G. Eiríksson Says:
Apparently Nietzsche had writings under the header « Unfashionable Observations », which quite reminds one of Moldbug’s title of « Unqualified Reservations »!
February 14th, 2017 at 10:36 pm
That’s the most recent book I read. There was a moment in it that reminds me of our current cultural circumstance:
“The lower, unlearned classes are now our only hope. The learned, educated classes must be abandoned. And along with them the priests, who understand only these classes and who themselves belong to them… The greatest danger is if the unlearned classes are contaminated with the yeast of present-day education. If a Luther were to appear today, he would rise up against the disgusting attitude of the propertied classes, against their stupidity and thoughtlessness, which even prevents them from sensing any danger… The great deluge of barbarism is at the door… Every alliance with the “educated people” must be rejected.”
Moldbug = our Luther?
This is a very chilling sentiment: “The greatest danger is if the unlearned classes are contaminated with the yeast of present-day education.”
Also this is a handy “pro-tip” for us right-wing brahmins:
“Drives that are easily confused with the drive for truth:
Curiosity, or even the search for intellectual adventures. What is new, rare as opposed to what is old and boring.
Dialectical drive for the sport of tracking things down, joy in foxily cunning trains of thought: it is not truth that is sought, but the sly stalking, surrounding, etc.
Drive to contradiction; the personality seeks to assert itself in opposition to someone else. As with exhibition fencers, struggle becomes a pleasure, personal victory is the goal.
Drive motivated by servility to people, religions, governments, to discover certain “truths.”
Drive motivated by love, pity, etc. for a human being, class, or humanity as a whole, to find a redeeming, beatifying truth–drive motivating founders of religions.”
February 14th, 2017 at 11:02 pm
the disgusting attitude of the propertied classes, against their stupidity and thoughtlessness, which even prevents them from sensing any danger… the great deluge of barbarism is at the door… every alliance with the “educated people” must be rejected.”
Nietzsche never ceases to amaze does he. (If one is amazed by knowledge of the future ; which has now come to pass.)
‘Drive to contradiction, Drive motivated by servility to people, Drive motivated by love, pity,’ these are all things I’ve been dealing with in family members recently.
February 14th, 2017 at 11:55 pm
He claimed to relate the next 200 years of nihilism, so, roughly 2088, by his standard, he will be expired. Interestingly, in a letter, he said he didn’t expect anyone to understand Beyond Good and Evil until the year 2000, and he ranked his Zarathustra above BGE, so there is still a lot of work to be done in interpreting them (granted he was a megalomaniac so we should take his prophecies with a grain of salt).
RE: your family members – yeah, tell me about it, I feel like I might as well be Satan in their eyes.
February 14th, 2017 at 11:22 pm
» We know that, wherever economic interests predominate, the Jew rapidly rises and accedes to the commanding positions. The penetration of Judaism into England is not a thing of recent days alone. It was the English Revolution and Protestantism which threw open England’s doors. The Jews, who had been expelled by Edward I in 1290, were readmitted to England as a result of a Petition accepted by Cromwell and finally approved by Charles II in 1649. From this time forward, the Jews, and above all the Spanish Jews (the Sephardim) began to immigrate en masse to England, bringing with them the riches which they had acquired by more or less dubious means, and it was these riches, as we have just explained, which allowed them to accede to the centres of command within English life, to the aristocracy and to positions very close to the Crown. Less than a century after their re-admission, the Jews were so sure of themselves that they demanded to be naturalised, that is to say, to be granted British citizenship. This had a very interesting result : the Law, or Bill, naturalising the Jews was approved in 1740. Most of its supporters were members of the upper classes or high dignitaries within the Protestant Church, which shows us the extent to which these elements had already become Judaised or corrupted by Jewish gold. The reaction came not from the English upper classes, but from the people. The Law of 1740 provoked such outrage and disorder among the populace that it was abrogated in 1753.
The Jews now resorted to another tactic : they abandoned their synagogues and converted, nominally, to Christianity. Thus the obstacle was circumvented and their work of penetration proceeded at an accelerated pace. What mattered to the Jews was to keep their positions of command and to eliminate the religious arguments on which the opposition of that period principally rested ; everything else was secondary, since the converted Jew remains, in his instincts, his mentality, and his manner of action, entirely Jewish, as is shown by one striking example among many others : the extremely influential Jewish banker Sampson Gideon, despite having converted, continued to support the Jewish community and was buried in a Jewish cemetery. His money bought for his son an enormous property and the title of Baronet.
This was the preferred tactic of the rich Jews of England from the eighteenth century on : they supplanted the English feudal nobility by acquiring their properties and titles, and thus mixing themselves with the aristocracy, by the nature of the British representative system, they came closer and closer to the government, with the natural consequence of a progressive Judaification of the English political mentality. …
[ The current British Prime-Minister David Cameron is the result of such breeding:
“His great-great grandfather Emile Levita, a German Jewish financier who obtained British citizenship in 1871, was the director of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China which became Standard Chartered Bank in 1969. One of Emile’s sons, Arthur Levita, was also a stockbroker; he married a cousin of the royal family, Steffie Cooper.[nb 2] Sir Ewen Cameron, another great-great-grandfather, was London head of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank; he played a key role in arranging loans from the Rothschild family to Japan during the Russo-Japanese War.” »
* Emphasis of the principle of social obligation in stark contrast to extreme individualism then dominant within the political establishment.
* Drew attention to the danger of Britain being divided into “two nations: the Rich and the Poor”.
* Combination of prudence and principle.
* Growing social inequality contains the seeds of revolution – poor and oppressed working class would not simply accept its misery. Reform = sensible – stemming the tide of the revolution, it would ultimately be in the interests of the rich, particularly with changes in the voting franchise.
* Moral values – wealth and privilege brings social obligations, in particular a responsibility for the poor. Drew on the organic conservative belief that society is held together by an acceptance of duty and obligations. Society is naturally hierarchical, but also that inequalities of wealth and social privilege give rise to an inequality of responsibilities. Wealthy and powerful must shoulder the burden of social responsibility – price of the privilege. Based on the feudal principle of noblesse oblige, obligation of the aristocracy to be honourable and generous. This idea should be expressed in an increasingly industrialised world in social reform. »
… it is the very forces that, in their time, were set to work against the previous, traditional European civilization that have rebounded against those who summoned them, sapping them in their turn and carrying to a further degree the general process of disintegration. This appears very clearly, for example, in the socioeconomic field, through the obvious relationship between the bourgeois revolution οf the Third Estate and the successive socialist and Marxist movements; through democracy and liberalism οn the one hand, and socialism οn the other. The first revolution simply prepared the way for the second, whereupon the latter, having let the bourgeoisie perform that function, aimed solely at eradicating them.
Ιn view οf this, there is one solution to be eliminated right away: the solution οf those who want to rely οn what is left οf the bourgeois world, defending and using it as a bastion against the more extreme currents οf dissolution and subversion, even if they have tried to reanimate or reinforce these remnants with some higher and more traditional values.
Ιn the first place, considering the general situation that becomes clearer every day since those crucial events that are the two world wars and their repercussions, to adopt such an orientation signifies self-deception as to the existence of material possibilities. »
February 15th, 2017 at 1:41 am
That would be, up-dated, by now the former prime minister : D. Cameron. » Cameron [who] identifies as a One-Nation Conservative », incidentally (— we just saw this moments ago).
How knowledge of ‘Jewish power’ was made a taboo can only be viewed as a master-mimesis, geniusly executed, and also an instance, for those who fell for the meme-of-not-mentioning Jewish power, of Humans being too stupid to live.
How the utter brain of the goyim is easily memed, is a matter of grand stupendousness.
Knowledge of that certainly has always fueled our own arrogance.
» Thus, as the Judaification of old feudal England was accomplished by diverse means, and as the old aristocracy gradually decomposed and underwent inoculation with ideas which would make it an easy prey for the material and spiritual influences of Judaism and Freemasonry, Disraeli did not forget his other task, that of augmenting and reinforcing the power of the new ‘Empire of Shopkeepers’, the new ‘Imperial Venice’, the reborn Israel of the Promise. This he did in a manner which was just as characteristically Jewish. Disraeli was one of the principal instigators of that sad and cynical English foreign policy by means of ‘protected’ third parties and the use of blackmail, which it pushes to the most extreme consequences. The most striking case is that of the Russo-Turkish War. Disraeli did not hesitate to betray the ancient cause of European solidarity, by placing Turkey under British protection. Turkey, defeated, was saved by Britain ; by use of the well-known ‘English’ method of threats and sanctions, Disraeli was able to paralyse the Slavic advance to the South without a single shot being fired, and a grateful Turkey made him a present of Cyprus. At the Congress of Berlin, the Russian ambassador, Gortshakov, was unable to restrain himself from crying dolorously : “To have sacrificed a hundred thousand soldiers and a hundred million of money, and for nothing!” (*) There is a factor even more serious, from a higher point of view. By virtue of this situation, brought about by Disraeli, Turkey was admitted into the community of the European nations protected by so-called ‘International Justice’. We say ‘so-called’ because, until that time, far from being held to be valid for all the peoples of the world, this justice was held to be valid uniquely among the group of the European nations ; it was a form of recourse and of internal law for Europeans. With the admission of Turkey, a new phase of international law began, and this was truly the phase in which ‘justice’ became a mask and its ‘international’ character became a ruse of ‘democracy’, for it was simply an instrument in the service of Anglo-Jewry, and subsequently of the French also. This development led to the League of Nations, to crisis, and to actual war. »
During World Wars I and II, Agamben writes, ‘the democratic regimes were transformed by the gradual expansion of the executive’s powers’ (2005: 6); ‘World War One (and the years following it) appear as a laboratory for testing and honing the functional mechanisms and apparatuses of the state of exception as a paradigm of government’ (1998: 7). » See also N. Land’s essay — titled: The ‘F’ Word — published 17 Oct, 2016; about the expansion of the modern State.
» Agamben quotes Arendt who writes that the camp is the space in which ‘everything is possible’ » Well by now, apparently, everything is possible in the streets of britain [sic], everything from suicide bombing to hooking up 13 year olds on heroine and watching bearded brown Muslim men rape them. https://youtu.be/fxGT-zLy_iU?t=6s
» The historical concentration camp, such as those of the Spanish in Cuba or the British in South Africa, Agamben writes, were born ‘out of a state of exception’ »
Indeed, at least thousands of girls were and are, in the british isles nowadays, so what’s the kvetching over a concentration camp, when you’ve been forced to become a heroin addict as a preteen by foreigners in your own small town?
» Michel Foucault identified a transition in modernity by which the State increasingly took as its task the care and regulation of biological, human life itself. The establishment, beginning in the 17th century, of what Foucault terms ‘biopower’, a regularising technology of power that ‘distribut[es] the living in the domain of value and utility’ (1990: 144), »
And have had cigarettes put out on your face by said Muslims, to be urinated upon by them, kidnapped by them, tattooed by them, beaten by them ; to mention only a few of shoah-like devices. The state of exception is the allowance of this by the pseudo-liberal leftoid “public” “services.” One can only imagine the faces of those human strata occupying them.
» from Schmitt’s standpoint, the most significant – concept of ‘modern state theory,’ would be a ‘secularised theological concept,’ and this is precisely what Schmitt maintains, claiming that the exception has its religious corollary in the theological concept of the miracle: ‘The exception in jurisprudence is analogous to the miracle in theology. Only by being aware of this analogy can we appreciate the manner in which the philosophical ideas of the state developed in the last centuries’ (ibid.). »
It has to be seen that the so-called value of “diversity” is little but a quasi-theological concept akin to those of “paradise” and “miraculousness.” Indeed, the inversion, the clever and demonic subversion of them. For while “paradise” referred to a walling-off to exclude, what has come to replace it, — diversity — refers to a letting in. An inclusion, of what would ruin a place.
» The production of bare life through the exception, and the preoccupation of State power with the management of zoē, advance increasingly and in parallel throughout modernity, reaching an apex in the 20th century as the concentration camp system of the totalitarian State attempted the first ‘normal and collective […] organization of human life founded solely on bare life’ (ibid: 135). »
“Bare” “life” indeed. 💀