic are dying in the grip of organization. An artificial world is permeating and poisoning the natural.”

In addition to the existential threat posed by technology, it greatly enhances the foreign threats against Faustian civilization. The expansive nature of Faustian man to spread to all the corners of the map, is mimicked by his technology. In the quest for ever greater profits and power, industry has spread all over the world. We may think this to be a late 20th-century problem linked with globalization, but it was already in motion in Spengler’s time, with Japan emerging as an industrial power in Asia. It has only increased in our time, with the outsourcing of industry and the spread of advanced weaponry to peoples who could not have possibly invented them. Global industrialization simultaneously has strengthened the power of non-Western peoples, while sapping the strength of the native working class in the West. Faustian technology, operating hand-in-hand with the forces of capital, has enabled the mass movement of foreign peoples into formerly homogeneous nations. While mass immigration has no one single cause, it is effectively, to use Alain de Benoist’s notable turn of phrase, “the reserve army of capital.” In his essay of the same title, Benoist notes how the French construction and automobile industries deployed trucks in the Maghreb to recruit immigrant labor. While it is true that other civilizations have imported foreign labor, only the late Faustian civilization has done it on such a scale as to threaten the survival of their national ethnic integrity. The combination of borderless thought and high technology now threatens the survival of the very people who dreamed up such ideas, as the threat of Europeans becoming minorities in their own homelands grows.

Perhaps a stronger descriptor than Faustian for the civilization that is our subject would be Titanic. Titanic in the sense of the Italian Traditionalist philosopher Julius Evola, who uses the term Titanism to refer to a particular type of usurpation of divine power. It accentuates the Faustian revolt against the divine order. Evola characterizes the Titanic civilization as such:

The first type of civilization is the Titanic one, in a negative sense, and refers to the spirit of a materialistic and violent race that no longer recognized the authority of the spiritual principle corresponding to the priestly symbol or to the spiritually feminine “brother” (e.g., Cain vs. Abel); this race affirmed itself and attempted to take possession, by surprise and through an inferior type of employment, of a body of knowledge that granted control over certain invisible powers inherent to things and people. Therefore, this represented an upheaval and a counterfeit of what could have been the privilege of the previous “glorious men,” namely, of the virile spirituality connected to the function of order and of domination “from above.” It was Prometheus who usurped the heavenly fire in favor of the human races, and yet he did not know how to carry it; thus the fire became his source of torment and damnation.[10]

Faustian man, like Prometheus, has stolen fire from the gods, reordering nature to suit his purpose. The Faustian man revolted against nature, as Spengler notes, “The creature is rising up against its creator. As once the microcosm Man against Nature, so now the microcosm Machine is revolting against Nordic Man.”

The expansive Faustian mind seeks to eliminate the barriers imposed by nature itself. Hegel characterizes it as thus, “The principle of the European mind is self-conscious reason which is confident that for it there can be no insuperable barrier and which therefore takes an interest in everything in order to become present to itself therein.” What we see is the drive of Faustian science to “know the mind of God,” which English physicist Stephen Hawking equated with “the ultimate triumph of human reason.” And if it is uncovered perhaps it will do more harm than good. The Spenglerian horror writer H. P. Lovecraft states prophetically in his story “The Call of Cthulhu”:

We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.

The ecological devastation and social chaos sown by the scientific advances of Western civilization seem to validate Lovecraft. However, the Promethean narrative offers a glimmer of hope, a way out. The hero Heracles, son of the Olympian Zeus, frees Prometheus from his torture. Evola states that Heroism, as represented by Heracles in the Titanic cycle, is “the restoration of the Olympian solar spirituality and overcoming of both the Mother and Titan figures.” Considered from the spiritual position of Tradition, the overcoming of Titanic Faustian civilization is possible. However, let us not forget the role of man in fulfilling destiny and let us recognize the need for a new spirit to transcend our declining civilization before it destroys us.

This restoration need not be a return to the “dark ages” of obscurantism. Indeed oriented in the proper direction, the traits we associate with Faustian civilization, such as constant self-overcoming, intrepidity, rising to challenges, are tools for spiritual growth that predate Faustian civilization. From a Traditional viewpoint, they predate humanity itself, they are transcendent, beyond space and time. Evola’s “esoteric reading” of Nietzsche makes this clear:

The cutting of all bonds, the intolerance of all limits, the pure and incoercible impulse to overcome without any determined goal, to always move on beyond any given state, experience, or idea, and naturally and even more beyond any human attachment to a given person, fearing neither contradictions nor destructions, thus pure movement, with all that that implies of dissolution — “advancing with a devouring fire that leaves nothing behind itself,” to use an expression from an ancient wisdom tradition, though it applies to a very different context — these essential characteristics that some have already recognized in Nietzsche can be explained precisely as so many forms in which the transcendent acts and manifests.[11]

However, these tendencies need to be directed vertically, towards transcendence, not horizontally in the realm of sheer materialism, not manifesting in the need to dominate the world’s physical being. Evola attributes Nietzsche’s mental collapse to the fact that his energy remained on a non-transcendent level, burning him out like a circuit whose current is too strong. Continuing with the contrast between the horizontal plane of life, and the vertical axis of “more than life,” in the sense of Georg Simmel’s “more than living” (mehr als leben), we can envision two symbols, the ocean, and the mountain. The divine order stands with the mountain, whereas Faustian Titanism is the realm of the ocean. Western man is faced with a choice. He can conquer himself and ascend the peaks of the spirit, or he can conquer the world and disappear past the water’s horizon."


Contra Faustian Man

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*


Last edited by Lyssa on Sun Dec 04, 2016 12:10 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics Fri May 27, 2016 2:17 am

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


Dark Enlightenment, Neoreactionaries, and The Cathedral


Neoreactionary Glossary



Quote :
"Summary

The Dark Enlightenment, or neoreaction, focuses on the fundamentally flawed tenets of modern western culture.


The darkly enlightened share many ideas, but many are still debated. Examples:
Secular progressivism is the memetic descendent of Puritan Calvinism. Blasphemy, inquisition, indoctrination, and brainwashing still occur from the perspective of the progressive religion. Therefore, progressive culture is referred to as “the Cathedral”. The Cathedral consists of influential people in politics, journalism, academia and education acting in an uncoordinated manner to advance progressive principles in society; often deceptively. We do not imply conspiracies.


Hierarchies are a natural consequence of innate differences and are necessary for societies to function. Stratified outcomes alone are not enough to prove discrimination or a failure of "social justice". There is no "social justice," only traditional justice.


The only morality is civilization. Any belief or ideology that works against civilization is evil no matter how well-intentioned.


Traditional values are not accidental. They are non-ideological social adaptations that provide good solutions to complex social problems. Cultures separated by vast amounts of time and geography independently converged on similar values. Values converged because cultures that implemented these values had a competitive advantage over their neighbors and became civilizations. Cultures that did not implement them failed and are forgotten.


Modern conservatives are last century’s progressives. Many ideas held by “conservatives” today were progressive (sometimes radically so) in the past.


Neoreactionaries acknowledge the legitimate flaws inherent to Democracies and are “predisposed, in any case, to perceive the politically awakened masses as a howling irrational mob, it conceives the dynamics of democratization as fundamentally degenerative: systematically consolidating and exacerbating private vices, resentments, and deficiencies until they reach the level of collective criminality and comprehensive social corruption.”


A system of No Voice-Free Exit in large hyper-federalist states or small independent city states is the optimal political arrangement. Singapore is an imprecise example with little political voice, but massive economic freedom and high levels of prosperity. City-states would be in constant competition for minds and business and risk losing economically valuable citizens and businesses if poorly run since they can easily relocate. This creates an incentive to remain economically and socially free.


Neoreactionaries accept human biological diversity. Individual humans and human groups differ in ability, psychological disposition, intelligence, and other traits for genetic reasons. Genetics can explain 50% or more of the differences in lifetime outcomes within and between human groups. Other factors are minor by comparison.
Recognition of HBD necessitates the rejection of the core progressive dogma of egalitarianism. Race and gender are not social constructs and everyone personally experiences that not all men or women are created equal. It is easier to believe in Leprechauns than to believe in egalitarianism."

Dark Enlightenment


Quote :
"One of Mencius Moldbug’s most important insights and contributions to the Dark Enlightenment was the idea that modern secular progressivism is actually the evolutionary descendant of puritan/Calvinist Christianity. The Cathedral is a Christian sect that very cleverly adopted the camouflage of secularism so as to more easily infect (memefect?) non-Christians and non-religious institutions in addition to actual believers. Only later did it deign to reject all pretenses of overt Christian theology. The biggest advantage of the camouflage was that it could get around that pesky separation of church and state in order to gain control of the coercive power of government and yet still not worry about anyone objecting to the new crypto-theocracy. Some very intricate rhetorical techniques have been developed, such as the motte and bailey, to support the effectiveness of this camouflage. In hindsight, the inclusion of the separation of church and state may have made such an evolution of religious feeling inevitable.

Keep in mind that all of this discussion isn’t meant to imply a grand conspiracy with central authority or control. Quite the contrary. In so far as as people are Crypto-calvinists today, it is a matter of mass action. Each individual, with the some helpful nudging in the form of mass education, individually decides to assent to Universalist mysticism. A knowledge of the origins of this mysticism is not required to adopt it so most people are blissfully ignorant of where all these strange ideas came from. (Most) humans are religious animals, and they are going to believe in something transcendent no matter the circumstance. If explicit belief in the supernatural becomes untrendy or marginalized, then spiritual feeling will assume a covert form. Alternatively, a new spirituality with the potential for trendiness will simply be made up.

Crypto-Calvinism didn’t just appear overnight, it has been slowly evolving in the United States and particularly in the northeast ever since the constitution was written and religion was banned from government. In the same way natural selection can create complex emergent forms in nature without conscious guidance or goal, so too can the same process create complex and intricate memeplexes in culture without the requirement of central planning or a pre-imagined endpoint. (The current version of this article on la wik appears to have been gutted, so I used an archive)

Anytime someone stumbles upon neoreaction for the first time, inevitably one of the first things he wonders about is this concept of the Cathedral. Rather than repeat what has already been explored beyond the short summary above, I decided to create a compilation of articles which explore the cathedral and modern progressivism as a nontheistic Christian sect. Any newcomers can then have fairly straightforward access to most of the writings done on this topic in one convenient place. Without such a compilation it would be very difficult to find all the relevant essays:

The Cathedral Compilation


Quote :
"The Concise Introduction

For five hundred years, there have been attempt to reorder human society on the basis that hereditary privilege, and many other kinds of inequality between humans, are unjust. Reformers have attempted to alter systems of government and other institutions of society with the goal of reducing or eliminating these injustices.

These reformers have consistently underestimated the difficulty of getting people to cooperate in a society. The intellectual techniques of science and engineering that produced miracles in terms of manipulating the natural world, have, time after time, failed catastrophically to improve the lives of humans through changing government and society.

There are a number of reasons for this: For one thing, humans are much more complex than any of the parts and tools with which engineers have made machines. They will not fit in where they are put. Attempts to persuade or compel them to fit into the machine have to be built into the machine themselves, and end up changing the functioning of the machine so much that it no longer achieves its intended goal.

Most importantly, humans have evolved to compete for influence and power, by violence and by deceit. Any reform which attempts to limit or remove the power of the holders of power creates a competition for that power, which will lead to spectacular efforts by everybody else to win it. The innovations that will be produced by such high-stakes competition are impossible to predict or plan for.

Meanwhile, developments in technology have improved people’s lives so much that the calamitous decline in quality of government has been disguised. All mainstream political factions are intellectual descendants of the original reformers, and none have any interest in fairly comparing present-day government with traditional government. Those that are called “conservatives” are only reformers who oppose the most recently enacted or proposed reforms: none of them question the principle or the intellectual basis of progressivism.

Most neoreactionary writing consists of detailed criticism of particular progressive reforms, with particular emphasis on the flaws in one specific idea — democracy.

Ultimately, however, if after all these centuries of trying to improve society based on abstract ideas of justice have only made life worse than it would have been under pre-Enlightenment social systems, the time has come to simply give up the whole project and revert to traditional forms whose basis we might not be able to establish rationally, but which have the evidence of history to support them.


Neoreaction for Reactionaries

Some of the inquiries I spoke of at the beginning have come from old-fashioned reactionaries. The short answer for them is that it doesn’t matter. Neoreaction is not a new, better form of reaction that you should be upgrading to — rather, you’ve found a short-cut past what for us has generally been a long and laborious journey, one that has mostly passed through libertarianism or other forms of liberalism. A lot of our discussion will seem wrong-headed to you, and your theology is mostly irrelevant to us, but when the subject is more immediately practical, we are likely to be closer together."

Introduction to NeoRxn

Quote :
Hjernevask

Part I














Bio-temperance

Neoreactionary Philosophy

Atavisionaries

Unqualified Reservations

Reading List

Neorxn Canon


May or may not be related:

Technolibertarianism

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Qualitative Politics

Back to top Go down
 
Qualitative Politics
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Qualitative Politics
» GCC fully behind Kuwait''s Mubarak Al-Kabeer port Politics 12/20/2011 7:20:00 PM
» Zibari recites final statement of activities of ASPA Summit Read more: http://www.iraqinews.com/baghdad-politics/zibari-recites-final-statement-of-activities-of-aspa-summit/#ixzz28HeysLPw Follow us: @IraqiNews_com on Twitter | IraqNews on Facebook
» Parliament to vote on General Amnesty, Infrastructure law draft next Monday Read more: http://www.iraqinews.com/baghdad-politics/parliament-to-vote-on-general-amnesty-infrastructure-law-draft-next-monday/#ixzz29DQfNh9Q Follow us: @IraqiNews_com on Twitt
» Maliki calls to activate Supreme Joint Committee between Iraq, Romania Read more: http://www.iraqinews.com/baghdad-politics/maliki-calls-to-activate-supreme-joint-committee-between-iraq-romania/#ixzz2BIiANYtR Follow us: @IraqiNews_com on Twitter | IraqN

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: