Qualitative Politics

We often hear the political spectrum, right vs left, discussed quantitively, I'll give you an example, if you're familiar with it. Take the worlds smallest political quiz as one of the many examples. They divide peoples political leanings into 5 categories, based on how much they want the government to intervene in the affairs of the citizenry, and which sphere, cultural or econimic, they want the government to intervene in. The categories are as follows- liberal (minimal cultural intervention, maximum economic intervention), conservative (maximum cultural intervention, minimal economic intervention), communitarian (maximum cultural and economic intervention), libertarian (minimal cultural and economic intervention), and centrist (moderate cultural and economic intervention.

In case you're wondering, I'm well aware of how both the democrats and republicans are controlled by America's banking and corporate elite, I'm speaking theoretically here, ideally, not actually.

I believe there is an underlying, biological and cultural left and right, that lies at the core of our very being, in spite of what's happening in the world today.

Now, what's rarely discussed is the difference between left and right communitarianism, maximum intervention, or qualitive left and right. The right is fundamentally hierarchical, vertical social relations (dominant and submissive) and I think we can see it's origin in chimpanzee biology and society, and the left is fundamentally heterarchical, horizontal social relations (collaborative) and we can see it's origin in bonobo biologoy and society, I hope everyone here is acquainted with the differences between bonobos and chimps. Oh, and we shouldn't confuse hierarchical, dominant/submissive social relations with hierarchical, predator/prey asocial relations. Hierarchical relations are based on a master slave dichotomy. In exchange for it's protection (from the master and other would be masters and predators, the two are not the same, Satyr is an example of a would be master, the Joker is a predator), the slave, serf or laborer (this hierarchical, social relation can occur with or without government intervention) relinquishes a portion or all of their autonomy and sovereignty. Heterarchical relations are based on collaborating and compromising, sharing and aiding/having compassion for the downtrodden when they're in need, so hopefully they'll aid/have compassion for you, if ever you're in need. We should be able to imagine how nature, nurture and independent thought, experience can incline an individual or collective to the right or left. Right societies are fundamentally dualistic in nature... think of a pyramid. The pyramid is composed of the rich, powerful, dominant and... enlightened, illuminated on the top (the eye of providence), who occult knowledge, wisdom and understanding from the poor, weak, submivissive and unenlightened on the bottom. Contrary to what some would have you believe, it is in the best interests of those above to preach the virtues of unconditional love, humility, charity and admiration to those below.

Both rightist and leftist societies can be big or small, they can have a population ranging from a tribe, to a nation. They may specialize, lthough the right tends more towards specialization and the left tends more towards everyone doing everything for everyone. In my opinion, neither one is indicative of primitivism or civilization, though there is a tendency for some, like Satyr, to associate the left with the former and the right with the latter, both are a product of man's advanced, higher capacities, the lower animals are asocial, such as spiders or worms, man is more capable of leftist and rightist social relations.

I believe we can extrapolate the left/right states of mind beyond the political, economic and cultural realms, to the biological, metapsychological and perhaps even the metaphysical, but I won't delve into this here. Let's just say the left represents Parmenidean monism, and the right Heraclitian flux.

In terms of culture, the left tends to want government to help those who supposedly cannot help themselves (from the leftist POV, no one can be blaimed for their shortcomings, an individuals failings are the communities, or societies failings). Instead of punish the gambler, the alcoholic, the drug addict, the gluton, the left wants government to help them, to rehabilitate them. The left tends to promote sustainibility, and respect for the downtrodden, to remove the disparaties between man and animal, rich and poor, male and female, wherever and whenever they exist. The goal of the leftist is to equalize everything, make everything one, eradicate all distinctions, so fundamentally, it is a monistic doctrine. The goal of the right is to punish those who have fallen behind, drunks, etc, and to maintain or increase disparaties between man and animal, rich and poor, smart and stupid, white and black, etc. The soft right would just maintain them, the hard right would increase them. The right has a fundamentally dualistic, or pluralistic view of social relations, perhaps even of physical relations.

Quote :

The left tends to promote sustainibility, and respect for the downtrodden, to remove the disparaties between man and animal, rich and poor, male and female, wherever and whenever they exist. The goal of the leftist is to equalize everything, make everything one, eradicate all distinctions, so fundamentally, it is a monistic doctrine. The goal of the right is to punish those who have fallen behind, drunks, etc, and to maintain or increase disparaties between man and animal, rich and poor, smart and stupid, white and black, etc. The soft right would just maintain them, the hard right would increase them. The right has a fundamentally dualistic, or pluralistic view of social relations, perhaps even of physical relations.

the goal of both the left and right is to maintain themselves and because it is humans whether they are left/right, one will always excuse their own shortcomings or be blind to them, thereby perpetuating their own weaknesses and/or vices, though one will naturally think they don't possess them or find what is wrong in others that differ from themselves.

And the best way they think they can maintain themselves, for the right (the Apollonian and the Epimethean), is dichotomization and competition, and for the left (the Dionysian and the Promethean), monism and collaboration.

this is where i'm going to play devil's advocate.

the goal of the leftist, though in certain aspects is unrealistic, on some level has a deeper understanding of cause and effect. the humanistic morals behind it have grounds as well.

the proponents of the hard right will eventually become victim to exactly what it is trying to punish and/or oppress as well as it is constantly creating disparity.

one would think this is refinement but it isn't because it is not understanding the predation and oppression is not always based on quality but on sheer survival instincts as well as greed. in short, the hard right can eventually become parasites as well. we often don't think of those at the top as parasites but only those at the bottom but that's false. it's an interdependence with greater disparity usually devolving into basic greed and holding onto it's power for it's own sake, for good or ill.

for instance, it is common to blame people on the bottom rung for lack and any movement for change on their part as 'theft' or parasitism whereas in reality the top has taken more of it's fair share, which in essence theft as well. this is because the top is not truly 'independent' as the boast and know they depend on what is below them as well.

it's about balance and where that balance is deemed fair or closer to fair.

so how does this play out that greater disparity creates regression?

greater disparity creates those who can abuse their power and have become comfortable with fewer checks/balances. since we are dealing with flawed humans, whether ideologically or politically leaning left/right, can end up supressing anything new or better as well as individuals that would effect their power. a very good example throughout history is leaders of religion who have wrought power and used it to oppress.

people don't just rise to the top on their own noble qualifications, people often cheat and use any corrupt means to do it, if they can.

this is one of the reasons why the 'liberal' or the left, if you will, with it's checks/balances on the right is necessary as well.

when it comes to humans, there really is no definitive right or left. all want to survive as well as maintain and promote themselves. abuse of power occurs more often when there is less accountability.

what the hard right doesn't expose is their own liberalism or hedonism that is undetected.

to create more disparity and to grab the lion's share, one would need a less educated and less informed mass of 'sheeple' under them. they create this and then "blame" them as problematic by continuing to oppress while they pretend they are clean and hoighty toighty. some conservatives realize this and know this is the modus operandi and some actually don't which are the stupid ones. this is where the 'liberal' sees through their bullshit and one of the reasons why they work toward educating as well as bettering those who are in less advantageous positions. do you see how that what appears to be is not always what is. we can say it's obviously the 'liberals' with their ignorance, tv watchin, junk-food eatin ad nauseum (which is a false stereotype anyways) is created by the stereotypical 'liberal' when in fact, it is the conservative who had a part in this as well, even more so.

see how that works?

as well, in the political arena, it is the 'liberals' who tend to be conservative and the conservatives who tend to be hedonistic. leaning liberals or the left is usually based on social values as well as lifestyle whereas the leaning conservatives or the right tend to be traditionally religious, fiscally irresponsible or more is better.

it's a game and everyone is more or less, wearing masks with few actually caring for the betterment of anything. and on this note, i have to give more credit to politically leaning liberals. the hard right only recently has changed their tune as their over-extension as well as their lack of foresight has turned to bite them in the ass.

why do they all of a sudden want to curb spending, bring home troops, and blame the corporate world? because the competition or exploitation is not in their favor anymore. they were not truly conservative, only now that it's in their 'interest' to be more conservative.

Quote :

this is where i'm going to play devil's advocate.

the goal of the leftist, though in certain aspects is unrealistic, on some level has a deeper understanding of cause and effect. the humanistic morals behind it have grounds as well.

What most mean by the leftist is in fact the Dionysian hippie, he is conservative in that he wants to return to a greener, more earth friendly time, he is liberal in that he desires egalitarianism, green, democratic socialism is his or, her natural political philosophy.

The Apollonian is conservative in that he's an elitist, he's a liberal in that he favors philosophical, scientific, technological and material progress, timocracy is his natural government, a hierarchical form of individualism and producerism.

The true conservative is neither Dionysian, nor Apollonian, he is Epimethean, the true liberal is Promethean. The Epimethean is the old world, the Promethean is the new world, what the Jews mean when they talk about a new world order, is in fact, a renaissance of the old, feudal world, but with Jewish, merchant overlords as opposed to European, warrior/priest overlords.

Quote :

the proponents of the hard right will eventually become victim to exactly what it is trying to punish and/or oppress as well as it is constantly creating disparity.

one would think this is refinement but it isn't because it is not understanding the predation and oppression is not always based on quality but on sheer survival instincts as well as greed. in short, the hard right can eventually become parasites as well. we often don't think of those at the top as parasites but only those at the bottom but that's false. it's an interdependence with greater disparity usually devolving into basic greed and holding onto it's power for it's own sake, for good or ill.

What you mean by the hard right is the Luciferian, the Promethean, who naturally favors anarcho capitalism. The Promethean is actually representative of the left, like his sister Dionysus, he is an egalitarian, he believes in competitive collaboration, he views those who prey on the the productive as the enemy, the true conservative, the Epimethean, identifies them with the good, the true conservative is anti bourgeoisie and proletariat, he is anti progress, he believes the warrior priest class ought to hold back the power of the proletariat, their appetite for more must be curbed.

What you think of as the right, fair and free, productive exchanges between farmers, artisans, etc, is actually the Luciferian rebel, the left wing, the Luciferian is as left as it gets, the Dionysian and the Apollonian, are a mix of left and right, the Epimethean is the true conservative, his mentality can be found in Aztec conception of teotl, and there are some bourgeoisie, who have made themselves monstrously rich, freely and fairly, or otherwise, who now prey on the system that spawned them, who want to reinstate feudalism, who have turned away from their Promethean roots, if these Jews ever had Promethean roots, perhaps they were followers of Jupiter in disguise as Prometheus.

They want to become the new parasite class, to keep the masses down, to curtail growth, these are the enemies of capitalism, not it's ally, and it is what Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura, Gerald Celente, Ron Paul and others, the true Luciferians, the true Europeans, fear and hate most. Do not confuse would be Epimethean parasites, the merchant bankers (or their European, warrior priest counterparts (the paleo aristocracy), as Promethean capitalists.

Quote :

for instance, it is common to blame people on the bottom rung for lack and any movement for change on their part as 'theft' or parasitism whereas in reality the top has taken more of it's fair share, which in essence theft as well. this is because the top is not truly 'independent' as the boast and know they depend on what is below them as well.

Those who worship the rich, regardless of whether they're productive or not, are in fact worshiping parasitical Jews, who are conservative, hierarchical, regressive, who long for neo feudalism. Right, they are not Promethean capitalists, the Promethean capitalist is the one punishes the unproductive, rich or poor, he fights parasites wherever they are. Alex Jones is a Promethean capitalist, he is the foremost representative of the Luciferian doctrine in America, although he calls himself a Christian, Christians are in fact, Epimetheans, though they believe their feudal God is not of this world, he is in the world to come after Armageddon.

Quote :

it's about balance and where that balance is deemed fair or closer to fair.

I think my understanding of things is deeper than yours.

Quote :

I think my understanding of things is deeper than yours

i don't think so. you are just using greek mythology/philosophical terms to express yourself. that doesn't mean you have a deeper understanding of what's going on. lol

jew or not, people bought it hook, line and sinker. though many at the top are jews in the financial sector, they have been kept there by those who benefit in the capitalistic system. you are nitpicking unnecessarily.

only now are conservatives looking for life rafts and blaming/scapegoating jews because the heyday is on the decline.

what is it i don't get? all i see is a bunch of nonsense in your post. it's popular to blame jews, especially now for obvious reasons though others were right along willingly and complicitly for the ride, not that they don't deserve blame as well but you are the one who made a stark contrast between left and right. only now are you differentiating on the gradients but most people don't care when it's flowing with milk and honey.

it's fucking quite simple. china is no longer just gonna be the trinket maker for the west, it is on the rise while the west, and especially america is on the decline. it's not only the shitty factory jobs that are going overseas but also the technical and professional ones. the west has become decadent to the point of losing ground financially and culturally such as education primarily through arrogance and a belief in their invincibility, this is why they are upset and espousing more culturally and financially insular conservative values.

but this doesn't mean it will be that way forever. it's always a constant teeter totter of relearning and re-evaluating as well as power changing hands.

i was expounding on this:

Quote :

I believe we can extrapolate the left/right states of mind beyond the political, economic and cultural realms, to the biological, metapsychological and perhaps even the metaphysical, but I won't delve into this here. Let's just say the left represents Parmenidean monism, and the right Heraclitian flux.

In terms of culture, the left tends to want government to help those who supposedly cannot help themselves (from the leftist POV, no one can be blaimed for their shortcomings, an individuals failings are the communities, or societies failings). Instead of punish the gambler, the alcoholic, the drug addict, the gluton, the left wants government to help them, to rehabilitate them. The left tends to promote sustainibility, and respect for the downtrodden, to remove the disparaties between man and animal, rich and poor, male and female, wherever and whenever they exist. The goal of the leftist is to equalize everything, make everything one, eradicate all distinctions, so fundamentally, it is a monistic doctrine. The goal of the right is to punish those who have fallen behind, drunks, etc, and to maintain or increase disparaties between man and animal, rich and poor, smart and stupid, white and black, etc. The soft right would just maintain them, the hard right would increase them. The right has a fundamentally dualistic, or pluralistic view of social relations, perhaps even of physical relations.

Quote :

so how does this play out that greater disparity creates regression?

greater disparity creates those who can abuse their power and have become comfortable with fewer checks/balances. since we are dealing with flawed humans, whether ideologically or politically leaning left/right, can end up supressing anything new or better as well as individuals that would effect their power. a very good example throughout history is leaders of religion who have wrought power and used it to oppress.

Do not equate greater disparity with parasitism, if the disparity was earned, freely and fairly, it is the poor Dionysians who are the parasites.

Quote :

people don't just rise to the top on their own noble qualifications, people often cheat and use any corrupt means to do it, if they can.

This is an assumption. You have to look at each case individually, you can't just say, guilty until proven innocent, you're rich so you didn't earn it.

Quote :

this is one of the reasons why the 'liberal' or the left, if you will, with it's checks/balances on the right is necessary as well.

You're Dionysian left, with it's protection of retards, cripples and crack heads, bottom feeders, is in fact a parasitical under class.

Quote :

when it comes to humans, there really is no definitive right or left. all want to survive as well as maintain and promote themselves. abuse of power occurs more often when there is less accountability.

Yes and no, the archetypes aren't perfect, but I think they describe reality quite well, the problem is we need more archetypes to explain the complexity of the world, not less, less leads to nihilism, confusion and oblivion, which is why I have included 2 new philosophical and political archetypes, the Epimethean and Promethean, in addition to Nietzsche's Apollonian and Dionysian.

Quote :

what the hard right doesn't expose is their own liberalism or hedonism that is undetected.

What you don't realize is, what you call here the right is actually left, you have the words, backward.

Quote :

to create more disparity and to grab the lion's share, one would need a less educated and less informed mass of 'sheeple' under them. they create this and then "blame" them as problematic by continuing to oppress while they pretend they are clean and hoighty toighty. some conservatives realize this and know this is the modus operandi and some actually don't which are the stupid ones. this is where the 'liberal' sees through their bullshit and one of the reasons why they work toward educating as well as bettering those who are in less advantageous positions. do you see how that what appears to be is not always what is. we can say it's obviously the 'liberals' with their ignorance, tv watchin, junk-food eatin ad nauseum (which is a false stereotype anyways) is created by the stereotypical 'liberal' when in fact, it is the conservative who had a part in this as well, even more so.

Right, so your solution is to give retards, drug addicts, and fat, lazy nigger moms, who are addicted McDonald and Oprah, with seven children more money, right.

Quote :

see how that works?

Yes, now that I'm blind, I can see.

Quote :

as well, in the political arena, it is the 'liberals' who tend to be conservative and the conservatives who tend to be hedonistic. leaning liberals or the left is usually based on social values as well as lifestyle whereas the leaning conservatives or the right tend to be traditionally religious, fiscally irresponsible or more is better.

Right, once again, what people call the left, is in fact conservative in some aspects, and what people call the right, is actually liberal in some elements, the words need clarification, and I can provide you with that.

Quote :

it's a game and everyone is more or less, wearing masks with few actually caring for the betterment of anything. and on this note, i have to give more credit to politically leaning liberals. the hard right only recently has changed their tune as their over-extension as well as their lack of foresight has turned to bite them in the ass.

Right, everyone is selfish, but the liberals less so, because I am one.. right.

Quote :

why do they all of a sudden want to curb spending, bring home troops, and blame the corporate world? because the competition or exploitation is not in their favor anymore. they were not truly conservative, only now that it's in their 'interest' to be more conservative.

You do not understand the libertarians, they don't approve of some of the rich, the ones who have committed fraud, the ones who are just as parasitical as the Mexicans on welfare.

Quote :

Those who worship the rich, regardless of whether they're productive or not, are in fact worshiping parasitical Jews, who are conservative, hierarchical, regressive, who long for neo feudalism. Right, they are not Promethean capitalists, the Promethean capitalist is the one punishes the unproductive, rich or poor, he fights parasites wherever they are. Alex Jones is a Promethean capitalist, he is the foremost representative of the Luciferian doctrine in America, although he calls himself a Christian, Christians are in fact, Epimetheans, though they believe their feudal God is not of this world, he is in the world to come after Armageddon.

take for instance this snippet. you don't understand what is going on. productive for whom?

it's not conservative vs liberal in the financial world and money and power is the biggest issue. it's about rich vs the poor.

the rich conservative doesn't care as long as they are okay. the big gripe is from the declining middle class and from even greater disparity. the conservatives are getting real heat and that is why they are pushed to toot their horn for them as they are feeling the crunch. lol

'unproductive' really means not in the west's interest any longer but that was the game all along, rich vs the poor. money is money to them, they don't care who does the work or where it comes from. that's global competition.

that's alright with you, isn't it judging from your post? isn't that what you were endorsing? lol

eyesinthedark wrote:

Quote :

so how does this play out that greater disparity creates regression?

greater disparity creates those who can abuse their power and have become comfortable with fewer checks/balances. since we are dealing with flawed humans, whether ideologically or politically leaning left/right, can end up supressing anything new or better as well as individuals that would effect their power. a very good example throughout history is leaders of religion who have wrought power and used it to oppress.

Do not equate greater disparity with parasitism, if the disparity was earned, freely and fairly, it is the poor Dionysians who are the parasites.

Quote :

people don't just rise to the top on their own noble qualifications, people often cheat and use any corrupt means to do it, if they can.

This is an assumption. You have to look at each case individually, you can't just say, guilty until proven innocent, you're rich so you didn't earn it.

Quote :

this is one of the reasons why the 'liberal' or the left, if you will, with it's checks/balances on the right is necessary as well.

You're Dionysian left, with it's protection of retards, cripples and crack heads, bottom feeders, is in fact a parasitical under class.

Quote :

when it comes to humans, there really is no definitive right or left. all want to survive as well as maintain and promote themselves. abuse of power occurs more often when there is less accountability.

Yes and no, the archetypes aren't perfect, but I think they describe reality quite well, the problem is we need more archetypes to explain the complexity of the world, not less, less leads to nihilism, confusion and oblivion, which is why I have included 2 new philosophical and political archetypes, the Epimethean and Promethean, in addition to Nietzsche's Apollonian and Dionysian.

Quote :

what the hard right doesn't expose is their own liberalism or hedonism that is undetected.

What you don't realize is, what you call here the right is actually left, you have the words, backward.

Quote :

to create more disparity and to grab the lion's share, one would need a less educated and less informed mass of 'sheeple' under them. they create this and then "blame" them as problematic by continuing to oppress while they pretend they are clean and hoighty toighty. some conservatives realize this and know this is the modus operandi and some actually don't which are the stupid ones. this is where the 'liberal' sees through their bullshit and one of the reasons why they work toward educating as well as bettering those who are in less advantageous positions. do you see how that what appears to be is not always what is. we can say it's obviously the 'liberals' with their ignorance, tv watchin, junk-food eatin ad nauseum (which is a false stereotype anyways) is created by the stereotypical 'liberal' when in fact, it is the conservative who had a part in this as well, even more so.

Right, so your solution is to give retards, drug addicts, and fat, lazy nigger moms, who are addicted McDonald and Oprah, with seven children more money, right.

Quote :

see how that works?

Yes, now that I'm blind, I can see.

Quote :

as well, in the political arena, it is the 'liberals' who tend to be conservative and the conservatives who tend to be hedonistic. leaning liberals or the left is usually based on social values as well as lifestyle whereas the leaning conservatives or the right tend to be traditionally religious, fiscally irresponsible or more is better.

Right, once again, what people call the left, is in fact conservative in some aspects, and what people call the right, is actually liberal in some elements, the words need clarification, and I can provide you with that.

Quote :

it's a game and everyone is more or less, wearing masks with few actually caring for the betterment of anything. and on this note, i have to give more credit to politically leaning liberals. the hard right only recently has changed their tune as their over-extension as well as their lack of foresight has turned to bite them in the ass.

Right, everyone is selfish, but the liberals less so, because I am one.. right.

Quote :

why do they all of a sudden want to curb spending, bring home troops, and blame the corporate world? because the competition or exploitation is not in their favor anymore. they were not truly conservative, only now that it's in their 'interest' to be more conservative.

You do not understand the libertarians, they don't approve of some of the rich, the ones who have committed fraud, the ones who are just as parasitical as the Mexicans on welfare.

lmao. your answer is in the post above.

Quote :

i don't think so. you are just using greek mythology/philosophical terms to express yourself. that doesn't mean you have a deeper understanding of what's going on. lol

No, it goes way deeper than that, it goes to the core of what man is, and the dilemma he faces, the dilemma civilization brought about, all politics, ethics and philosophy is a response to this dilemma, and the responses, the apparent madness, chaos and confusion can be made into a coherent, cohesive order, responses to the dilemma can be grouped together, categorized.

The trouble is, we need more categories, more complexity, 4 or 16 (think Jungian typology, if you're familiar with it, but for ethics, politics and philosophy) as opposed to two, and also, we need to better understand the two we have now, left and right, the two on which the others are based.

I am attempting to demonstrate to you and others what the true left and right are, what most people call left and right is, actually, a mix of left and right, and you have pointed out some of this confusion, and I commend you for this, and I am now offering you a solution.

Quote :

jew or not, people bought it hook, line and sinker. though many at the top are jews in the financial sector, they have been kept there by those who benefit in the capitalistic system. you are nitpicking unnecessarily.

No, it is important to distinguish between the parasitical poor and rich, and the productive poor and rich, you shouldn't make blanket statements- all rich are undeserving. The Jewish bankers don't make their money through capitalism, they make it through fraud, through manipulating the markets via the federal reserve, which is neither federal, nor a reserve, it is a scam, a fraud. You shouldn't equate what they're perpetrating with a corporation that manufactures automobiles, unless that corporation received corporate welfare, which is not capitalism by the way.

If you think the wages you are being paid are unfair, you have the option to start your own business, look elsewhere for work, or live off the land, or if you think these products are bunk, you don't have to purchase them, but the moment you begin stealing the wealth from those who earned it fair in square, those whom the poor work for and buy products from, you in fact punish yourself, you punish those who feed and clothe you, you are biting the hand that feeds you, you are killing that which you depend on, and for your stupidity, your stupidity will destroy the economy. However, perhaps that's what humans need, I'm not sure, maybe some of us need to be eliminated, for mother earth, we have not been a good steward, but let's not pretend you're something you're not.

Quote :

only now are conservatives looking for life rafts and blaming/scapegoating Jews because the heyday is on the decline.

The Jews especially should be blamed, not all Jews, but the Rothschilds, Kuhn Loeb, Goldman Sachs, yes they should be blamed, they are uniquely worthy of blame, but they see themselves as fulfilling the promise made to them by Yahweh, that they shall be the head, and not the tail, they promote pornography and debauchery, mindless materialism and consumerism, but in reality, they are Epimethean, they long for a new feudalism, where they, this time, shall be the ones to inherit the earth, and their God shall reign supreme. Do not equate the manipulation of markets with fiat currency, capitalism with corporate welfare, or fraud, this is a grave error.

Quote :

what is it i don't get? all i see is a bunch of nonsense in your post. it's popular to blame jews, especially now for obvious reasons though others were right along willingly and complicitly for the ride, not that they don't deserve blame as well but you are the one who made a stark contrast between left and right. only now are you differentiating on the gradients but most people don't care when it's flowing with milk and honey.

Right, it's simple, you don't care about who is productive and who is not, fine by me, but know thyself and call a spade a spade, don't call it peace and love, call it the selfishness of the poor, call it envy, greed.

Quote :

it's fucking quite simple. china is no longer just gonna be the trinket maker for the west, it is on the rise while the west, and especially america is on the decline. it's not only the shitty factory jobs that are going overseas but also the technical and professional ones. the west has become decadent to the point of losing ground financially and culturally such as education primarily through arrogance and a belief in their invincibility, this is why they are upset and espousing more culturally and financially insular conservative values.

The Jews have China under their thumb, ever since phony communism (communism cannot come from dictatorship, it was a Jewish plot) was introduced there, the new world order will deal with China, China operates on a fiat, Zionist banking system as well, they are also in debt to the bankers, by the trillions.

you are quite hypocritical.

the point is competition is competition.

who is the poor? rich? smart? stupid?

obviously the corrupt banker jews were smarter so they duped the public. is being smart a problem with you or do you have 'rules' on how that is supposed to be exercised?

the problem with humanity is until one feels the sting, they don't consider their own greed or selfishness.

all of a sudden these 'weak' liberal values of protectionism and morals look mighty necessary about now, doesn't it?

so you think the 'poor' are selfish? who is that? because the rich would consider your several rants here to be desperate complaints as well as consider you as not being on their level. that if you were smarter, obviously you would be in the same position as them. that's competition, dude?

so to your deluded mind, you think those who are less advantaged in comparison to you, are the problem. let me clue you in, so do those at the top think the same about you.

Quote :

Right, it's simple, you don't care about who is productive and who is not, fine by me, but know thyself and call a spade a spade, don't call it peace and love, call it the selfishness of the poor, call it envy, greed.

this is the funniest. i suppose you are focusing on this because that is all you've got to make yourself feel better than.

it's pathetic because it's trivial in comparison to the big game that is going on. fat nigger welfare mothers, mcdonalds addicts etc are just minor issues in the big game.

you really are clueless.

Quote :

If you think the wages you are being paid are unfair, you have the option to start your own business, look elsewhere for work, or live off the land, or if you think these products are bunk, you don't have to purchase them, but the moment you begin stealing the wealth from those who earned it fair in square, those whom the poor work for and buy products from, you in fact punish yourself, you punish those who feed and clothe you, you are biting the hand that feeds you, you are killing that which you depend on, and for your stupidity, your stupidity will destroy the economy. However, perhaps that's what humans need, I'm not sure, maybe some of us need to be eliminated, for mother earth, we have not been a good steward, but let's not pretend you're something you're not.

lol. you understand nothing about the truth of capitalism. i would like to see you make this statement to an american and see what they think. they should start their own business, look elsewher for work or live off the land or else they are stealing from the wealth of those who earned it fair and square and is biting the hand that feeds them. like ceo's?

what is earning fair and square? is playing the stock market earning? is a football player's multimillion dollar contract fair in contrast to a teacher who earns piddly?

there is no such thing as fair and square in capitalism. it's not supposed to be.

did you just fuking say those whom the 'poor' work for and those who feed and clothe them? the fuking poor are the ones working to feed and clothe you.

your views are classic kiss ass type who only starts looking at what is unfair where it applies to them. you are hypocritical.

i also never said that all rich don't earn it or never do nor do i despise all rich. i said that people can use corrupt means to get ahead as well as cheat.

I don't want you to misunderstand me, I'm not a capitalist, even though it sounds like I'm advocating capitalism, I'm merely defending capitalism from your socialism. Capitalism tends to reward the productive proletariat and bourgeoisie, western capitalist societies tend to be the most wealthy for a reason. Of course there are exceptions to the rule.

I'm actually more of a Platonist than a capitalist. I believe a class of white, pagan priests and philosophers (male or female), together with a class of warriors (male or female) should rule the bourgeoisie and proletariat.

All becomes clear upon realizing, what is normally called left (socialism) and right (capitalism) today, are two sides of the same leftist, progressive coin. The rightist coin contains two sides as well, a Platonic, Spartan side, and an Aristotelian, Athenian, timocratic side.

As for football players, if you don't like football, don't watch. I don't like it either.. I despise it.

As for those who invest in the market, those who make wise investments are rewarded by the market, and those who make foolish investments are punished by the market, those who help companies with potential are rewarded, those who help companies with no potential are punished.

The capitalists are smart, they build and manage the businesses, corporations and industries the workers work in. Without the capitalist and their foresight, the efficient (by efficient, I mean,
maximum output-minimum input) production and consumption we have today would be impossible. They are the systematic organizers, they invest in resources, machines and people, however, I'm not for productivity as much as it sounds, I'm merely stating capitalism tends to increase productivity, and this was necessary for a while, but the time for egalitarianism, freedom, fairness, producerism, consumerism, hedonism and materialism is coming to end, the Promethean revolution is over, and the Dionysian is over, it is time to reinstate a more, Apollonian, and especially an Epimethean society.

Westerners have played around with progressivism for long enough, it is time for the pendulum to swing the other way, the social shall rule the material, the mental shall rule the emotional, and the spiritual shall rule the physical, intps shall rule esfjs, and order shall be restored. 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.

BTW, I'm working class, but I do not identify with the Proletariat, or the Bourgeoisie, I have my own plans.

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."

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?

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.]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.]

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.

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

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.