Free-Will

When it comes to Free-Will, most people simply do not want to Lead, Embody, Overcome, or gain Autonomy/Authority in life. Rather most people follow and are Followers. So Free-Will, to the masses, represents the herd-instinct and integrating within the whole (ie. Humanity). This is about Value. Most people speak to Freedom, but they do not think and act to Freedom. Freedom, to the masses, again is more of a Luxury or hobby than it is an ethical & moral principle.

Because if it is a Principle, then it is a real-thing which must be addressed and confronted. It must be laid-out and fully explained. I've seen this hang-up in conversation, debate, and philosophy for my whole life. Most people are content to speak meekly and weakly to freedom and Free-Will, as-if it has no real impact or significance in life ...because it has no real impact or significance to them, except in terms of their luxury, privilege, and standard-of-living according to dollar and monetary values. These are the same types that believe you can simply 'buy freedom'. They because you can buy your way out, which is false. Freedom is far more than money, and because of this, very few (Modern-Postmodern) people can have a conversation about Free-Will.

This is best analogized by the freeing of black people in USA. You simply convince people that they are free, when they are not, and that's all it takes. The same systems of slavery, servitude, and slavishness still persist, and are stronger than ever -- but the masses believe they are free, and that (illusory) belief is enough. You convince the slaves they are free, when they're not, and then they become more complicit, willingly, and enthusiastic in their servitude than ever before.


Freedom with regard to the individual, has been the primary mode of Free-Will for the West for centuries, by recognizing the hardship, sacrifice, and risks involved when the European settlers conquered the New World. And then after it was conquered, established a civilization as 'freely' as it could be, because it was valued along the way and with respect to the Authoritarian and Totalitarian systems of the past, or of the Old World, as it is still reflected by Islam in Iran, Catholicism in Rome, Communism in China and North Korea, etc.

But freedom does not last forever. It can be destroyed in societies, in eras of history, and in individuals.

But the systems which attack American sovereignty and the free-will of individuals now, is very insidious.


This is how I would link Free-Will, Americanism, and Abrahamism together. Because all factors are tied together when referring to the 'freedom' of average Western persons as individuals.

The question arises, should we surrender to god's omnipotence or should we rise up and murder him, wiping him out of an existence he never had, and taking his place, which he never occupied?
How could we have murdered that which never lived, when it continues to exist in the only form it ever had: as an idea. And no idea can ever be killed.
Remaining incarcerated within these dual rigid bars of options keeps us enslaved, for how much more free is a man with two options to a man with none but one, if one of the options is accompanied with the cost of eternal suffering - if one of the options is none?: one/nil.

There is a third, best delivered by Kazantzakis in his book Ascetics {ΑΣΚΗΤΙΚΗ}, who spoke of the gods as fellow warriors, fellow sufferers - not omnipotent beings - battling against Titans and the forces of the primordial abyss, from where they had come.
A third option of aligning ourselves with them - harmonizing ourselves with their authority, and yet still trying to bribe and outsmart them, or to seduce and appropriate small portions of their finite powers.
Knowing what the Olympians, or the polytheistic deities represented, helps us understand the extent of their powers, and consequently of our own infinitesimal, by comparison, powers and free-will, as well.
No more could the gods contradict one another, or the powers that birthed them, than we can challenge the gods - no more...and on less.
All is an in-between - a movement to and fro - dynamic, momentum....throwness, dasein.
We but ships (physis - present) on the ocean with our sails (ideals - future) cast to the air, and our rudder (metaphysics - past) as deep as we dare into the abyss, directing (will) ourselves in between the air and ocean currents.

Deniers of free-will are usually recovering Abrahamics. Those who must replace one divine parental authority - a one-god - with that of a one-humanity, represented by the State, or a uni-verse, no less ordered (rational), omnipotent and intentional (willful).
The psychology of defensiveness, reacting to increasing self-consciousness, threatens to expose the mind to the eyes of others, from where they flee into higher complexities which no earthly mind can ever truly know or understand.
The politics described by E. Michael Jones as the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, finding in Protestantism its closest Christian forms: denial of all earthly authorities, and of all kinds of human order, because the individual is the reflection of divine universal authority and order, abstracted further away from anthropomorphic remnants of pagan idolatry towards ideological semiotic abstractions, e.g., mathematical, linguistic representations of absolute binaries, replacing the Zoroastrian inspired God/Satan duality with their 1/0 code.
The individual is Americanised, subordinate to no manmade laws, if they contradict divine universal laws - every individual is a unique reflection of divinity, requiring no mediating authority to justify its choices and actions.
Denying free-will implies that the individual is an incomprehensible reflection of universal order which need not justify itself to any earthly judge and jury.
It can do no wrong, make no error in judgement, because it follows the only laws that matter, i.e., universal, laws - divine laws/commandments.
Submitting only to the King of all earthly kings.

The flexibility of this ruse is that it is infinitely progressive, viz., there will always be a "higher" concept to be evoked in breaking any rule, even that of nature - if the negation of all laws proves to be too revealing of secret motives.
Laws can be altogether denied - just as individuality can be denied if one wishes to evade responsibility, or to hold itself accountable for the consequences of tis own actions - or they can be overcome by appealing to higher ones. Though authority and its laws are absolute they can never be recognized as final - there always remain secret higher laws to find an excuse.
Self-consciuosness finds a hole in human knowledge and understanding to be exploited.
The goal is to never be seen, and by never being seen escape all judgments. The human individual becomes the creator using logos, i.e., semiotics, including mathematical binary codes.
The individual is mystical, incomprehensible, divine, obscure, and so it can ever be judged nor entirely known - its choices and behaviours eternally mysterious.
There is no court that can pass judgement.

The dilemma of free-wil is always presented in an either/or scenario involving a positive/negative binary choice.
Am I free to do or not to do...
But this is not how free-will presents itself in reality. In reality the choice is rarely, if ever, a binary, but a multiplicity.
Should I do this, or not do it, by doing that, or another.
Every set of options presented to a will as a negating choice which, when made, nullifies all except the option which was chosen, subsequently leading to the next set of options, the quantity and quality of which is determined not only by the sum total of all previous choices but also by the individual's strength/power - body & mind - enabling it to perceive and to make the choice presented to it as one of many options.
This is the extend of the will's agency.
The either/or binary inevitably leads to universal absolutes - false questions: is the will absolutely free or absolutely unfree, implying the question "is man omnipotent/omniscient" or a god in the making, now that the Abrahamic one-god has been discredited and his Intellectual - ideological, dogmatic - authority blemished?
Is the cosmos knowable, completely totally?
The currant prevailing belief is that it is, which is to say the "mind of god" is knowable - omniscience is possible, if not improbable to mortal men, is possible for a future overman.
To which I reply, bullshit!!, not only because of man's failings but because the cosmos is not entirely governed by reason, and will becomes increasingly incomprehensible.
Whoever sells you absolute concoctions, promising incredible "truths, powers," is a modern day snake-oil salesman.
Man is always and forever approximating, producing superior and inferior truths.

Understanding is what is often referred to as the "occult" - the hidden, mysterious, pattern beneath the perceived, or the pattern underlying patterns - the elusive gems of wisdom that if acquired open up new vistas of comprehension, without ever escaping the ones that preceded them.
But this understanding can never be total and complete, for the cosmos is dynamic and it is not entirely ordered - in fact it is veering towards near-absoltue chaos, as the last phase of its comic cycle.
And if the cosmos repeats, as many believe, then it is not in the absolutist sense of eternal return of the same, but in the Hindu sense, that repeats but every time slightly modified.
The insanity of imagining existence as a repeating movie may be easy to wrap the mind around, and may be comforting to some, but it is entirely contrary to what is experienced - for nothing in existence, as it is, ever repeats exactly - never repeats perfectly, but is continuously changing.

Projecting oneself "outside existence" so as to conceptualize it as an "inert totality, a complete wholeness, a unified oneness" is one of the last prejudices the human mind has yet to outgrow.
The mind does not exit reality, but remains within it, even as it imagines itself beyond its "boundaries" - therefore multiplicities can be conceptualized as belonging to a singularity which then contradict its experiences within it.
Genes to Memes.

A pretty girls choose to wear provocative clothes, even if she has an option of wearing less sexually provocative clothes.
She may know, or may not, that doing so will invite unwanted attentions from all sort of Desperate Degenerate psyche's.
Is she is raped, is it entirely the other's fault, or does she have a portion - large or small - of the blame, since she chose to go out dressed in a provocative way?
Is the "victim" entirely and completely blameless, just because wish fell victim?

To a lesser degree.....a woman flaunts herself sexually in her workplace, inviting all kinds of attentions....who is to blame?
is it entirely the men who respond to what she already knew would invite a certain reaction - desirable on her part - or does her choice - her free-willed choice among many, many other options - bear some responsibility for what followed?

Can a make go our almost naked, or with his private part on display?
Why not?
and, if he chooses to do so, what follows will be part of his choice, no?
But in a victim psychological environment it is always the victim who is pure of motived...nothing they've done provoked or invited particular kinds of reaction.
Female psychology - is herd psychology.
She can express her sexuality in public - because it is her right to do so - but a male cannot - because that's toxic and criminal.
Victim psychosis is feminization of mankind...a world made safe for the weakest; a world made right for the wronged; a world made safe for all potential victims.
A world of men-children.

The victim can do no wrong...because her motives are pure and clean, and pious....nothing underlying it...you know, women dress for other women, like some imbeciles have been convinced to believe.
The victim made no wrong choices, based on wrong judgments...so there's nothing the victim has to change...
The burden is on the one who may choose to take advantage of these wrong choices and judgments...and the world must be made safe for all the potential victims.

But...there is no free-will, so who is truly to blame?
Victim? Certainly not - never.
Victimizer....hmmmm......I want to say yes, always, but that would contradict my original principles meant to purify my idiuocyu...so I am forced to say....nooo?
Ya, know...'cause it's all determined and we have no real choice.

Denial of any degree of free-will simply evokes the idea of the Deus ex Machina, code for, what appears to be acting is not really what is acting because there is an invisible actor animating it.
So, the quintessential act of will, the action of choosing, is really illusory, concealing something underneath or above - something occult, mysterious and animating.
Another version of "do not trust your senses"...anti- science, anti-empirical, anti-existence.

From the outside.

From the inside one is convinced that they are making a choice, but this is not so, they are told. The choice has already been made and the individual is going through the motions, even fi he feels, thinks, he is choosing from among multiple options.
This is the brilliance of nihilism....you have to die to validate whether or not there is a one-god and a heaven, but if you are dead you cannot validate, so the question remains unanswered, and so it remains open to any absurdity.
Similarly, whatever choice you make it will be considered to be inevitable. you could not have made any other choice, but to validate it you must go back in time, which is impossible, so the question, again, remains open....in the minds of Desperate Degenerates.

Anything to not be responsible for their own lives.

When Freedom & Slavery are connected to Genetics and Epigenetic Herd-Psychology (Sociology), it immediately connects the dots of common-sense which the Mainstream (Modern-Postmodern) Narrative becomes unfurled and exposed.

Most people are not free, will never become free, and at the end, do not want to become free, but instead prefer Slavery & Servitude over the pains, struggle, and strife that freedom necessitates.  In order to become free, you must be prepared to fight.  You must prepare to climb the hierarchies of power, whatever they may be, and whomever they represent and those who inhabit.

The history of Western Freedom (of Western Civilization) is relatively short (with respect to American history).  Who are those who most represent Freedom in the West?  The Greek mind is particularly rebellious, along with the Saxon, the Jew, and perhaps several others.  Some ethnic and racial groups are very rebellious, cannot and will not stand for mental subjugation and denial of their Autonomy.  Thus, of the Western population, these strands and genetic strains ought to become identified.  Individuals stand-out in history, and if they compliment and benefit the mainline Metanarrative then they are hoisted up as heroes, and if they denigrate or expose that same Metanarrative, then they are silenced, erased, scapegoated, villainized, and attacked.

Anglo-Americans are Slave-minded and still retain their Monarchical and Oligarchic, Elitist mindset.  Anglo-Americans still deign for the British Crown, which explains American infatuation with Meghan Markle and Duchess Catherine.  This also explains the fraction and factioning of current US Politics.  Anglos cannot rule-over their own kind without Totalitarian measures, and quickly lose legitimacy when society breaks-down or becomes internally unraveled.  The Anglo-Liberal-Left currently utilize Marxist and Communist ideologies and political tactics, "BLM", "Antifa" to hold onto their dwindling and threatened political power.  This will not last more than a decade or two before Liberal-Leftist-Anglos, one-by-one, turn on their own kind, as whatever Culture and History that once was Proud, Admired, and Beloved by American Patriots, fades-away into an irrelevant past which none are allowed to honor, respect, or represent.

Because of this, America will fall in due time.  It is inevitable, because the core of what was once 'American' is compromised, and cannot heal -- because None will be allowed to represent it in the decades to follow.  The American Ideal was once premised on 'Freedom' (Free-Will), Liberty, and Enlightenment values.  All these fade away as the connections are forgotten or betrayed with contempt.

That the 'freedom' that once led Western men to America, which led to great war victories, which led to Pride, are all undone one-by-one.



Freedom once lost, cannot be regained without great war and bloodshed.  And that is exactly what the US (Globalist) Establishment seeks to deprive of Western men.

Popularizing the denial of free-will - to any degree - can be in preparation of a paradigm shift, from American worship of individual agency - freedom of speech, freedom of opinion and the pursuit of happiness, etc. - towards Chinese wordship of collectives - power through unity, duty to society, etc.
We are entering the China Century; bye bye American messianic exceptionalism and manifest destiny.
America is already changing from the inside out.
Its elites are currently adjusting their loyalties. The mases are pulling down its institutions.
This high-tech censorship will be part of the next century. When secured all subsequent riots or protests will be outlawed.
Defunding the police declaws institutional authority, in preparation for the new.
We are experiencing a period of tumultuous, painful, birth of a new paradigm.

As I said years ago, the fall of an empire leaves no vacuums. It occurs gradually, methodically, like boiling a frog by increasing the heat of the water it swims in.....until one day you wake up and everything you knew has been replaced by something else - something unrecognizable, alien. There will be no collapse....
This replacement is already under-way.
White males are the target because white-males are the greatest creators of empire - they built America and they will be taken out to destroy America. They use feminine ways, they use female agency - such is the nature of hybrid warfare.

At some point we will find Hollywood is producing movies aggrandizing Chinese culture and the Chinese ideal citizen, and collective morals, like they are already...and America's elites will willingly participate because they were never loyal to any national or ethnic identity - not since the end of the last great war when America's elites were slowly replaced by the alien.
Remember Ford and what he said?
Remember what Dwight D. Eisenhauer said.
Why was Kennedy assassinated, and by whom?
Why did they allow the Twin Towers to be hit, and why?
The most sophisticated intelligence services, using the most advanced technologies, suffering failure, after failure....or was it intentional? Was the failure an excuse? See how they were used to get rid of Trump, and return to the neo-con Brzezinski, Trotskyite doctrine.
Power with no ethnic grounding - no blood ties with its subordinates - has no loyalties other than to itself.

Shestov, Lev wrote:

Thus, reason teaches piety and obedience. If, then, faith also taught piety and obedience, there would be no distinction between reason and faith.
Why then does Spinoza affirm so insistently that "there is no connection between philosophy and faith" and that they "are totally different"? And why did Luther, for his part, attack reason so violently? I recall that Luther - who in all things followed Scripture and particularly St. Paul, who in turn relied on Isaiah - every time he pronounced judgments that were particularly audacious and offensive to reason was convinced, like Spinoza, that man's will is not free.
And I would add to this that the source of their conviction, in both cases, was their inward experience.
Finally - and this is the most important thing - these "immediate deliverances of consciousness" caused them a mad terror. Both of them experienced something akin to what a man buried alive feels: he feels that he is living, but he knows that he can do nothing to save himself, and that all that remains to him is to envy the dead who do not have to be concerned with saving themselves. Not only De servo arbitrio and De votis Monasticis judicium but all of Luther's works speak to us of the boundless despair that seized him when he discovered that his will was paralyzed and that it was impossible for him to escape his downfall. Spinoza does not speak freely of what takes place inside himself, and yet, calm and reserved as he appears, he at times allows confessions to escape that permit us to catch a glimpse of what his philosophical "happiness" cost him. Spinoza never succeeded in forgetting - how can one forget such things? - that a man deprived of freedom non pro re
cogitante, sed pro asino turpissimo habendus est (would have to be regarded not as a thinking thing but as a most infamous ass).
But it is here that Spinoza and Luther part company. Since our direct consciousness tells us that freedom does not exist, it does not exist. It may be that this is terrifying, it may be that the man deprived of freedom is indeed no more than an asinus turpissimus, but this in no way changes the situation.
Terrors and horrors, whatever they may be, are not arguments against truth, just as happiness and joy do not bear witness to truth.. By virtue of its discretionary power, reason commands: non ridere, non lugere, neque detestari (not to laugh, not to lament, not to curse). Why must one obey reason?
Why may one not oppose to the immediate deliverances of consciousness lugere et detestari?
"Experience" itself, the "immediate deliverances of consciousness" contain no such prohibition; "experience" is not at all interested that men should not weep and curse. "The true is the index of itself and of the false" can no longer justify reason's pretensions to omnipotence. The immediate deliverances of consciousness, so long as they do not go beyond their proper limits, bear witness both that man s will is not free and that man weeps and curses the fate that has taken away his freedom. And he who allows himself to be guided by experience and experience alone permits himself to weep and curse when he discovers that an invisible power has deprived him of his most precious good - freedom. But to him who takes reason for his guide, qui sola ratione ducitur, it is strictly forbidden to weep and curse. He must be content with understanding, intelligere. To put it differently, one takes away from him the last vestiges - not merely the vestiges, but the very memory (Plato's anamnêsis) or, if you prefer, the very idea - of freedom. Ratio (reason) brings with it the tertium genus cognitionis -
cognitio intuitiva (third kind of knowledge - intuitive knowledge), the knowledge that by virtue of its power - acquired no one knows where - transforms purely empirical judgments, statements of fact, into universal and necessary judgments, that is, confers on the "real" immutability and definitively fixes it in saecula saeculorum.
Whence comes this dreadful power of reason? By what magic does it bring it about that the real becomes necessary? I think you will not find any answer to this question in any philosopher. But I know definitely that men do everything in their power to turn this question aside. Spinoza, who wished to reason "according to the geometric method," permits himself to defend rational knowledge with "theological" arguments. He calls reason "our better part" and even "the divine light," and is not afraid, when necessary, to write that phrase that I have already quoted and that one would expect to find in a catechism rather than in a philosophic treatise: "what altar can he build for himself who offends the majesty of reason?" It is true that there was no other way out for Spinoza: there, where man learns that the sum of the angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles, one can only learn that we have never had and never shall have free will, or that it is forbidden us to weep and curse when we discover that our will is not free, or that our curses and tears, our despair and rage, will never be able to overcome the "true philosophy" that knowledge furnishes us and regain our lost freedom.
But if this is so, then Spinoza's statement that I have already quoted and that appears indisputable - "the goal of philosophy is only truth, while the goal of faith is only obedience and piety" - appears to be a false and dangerous auto-suggestion. Philosophy, and precisely that philosophy which found its most complete expression in Spinoza's work, with the intelligere and the tertium genus cognitionis that crown it, is not at all concerned with truth and seeks only "obedience and piety" which, in order to turn aside all suspicion from itself, it attributes to faith.
Spinoza states - and here again we approach Luther - that the God of the Bible did not in any way dream of making known to men His absolute attributes but wished simply to break their obstinacy and their wicked will; wherefore he had recourse not to arguments but to trumpets, thunder and lightning.
But if the arguments in which Spinoza put his trust led him to the conviction that everything happens in the universe by virtue of Necessity, which condemns man to the fate of the stupid animal who dies of hunger between two bales of hay, does this not indicate that "arguments," by paralyzing man, do not at all lead him to the truth? That they do not awaken but rather still more stupefy our slumbering thought?
And that if God had recourse to thunder and to lightning, it is because it was impossible otherwise to return to the human soul, in its lethargy and semideath, its ancient freedom, impossible to deliver it from obedience and make it escape the limits of the piety into which the power of reason had forced it, impossible to make it participate in the truth?
Verbum Dei malleus est conterens petras (the word of God is a hammer, breaking the rocks), says Luther, following the prophet; this "word" alone is capable of breaking the walls with which reason has surrounded itself. And it is in this that the function and meaning of "God's hammer" consist. This wall is nothing other than the acquiescentia in se ipso (contentment with oneself) and that virtus (virtue) which expects and demands no reward, for it is itself the supreme reward, the summum bonum, or the beatitudo (happiness) proclaimed by Socrates in his first and second incarnation. The thunderbolts of the prophets, of the apostles, and of Luther himself were directed against the altars erected by human wisdom. "Because man is presumptuous and imagines himself to be wise, righteous and holy, it is necessary that he be humbled by the law, that thus that beast - his supposed righteousness - without whose killing man cannot live, be put to death." In all his works Luther speaks again and again of the malleus Dei, the hammer of God, which breaks the trust that man puts in his own knowledge and in the virtue founded on the truths furnished by this knowledge.
A page further he says again, with still more power and passion: "Therefore God must have a strong hammer to break the rocks, and a fire blazing to the middle of the heavens to overthrow the mountains, that is, to subdue that stubborn and impenitent beast - presumption - in order that man, reduced to nothing through this contrition, should despair of his power, his righteousness and his works," which means, translating Luther into the language of Spinoza, non intelligere, sed lugere et detestari. To put it differently, having discovered by his own experience to what abyss the "divine light" of which the wise men have spoken so much led him, the man who has lost his freedom and has been transformed from a res cogitans into an asinus turpissimus begins to make absurd, mad attempts to struggle against the force that has bewitched him.
Acquiescentia in se ipso and the beatitudines that are strictly bound to this acquiescentia, as well as virtus, the virtue that finds its supreme reward in itself, all the "consolations" given by the fruits of the tree of knowledge, to use the biblical image, or by reason which draws everything from itself, to speak as Hegel did - all these things suddenly allow their true nature to appear, and we discover that they bring us not eternal salvation but eternal death. And our first answer is the lugere et detestari which is forbidden by the philosophers but which testifies to the persistence in man of certain vestiges of life. Man himself then calls upon the terrible malleus Dei and joyously welcomes the sound of trumpets, thunder and lightning. For only the thunderbolt from heaven that breaks the rocks can break "that obstinate and impenitent beast, presumption" which has so seized hold of man that he is prepared to accept everything that fate sends him aequo animo (with equanimity) and has even learned to find in this total acceptance his summum bonum...
Athens and Jerusalem

The nexus between secular Judaism - converting the absolute one-god, of multiplicities, into a universal deus, of mutitudes, with Protestant rejection of all earhtly auhtorities, so as to give oneself directly to the absolute.

Shestov, Lev wrote:

Chapter 9
It is usually held that German idealist philosophy sprang entirely from Luther. How this opinion arose is difficult to say. Perhaps the historians of philosophy have allowed themselves to be led astray by a very simple train of reasoning: all the representatives of German idealism - Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel - were Lutherans, ergo German idealism sprang from Luther. But it suffices to recall what Hegel said about original sin, or Kant's "I ought, therefore I can," or Schelling's famous essay "On the Essence of Human Freedom" (even if it be only the quotation from it cited above), or Fichte's ethical idealism to realize that Luther remained entirely outside German philosophical thought. "I ought, therefore I can," says Kant, while Luther's entire doctrine rests on the opposite assertion: "I ought, I wish even, yet I can not." The law is not given man to guide him but only to make him aware of his weakness and impotence; "the law accuses, terrifies and condemns." After the fall, man lost both his freedom of will and his freedom of thought; he cannot go where he wishes to go and he takes appearances and illusions for truths. In Luther's lifetime his doctrine seemed unacceptable and absurd both to the learned Erasmus and to the Catholic theologians nurtured on the Bible. According to Luther, God is beyond good and evil, beyond truth and falsehood. How could philosophy or even theology accept this - especially philosophy? At bottom Kant, Fichte and Schelling thought as did Hegel: the serpent did not deceive Adam, Socrates repeated Adam's act, and the fruits of the tree of knowledge have become the principle of philosophy for all time.
Athens and Jerusalem

Shestov, Lev wrote:

In general Nietzsche treats Luther very cavalierly; many a time he calls him a coarse and brutal peasant.
But in the papers found after his death we read:
"Luther's language and the Bible's poetic form as the foundation of the new German poesy - this is my discovery." And, indeed, Nietzsche is the first of the German philosophers who turned to Luther and the Bible. The subtitle of the work from which I have quoted his remarks on Socrates is already sufficiently revelatory in this respect: "How one philosophizes with the hammer." We recall the role that the "hammer of God" plays in Luther and in the prophets.
Furthermore, in his reflections on Socrates, Nietzsche basically only repeats what Luther had said about the fallen man. The fallen man is entirely in the power of an alien force and can do nothing more to save himself.Athens and Jerusalem

We see here why Nietzsche is so effective among recovering Abrahamics or those seeking for a way out of its paternalistic authoritarianism but need an equally authoritarian ideology.
Echoes of the dead father, that could not be overcome. Nietzsche's philosophical "hammer" was borrowed from Luther's one-god.

Life with absolutely no free-will is no different than a stone.

Nihilism survives on abstractions - and to maintain them, as vague and idealistic as possible, it must detach concepts from all external referents - or it must redefine concepts out of existence - or it must change the utility of semiotics, form connecting mind/body, or the ideal with the real, to a medium of connecting semiotics to other semiotics, validated emotionally, or subjectively.
Maintaining concepts in the idealistic clouds also helps to ridicule and dismiss them arbitrarily.
Nihilism wished to maintain a large range of options, to dismiss all options other than the one they find pleasing - their free-will is liberated from empiricism, so as to surrender itself to abstractions that offer particular personal benefits.
This is most evident with the compound concept of free-will.
They observe someone making a choice from a series of options, they have personal experience with choosing from a variety of options, but all of it is illusory, or there is some agency other then the apparent at work.
This is basically the same argument Abrahamism uses to validate its one-god authoritarianism.
There is nothing new here.
Postmodernism is built on this kind of cowardly, self-serving, feminized emoting: what appears to be different, is actually the same; or what appears to be male is female.
This "emoting" only applies to humans, and to nobody and nothing other than what can use logos, or what can affect and be affected semiotically, and is impotent with everything else.
Already we see why they obsessively defend subjectivity...this method is psychological, exploiting and manipulating emotions to quell skepticism or to conveniently make it as rigid as to not accept anything that does not meet their absolutist standards.

When god was declared dead by another recovering Abrahamic it revitalized the movement to replace and to repackage and to modernize Abrahamism.
Marxism had failed, when its secularized revision of Scriptural moral and abstract concepts failed to motivate the masses of disillusioned lost Abrahamic populations around the world.

Where there is no free-will there is no learning; where there is no learning there is no overcoming.

Free-Will is directly linked to Autonomy of Individuals and the superior intelligence which leads to higher and higher degrees of such Autonomy, a strong and objective sense-of-self, or measuring, is also necessary.

Compare the Free-Will of a Victor of warfare, an Olympian athlete, a Corporate billionaire, to that of average people. Those of the Mass, of the average, will deny free-will at every turn. It is "fate" that they are weak and insignificant, but those of the Successful rose above. It is always "a matter of luck". It is not about the choices, risks, and struggles of the Successful. The Victor of warfare, what did he pay, what did he risk? What did the Olympian risk? What did the Billionaire risk?

Freedom can be reduced to Physics. Can you jump 20 feet? The Olympian can, he is Free to do so, but most are not. And so, most will resent this inability in themselves, as a measure of themselves. They are not 'indifferent' to the ability. And so, one-by-one, including each trait, that of warfare, that of physics, that of money, that of body and beauty, that of intelligence, etc. it becomes clear that those with more Superior traits will clearly be 'freer' than those of Inferior traits. And this resentiment, between Inferior and Superior, develops and appears as the herd-psychology.

Those who cannot succeed individuality, sacrifice their individuality and autonomy, for a place within the herd. And the herd and its identity, its collectivism, its society, is raised-up high above that of the individual. As s/he has already sacrificed her Autonomy and Individuality too it. She has no greater desire, no resistance, no inner-rebellion, as those who Excel and become Superior have.

As those with Free-Will have.

And in the way, shown above, it necessitates the conclusions: that Free-Will is as rare a belief as those of the Victor, of the Olympian, and of the Billionaire, etc.

And all those who fail, and are lesser, inferior, and gave up on life long ago, generations ago, readily admit their lack of Free-Will, their Denial, and their Disbelief, which reappears through their (Abrahamic, Nihilistic) Faith. Faith to supplant Free-Will. Free-Will sacrificed for a Slave-will.

Master Dialectic sacrificed for Slave Dialectic.

Like I said...
They see people making choices, and they've made choices themselves but they do not want to believe in their own senses, so they presume that its an illusion and that another agency is involved - replacing the perceived - empirical - with the abstractions in their brain.
Why?
Many reasons...as many as there are psyche's but the main one is to escape the realization that their entire life has been a series of errors in judgment, based on naïve erroneous principles which they could never correct because they could never accept any responsibility for them - always finding someone or something to accuse.

Imagine, eternal recurrence of the same mistakes, or worse...a life wasted away because of an overcompensating ego.
Terrible to think. One life, wasted by deception.

Freedom and Free-Will is within how a person talks, thinks, and believes. It is not imitated by those without, who those who do not, would not, or cannot believe it. And this latter point is most important. The Slave-dialectic represents the masses of humanity (herd-psychology) that physically or mentally cannot believe it. Freedom and Free-Will is an impossibility to them.

Because if it were true, then it would destroy whatever little is left of their (herd)-pride, because they have given up their own Autonomy and Individuality in exchange for whatever it is they claim to believe in. Easily taken by whatever fad or ideology is presented by "elites" and "authorities", those of the State and Church, because these are the representatives that they must follow by compulsion, not by volition.

Not by a willingness or consent that was present when Free-men, throughout history, were able to clear away and begin those rare Free-societies. Freedom does not last long, because even if it wins all its fights, then the Hedonism wrought after victory almost always does it in.



Decadence is the Antithesis of Freedom and Free-will.

Decadence is where desperation seeks escapist distractions from its existence - relief from existence and its experience as need/suffering.

Satyr wrote:

Like I said...
They see people making choices, and they've made choices themselves but they do not want to believe in their own senses, so they presume that its an illusion and that another agency is involved - replacing the perceived - empirical - with the abstractions in their brain.
Why?
Many reasons...as many as there are psyche's but the main one is to escape the realization that their entire life has been a series of errors in judgment, based on naïve erroneous principles which they could never correct because they could never accept any responsibility for them - always finding someone or something to accuse.

Imagine, eternal recurrence of the same mistakes, or worse...a life wasted away because of an overcompensating ego.
Terrible to think. One life, wasted by deception.  

I interpret that as a lower intelligence. Below-average or even retardation levels of intelligence, are unable to learn from repeated mistakes. Or that you can teach a person a hundred different ways, but certain lower intelligences simply cannot integrate some methods. And so, intelligence is a critical factor at play here.

And truly learning from mistakes, adapting and changing oneself with relation to errors, is also very rare in Nature and Biology.

I haven't pinpointed these mechanisms exactly. But it relates to the core functions of free-will. Free-will implies an ability to overcome (mistakes and errors) which nobody beforehand, in history, could or would. It's a matter of ability, in relation to technology and resources, which returns back to larger Environmental factors.

Satyr wrote:

Decadence is where desperation seeks escapist distractions from its existence - relief from existence and its experience as need/suffering.

I see how the Modern-Postmodernists are wrong here. They believe and assert that 'Privilege', via Decadence, is how they find freedom and free-will, and that all people must be open to partaking in such decadence, because if they do not or cannot, then they are not "free".

This is an inversion of the meaning of Freedom and Free-will, through "Privilege".

They are addicted to Decadence, not knowing where it came from, how it is maintained, and especially not its costs or their parts within its structures.


"Freedom to" be drug-addicts.

Men conceal a lifetime of bad judgments, and their inability to accurately diagnose the source of their failures, as belonging to cosmic inevitability.

Will from two opposite perspectives:
Will to interact - proactive, masculine (fight) = freedom to.... (master)
Will from interactivity - passive, feminine (flight) = freedom from... (slave)
Thrownness - Dasein awakens to its own momentum/movement through space/time - it awakens to existence. He chooses even when he chooses not to choose - confronted by multiple options, based on binary on/off, 1/0 organic dynamics.

Choice as a negation of options: 1- when we choose we exclude - nullify - all other options; we suffer by contemplating all the probable and improbable options that were denied to us - 2- when we choose we negate, nullify, our negation of an option, in our state of thrownness.
In both the nil is a powerful factor: 1- positive, nullifying alternate options; 2- negative, not nullifying one of the options.

The body acts, even without the mind's awareness - brain evolving later in the evolution cycle.
Life, such as plants, will, i.e., choose, without being aware of their willing.
A self-cosncious mind experiences itself interacting as if it were an-otherness; as if its own body's judgments, reactions, choices, belong to an alien agency, and it chooses to identify with what is conscious of consciousness, i.e., ego.
It claims ignorance as evidence of its innocence - similar to how Adam & Even experienced shame/guilt after biting from the "tree of knowledge". They lost paradise when they lost their animal innocence, viz., when self-awarnbess began to emerge in them as if a divine spirit had been implanted in them - movement away from subjectivity towards increasing objectivity.  
Later the "son of god" came to redeem man by diving him in two - mind/body. Mind, i.e., god, could claim to be innocent of the body's judgments and choices.

Why would anyone who did not believe in human agency complain about anything?
He ought to endure it stoically, in accordance to his own convictions.
Only if it had, also, been determined that he would be a hypocrite.

Eternal return of hypocrisy.

What makes reality real, and fantasy unreal?

?:

In fantasies and dreams, there are no consequences. n reality consequences cannot be escaped.
So in fact cowards and hypocrites invent ideologies to help them cope with the consequences of their naïve delusional mind, and their infantile judgments, which they can ever accept responsibility for.

A man dreams and wakes up to reality; another fantasizes and then has to break out of his self-induced trance.
Reality is a lifetime of suffering the consequences of your mistakes, and your bad judgment calls.
Then, only death is an escape - a dreamless state of infinite unconsciousness.
What a relief it must be...for them....but, they can never enjoy it.
This is what irks them, and try to bring the world down with them.

Here's another example of nihilistic inversions:
The idealist/dreamer has to go to sleep to live in his subjectively fabricated reality; a realist has to wake up out of a dream to live in reality.
An idealist naïve dreamer wakes up out of his dream world, into the real world where his past errors are still waiting for him; he cannot wake up from reality, but go to sleep, or die, to escape it.
It's not even certain that dreams are an escape from reality, since they are how the brain deals with the day's issues.
When the senses are cut-off from external sources of stimuli it only receives internal sources of stimuli, viz., from his cells, and organs...but these have no reason or to communicate using language or imagery, but only transmit their messages via neural codes, which are then converted, by the brain, into images and words, by synthesizing them with the previous day's, or experiences stored in the brain's memory.

So, in fact, not even dreams are an escape from reality, they are a temporary reprieve....
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
There is no will control during sleep but only to wake up out of it.
This is why the mind wills itself awake when if experiences a nightmare.

Some people, like myself, can even program their brain to wake up at a specific time.
I've never needed an alarm.

Know what this Desperate Degenerate desire to believe life is but a dream stems from?
It's the salvation myth, all over again.
To wake up out of life's hell, into the afterlife, as if it were all a bad dream.
Ha!!!
I'm tellin' ya...nihilists are recovering - desperately so - Abrahamics.
God is not dead, for them...the outdated has been exposed as a vacuous caricature...and now they've updated the exact same concept, baptizing it and giving it a new name - they've "progressed" you see? They've "matured".
They are now secular Abrahamics, e.g., Marxists, up until recently, because even this naïve delusion has been exposed as an infantile utopian dream...so now most of them go further into their absurdity, adopting postmodernism, because they will never, can never, admit that they've made a mistake.....not along the way, but from the start; they've piled on error upon error because not once did they dare to question their original presumption.

There, in that original presumption, you'll find the source of their desperation and what form their degeneracy took.

You see it in the denial of free-will, this inability to accept any responsibility for what happened to them.

It's da police, or objectivists, or capitalists, or Nazis...because despite it all being inevitable these evildoers are somehow responsible.
It's all hypocrisy.
They don't even believe it themselves, because if they did they would not be on a philosophy board, nor complaining nor trying to find truth, or whatever. They would be silently and patiently and stoically enduring what fate has determined for them to suffer.

Free-Will is begot from the Bottom-Up but then decays at the Top-Down:

Free-Will represents the best of mankind, or really, of all Biology. It is a point-of-view of the Victors, Successors, and Superior, across time and evolution, which ultimately produces a superior Ethic and Morality with a Epi-genetic component. It is not always a visible and obvious trait, but usually it is. And most obviously it appears as Beauty (of the Feminine), Intellect and Wisdom reasoning (of the Masculine), along with a mix of health and strength of body. The culmination of such traits also appears as Nobility (Aryanism and Aristocracy). And the Noble-Ethic is the reference with regard to "Master-Dialectic". It is not copied by the lesser and inferior, the "Slave-Dialectic", which represents Abrahamism, Nihilism, and Victim-politics or Victim-morality.

I'll start with the conclusion and work backward here....

Even though individuals may not be themselves at the top of Success, Victors of War, Olympian athletes, Supermodel beauties, Corporate billionaires, etc. the 'Noble' mindset is more obvious. It is one that accepts the risks of life and existence, the struggle, and knows despite defeat, that self-responsibility and accountability is always the core factor at play. The Noble-mind (genetic), does not easily give up, or really ever give up, in exchange for Victim-politicking and herd-psychology. Thus the Aryan/Ariston has a rebellious and Masculine streak. Highly-competitive, unwilling to bend or bow, with regard to this deeper Morality. Unwilling to give up despite impossible odds.

So although he may not be the Warlord or General, as a soldier, he still understands the metaphysics of the fight, and his cunning and admirable traits, will eventually lead him higher. And this deeper, underlying morality, is not a popular or common trait. Rather it is one that those inferior gravitate around immediately, and beg for leadership. This is the Active principle of the Master & Slave dialectic.

Kvasir wrote:

A fine example of Master-dialectic.

The problem is, the Slave-minded rejects the idea of Self-responsibility, accountability, and anything that absolves them of Victimhood.

Victimhood is their Sanctity, their value and worth, and they will not give it up without a fight.



And if they lose that fight, they will simply bow and kneel to a new master. But they will never Lead or account for themselves, ever.

It's like expecting a dog or cat to start writing Philosophy.

Victim psychosis is herd psychology = they are not chosen by a divinity but the universe has willed their suffering, and they must endure it.
But most don't just endure it but bitch about it...also determined by the universe.

They find vindication either way. It's a fool proof foolishness.
Anything they do or choose to do, is inevitable - was always so.
It could not have been otherwise....they have no culpability.
Such slaves refuge to free themselves because the ideas of freedom has been corrupted, and may not even exist - See Orwell; or they do not want to be free, because institutionalization acts as a parental embrace, i.e., care, discipline, guidance etc. and they've become accustomed to its certainty - its omnipresence.
Its something to go crying to....or to accuse...to to beg for help.
The entire universe is institutionalized - a cosmic urban ghetto, a prison.
This is an extension of Protestantism - rejecting earthly authorities extends to rejecting earthly incarceration in the body.
The Desperate Degenerates wants to free himself from the mundane and surrender to the divine - something worthy of its surrender.

Recovering Abrahamics - look up the ethnicity of anti-free-will's major advocates - want to replace divine restrictions to human activities and thinking - moral and social rules/laws - with an equally legitimate and absolutely binding, i.e., universally binding, secular alternative.
Legitimization is not inhibited by the ideological prospect of describing lifeless matter/energy - stones - as being no different than living matter/energy - man - so as to achieve uniformity.
The difference remaining is also determined: the stone simply does not know, cannot care - if it is bound by totalitarian/authoritarian absolutist rules/norms - converted, by man into natural laws, and logical laws - replacing Mosaic Laws - to conform thinking with the restrictions imposed upon acting - upon choice, thinking - by an external agency, i.e., omnipotence, omnipresence.
My positions on the rhetorical shift from religious to secular narratives I've briefly touched upon in this thread: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
The same Abrahamic concepts - biblical -  persist by simply altering terminology; first came the word, in their Magian spiritual world-view, and the word is absolutely binding - creating essence out of nothingness. In Magian spirituality words have magical powers; able to destroy and create/conjure reality out of nothing/nowhere: subjectivity.
Although some aspects of this pathology/psychology is present in Hellenism - because it sampled ideas/ideals from across the Mediterranean basin - it never lost its foundational identifiers; it never became totalitarian and authoritarian enough to subjugate the Hellenic spirit but simply participated in its dialectics - tolerated as but another philosophical idea, another god among many, another spiritual and/or political way.
Socrates discovered the same via the Thracian Zalmoxis, and his Zoroastrian spiritual beliefs, seeing in them a method for disciplining youthful Athenian exuberance that produced tyrants - an ideology to subdue mediocrity, and raging pathos.
What is called paganism - non-urbanites - remained immune to the disease of urbanization until civilization reached its final stage - as it did in Rome to help Christianity rise as an urban viral mental disease, infecting the increasing numbers of slaves and disenchanted peoples congregating in them to find hope.      
Properly understood paganism is Indo-European traditional spirituality - Faustian openness to varieties of possibilities: space/time, without losing oneself in its expanding expanse, via the preservation of memory - Aletheia = truth.

What the typical Desperate Degenerate cannot handle - whether it is consciously or intuitively - is the loss of omniscience, and with it the loss of omnipotence.
The herd psyche can its own deficiencies - may even prefer it - but what it cannot accept is the absence of it as a possibility, a somewhere out there; someone, something, out there that is taking care of things, so that its pains and sufferings are given some kind of transcending meaning, so that it even the madness makes sense, has some kind of sense in it.
It's the loss of a parent. Mankind coming to terms with its orphan status.