Barnyard banter

The Hoover Hog interviews HBD* Chick.

February 21, 2013admin 38 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Uncategorized

38 Responses to this entry

  • Gothic Axial Acceleration Says:

    This site has changed a bit. An excellent archive.


    Posted on July 22nd, 2016 at 1:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • anonyme Says:

    In a crucial passage in Being and Time, Heidegger distinguishes between three terms we might otherwise tend to use interchangeably, namely: “perishing” (Verenden), “demising” (Ableben), and “dying” (Sterben)

    Dasein can experience its end (indeed, as we will see, this experience is precisely what Heidegger calls “death”)

    Heidegger insists that we need not demise in order to die, in large part because of his aforementioned conviction that Dasein can experience its own end. Indeed, Heidegger thinks we can experience our intelligible world’s having ended (and that we do so in what he calls “death”), even though, by all appearances, we cannot live through our own demise in order to experience that end from beyond it. (265)

    […] how can Dasein – an entity whose being is constituted by worldly projects that stretch into an unknown future – ever comprehend itself as a whole?

    Heidegger is able to solve this problem only by introducing his existential-ontological conception of death in distinction from demise. […]

    As he puts it: “In such being-toward-itsend, Dasein exists in a way which is authentically whole, as that entity which it can be when ‘thrown into death.’

    Dasein does not have an end at which it is simply stops, but instead [it has an end at which it] exists i nitely[existiert endlich].” (329) (266)

    Bereft of all its worldly projects , Dasein can fully grasp itself in its own “finitude” for the first time – and thereby come to understand itself as a “primordial existential projecting” (330), as we will see. (266)

    […] we can die without demising is that „death“ nor „dying“ (nor even „authentically dying,“ to which we will return) requires us to suffer the terminal world collapse of demise. (267)

    „Death is a way to be, which Dasein takes over as soon as it is.“ (245) (267)

    To anyone familiar with Kierkegaard’ s brilliant text (as Heidegger was), it is clear that Being and Time’s phenomenology of existential death seeks to secularize the mystical Christian idea that, in order for one to be born truly into the life of the spirit, one must first die to the material world – so that one can be reborn to the world in a way that will unify the spiritual and material aspects of the self . (267)

    For when not just one but all of our life projects break down in what Heidegger calls “anticipation” (Vorlaufen) or “running-out” toward death, we experience ourselves as a kind of bare existential projecting without any existentiell projects to project ourselves into (and so understand ourselves in terms of). We can thereby come to understand ourselves as, at bottom, a “primordial existential projecting” (330), a brute projecting that is more basic than and independent of any of the particular projects that usually give our lives content and meaning. (269)

    In fact, Heidegger’s insistence on the “uncanniness” or “not-being-at-home” in the world seems to be his way of secularizing – and so preserving the core phenomenological insight contained in – the Christian idea that we are in but not of the world.) (270)

    To grasp what Heidegger thinks the self ultimately boils down to (in this existential version of Husserl’s phenomenological reduction), it is crucial to remember that when my projects all break down or collapse, leaving me without any life project to project myself into, projection itself does not cease.

    When my being-possible becomes impossible, I still am; my ability-to-be becomes insubstantial, unable to connect to the world, but not inert. My projects collapse, and I no longer have a concrete self I can be, but I still am this inability-to-be.

    Heidegger calls this paradoxical condition revealed by anticipation “the possibility of an impossibility” or death. In his words: Death, as possibility [i.e., as something we project ourselves into], gives Dasein nothing to be “actualized,” nothing which Dasein could itself actually be .

    It is the possibility of the impossibility of every way of comporting oneself toward anything, of every way of existing.

    Nevertheless, it is by embracing this finitude – giving up our naïve desire for either absolute freedom or a single correct choice of life project and instead accepting that our finite freedom always operates against a background of constraint (in which there is usually more than one “right” answer, rather than none at all) – that we are able to overcome that paralysis of our projects experienced in death.

    It is thus important that Heidegger sometimes hyphenates “Ent-schlossenheit” (literally “un-closedness”) in order to emphasize that the existential “resoluteness” whereby Dasein freely chooses the existential commitments that dei ne it does not entail deciding on a particular course of action ahead of time and obstinately sticking to one’s guns come what may, but, rather, requires an “openness” whereby one continues to be responsive to the emerging solicitations of, and unpredictable elements in, the particular existential „situation,” the full reality of which only the actual decision itself discloses. (273-274)

    By “death,” we have seen, Heidegger means the experience of existential world collapse that occurs when we confront the ineliminable anxiety that stems from the basic lack of i t between Dasein and its world, an anxiety that emerges from the uncanny fact that there is nothing about the structure of the self that can tell us what specii cally to do with our lives.

    By “dying,” I have suggested, Heidegger means the mere projecting , disclosing , or ek-sisting (“standing-out”) that we lucidly experience when our projects collapse in death.

    By “authentically dying,” let me now suggest, he means the explicit experience of undergoing such world collapse and thereby coming to understand ourselves as, at bottom, a mere projecting , that is, a projecting into projects, a fundamental existential projecting that survives even the (nonterminal) global collapse of these worldly projects. (274-275)

    Heidegger’s phenomenological attestation of death thus begins with an analysis of our everyday understanding of demise . After isolating and “formally indicating” the most significant structural characteristics of the ordinary ontic phenomenon of demise (in which, however, these formal characteristics have quite different meanings), Heidegger then seeks to flesh out these structural characteristics, collectively, in a way that will reveal the heretofore unnoticed ontological phenomenon of “death” that supposedly conditions the phenomenon of ordinary ontic demise. (276)
    […] what we are really afraid of about demise is what he calls death, namely, losing our world and still being here to experience that loss. (280)

    For there is an experience in which what we are afraid of about demise – namely, not being, or, more precisely, being our not being – can actually happen to us. […] this strange experience of being in a way in which we are not able to be anything is precisely what Heidegger calls death. (281)


    Posted on August 3rd, 2016 at 2:55 am Reply | Quote
  • anonyme Says:

    “Then prayed I many a prayer to the sickly death’s-heads
    As set in Ithaca, sterile bulls of the best,
    For sacrifice, heaping the pyre with goods.
    Sheep, to Tiresias only,
    Black, and a bell sheep;
    Dark blood flowed in the fosse.
    Souls out of Erebus, cadaverous dead
    Of brides, of youths, and of many passing old,
    Virgins tender, souls stained with recent tears,
    Many men mauled with bronze lance-heads,
    Battle spoil, bearing yet dreary arms….

    Lie quiet, Divus.
                                     In Officina Wechli, Paris,
    M. D. three X’s, Eight, with Aldus on the Frogs,
    And a certain Cretan’s         
                                     Hymni Deorum:
    (The thin clear Tuscan stuff
                          Gives way before the florid mellow phrase.)
    Take we the Goddess, Venus:
    Aurean coronam habentem, pulchram,
    Cypri munimenta sortita est, maritime,
    Light on the foam, breathed on by zephyrs,
    And air-tending hours. Mirthful, orichalci, with golden
    Girdles and breast bands.
                                           Thou with dark eye-lids,         
    Bearing the golden bough of Argicida.”


    Posted on August 4th, 2016 at 9:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • Melanie l'Heuremaudit Says:

    “Such were the events of that winter, and thus ended the second year of the war of which Thucydides has written the history.” – (Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War)

    Everyone knows the brief text of the order, briskly relayed by an officer, which sent the Light Brigade to its death on 25 October 1854, at Balaclava:

    “Lord Raglan wishes the cavalry to advance rapidly to the front — follow the enemy and try to prevent the enemy carrying away the guns….”

    Xerxes, as his great army was crossing the Hellespont, formulated in perhaps just one sentence the first axiom at the base of all strategic thought, when he explained his tears by saying: “I was thinking about the extreme brevity of men’s lives, for of the multitude before our eyes, not one man will still be alive in a hundred years.”

    Herodotus reports…. “at the pass of Thermopylae, where the troops led by Leonidas were annihilated at the end of their useful holding action, the seer Megistias is honoured with a special epitaph”:

    “As a seer, he knew that death was near — but he refused to leave the Spartan leader.”

    The world of war presents at least the advantage of not leaving room for the silly chatter of optimism.

    It is common knowledge that in the end everyone is going to die. No matter how fine defence may be in everything else, as Pascal more or less put it, “the last act is bloody.”


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Spawned from the decimated ruins
    Of forgotten glory before fall
    The cancerous malignancies that corrupted
    The last great epoch of Luciferie light
    Spurning and spiting the mediocrity
    Forging a paradigm to set forth eternity

    A superior Dynasty is constructed
    Destined to father a fierce spirit
    Overcoming the atrophy, carcinogenie decay
    The Aryan beast atop the plateau manacing
    Dominating subjugating the submissive
    Re-evaluating, re-assessing, re-configuring

    Envisage the avatarie crusade
    Prophesizing, philosophising the new regime
    Embrace the Faustian motive
    Conquering, forging, creating a spectacle of grandeur


    Melanie L'Heuremaudit Reply:

    But what if (the sense of self) represents a psychological appendix: a useless anachronistic pain in the side – or, like the mastodon’s huge tusks, a heavy useless and ultimately self-destructive burden?

    What if the sense of being someone represents an evolutionary error as disastrous to the further development of a more complex creature as was the shell for snails or turtles?

    (from Luke Rhinehart’s Dice Man)


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    this is nihilist trash. were the arrows of gods, chose your god or be ridden by projectiles

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    dice is a god tho

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Duterte should watch a few documentaries on the so-called War on Drugs.

    Posted on August 5th, 2016 at 6:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • Melanie L'Heuremaudit Says:

    “Robinson, my friend, some kind of worker, goes off to war (I think the war in his stead, he flees from battles some way or another . . .

    he goes to tropical Africa . . . then to America . . . descriptions . . . descriptions . . . sensations . . . Everywhere and always he is ill at ease (romanticism, the evil of the twenty-first century.

    Confused, he returns to France . . . he’s had it with traveling, with being exploited wherever he goes and with dying of inhibitions and hunger.

    He’s a modern proletarian. He’s going to decide to kill an old woman so that he can finally have a small amount of capital, that is, the starting point of freedom.

    He fails to kill her, the old lady, the first time. He wounds himself. He temporarily blinds himself. Since the old lady’s family was in cahoots with him they are all sent to the south of France in order to stifle the affair. It’s the old lady who now takes care of him.

    In the south they engage in a strange form of commerce. They exhibit mummies in a cellar (this brings in money). Robinson begins to see again. He gets engaged to a young woman from Toulouse.

    He’s going to fall into normal life. But in order for life to be normal you have to have some capital. And so he again gets the idea to knock off the old woman. And this time he doesn’t fail. She’s good and dead. He and his future wife are going to inherit.

    Bourgeois happiness awaits. But something prevents him from settling into bourgeois happiness, into love and material security. Something! Ah! Ah! And this something is the entire novel!

    Attention! He flees his fiancée and happiness. She chases after him him. She makes a scene after scene. Jealous scenes. She is the eternal woman confronting the new man . . . She kills him.”

    (Louis Ferdinand Céline’s effort in April, 1932, to summarize his novel “Journey to the End of Night” for the Gallimard publishing house, but before they could agree publish it, he had already accepted the offer of Denoël et Steele.)


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    this is the HBD Chick thread. not some nihilist trash


    Posted on October 17th, 2016 at 12:34 am Reply | Quote
  • Melanie L'Heuremaudit Says:

    But the signs leading here said “Huis Clos” (No Exit)

    And under that it said “L’enfer, c’est les autres” (Hell is other people)

    So figured this had to be the right place.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    if u think its exit vs. no exit, ur trapped.


    Posted on October 17th, 2016 at 8:09 am Reply | Quote
  • Melanie L'Heuremaudit Says:

    G. Eiríksson Reply: “this is nihilist trash. were the arrows of gods, chose your god or be ridden by projectiles…

    “dice is a god tho”

    then my dé-cision (to make a French pun*) is dice.

    Chance does not exist. And neither does the will

    The rules governing our lives are to be found elsewhere.

    *(In French the letter “d” is a homophone of dés (phonetic [de] meaning dice)

    Duterte would have been my second choice.



    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    yeah bro i kknovv a few thing about dice

    The turn of a millennium is at hand, and the times are very
    apocalyptic. You don’t have to believe in religious doctrine to
    foresee the end of the world as we know it, you only have to be aware
    of the cycles of history, of the rise and fall of civilizations. Even
    people who have not studied the matter tend to share this awareness
    intuitively, for our planet-wide culture is rolling like a global
    snowball down the far end of the curve, and the collective mind of
    society knows it.

    Some believe that the end can be averted by means of a universal
    change in consciousness. The problem with this theory is that those
    who promote it are themselves exemplars of the very mode of thought
    which has been driving the Earth toward destruction for lo! these
    many centuries. Clinging desperately to the belief in their own
    enlightenment, they say that the reason it has not yet transformed
    the world into Paradise is simply because not everyone believes it
    yet, and that if only a critical mass could be reached of people who
    think like them, why, the miraculous transformation would occur
    literally overnight

    Then there are those who seek refuge in a regression to the past, and
    withdraw behind the barricades of reaction. But is this a solution or
    a retreat? Isn’t there a forward route to a positive future? There
    is, and as we shall see, the reason that the “progressive”
    perspective misfired is not because it was new but because it was
    incomplete – indeed, it didn’t go far enough.

    And it wasn’t even truly new in terms of the historical cycle. Every
    reasonably advanced civilization reached a stage of culture and
    thought equivalent to that of our own, and it did not stop them from
    proceeding en masse to the following stages, namely decline,
    collapse, and destruction. Not one survived, or it would still be
    here. The human species on this planet has not yet come up with the
    magic formula to avert the eternally-recurring Apocalypse.

    Or perhaps it has, and the secret has somehow been lost amidst the
    vicissitudes of history. For although none of the high civilizations
    of the past survive as such, vestiges of many of them do, preserved
    in statuary, literature, and religious doctrine. The strongest and
    most vibrant such vestige of past glory is Hinduism. Modern scholars
    have still not unraveled all the subtle complexities of Hindu art,
    science, philosophy, and religion. And even if they found the key to
    the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth amidst all the labyrinthine arcana,
    they would not recognize it for what it was. Yet it is there.

    Quaternary Thought

    Among the most ancient apocrypha of the Hindu scriptures, dating all
    the way back to what the scholars call the Aryovedic culture, is a
    description of the basic elements of thought itself, given as a
    formal system of logic. What are these elements? Before I can explain
    that, I must first state that there are four of them. This is in
    startling contrast to Western logic, which says there are only two.

    The logical system of what has become a global culture began with (or
    at least was first formalized by) Aristotle. He said:

    A is A; A is not non-A.

    That is, given any hypothetical object ‘A,’ our choices of
    observation about it are that it’s either ‘A’ or ‘not A.’

    Sounds obvious, doesn’t it? A self-evident truth, just like the
    observation that the Earth is flat and the Sun travels around it.

    The flaw in the argument is the concept of “either-or.” It makes the
    distinction between ‘A’ and ‘not-A’ totally absolute. In this axiom,
    which forms the foundation of Western logic, there is no room for the
    equally logical (if less plausible) assertions that the object is:

    Both A and non-A
    Neither A nor non-A.

    And furthermore, there is not even space for a scale of gradation
    between ‘A’ and ‘non-A.’ If ‘non-A’ is ‘B,’ this may seem eminently
    plausible; but if it’s ‘C,’ then it becomes apparent that something
    is missing, and even more so if ‘non-A’ is ‘Z.’ Thus this axiom of
    Aristotle became known as “the law of the excluded middle.”

    And now we get down to hard reality. Though in the first blush of
    common sense it may seem apparent that an object is simply itself and
    not something else, or that two objects are themselves and not each
    other, in the complexities of actual existence this is not always the
    case – or at least not in absolute, black-and-white terms.

    For indeed, the blackest black in real life contains some white, and
    vice versa. Even the dead “void” of deep space contains a wild atom
    or two per cubic meter. Nothing is ever really completely ‘A’ without
    a little ‘B,’ ‘C,’ ‘Y,’ or ‘Z’ mixed in – i.e., ‘non-A.’ In the
    garden of earthly realities, is there ever a red that blooms
    completely red? Doesn’t even the reddest rose have a subtle hint of
    magenta? Was there ever a violet without a wisp or two of blue?
    The “middle” (viz., the quantum of otherness) arbitrarily excluded by
    Aristotle’s law is substantial indeed – yet the whole of Western
    mathematics and science is founded upon the fantasy that it does not

    Is it an exaggerated claim to state that our civilization and its
    cultural leaders are living in a fantasy world? Consider the ballyhoo
    which began in the 1950s about the notion that modern science would
    soon create a computer that would literally be able to
    think. “Artificial intelligence” they called it, in breathless
    anticipation of the imminent breakthrough. Years and then decades
    rolled by without the construction of a conscious computer, despite
    frenzied efforts by the best brains In the business. They still cling
    to the hope, and to the term, which is euphemistically used to
    designate the crude simulacrum of thought which is the best that even
    the mightiest computer can do.

    Why was this hope exploded? Why did the leading lights of science
    wind up with egg on their faces? The answer is very precise,
    revealing, and painful: a basic flaw in the worldview of Western
    scientific/materialist man led him to believe in something
    impossible: that a machine could learn to think.

    How could he seriously believe this, and why is he wrong? It harks
    back to Aristotle. In Western civilization, the entire model of the
    mind/brain /soul is crafted from the fabric of two-point logic.
    Everything is either-or, ‘A’ or ‘not-A.’ There are no other
    possibilities in the process, and since this process is believed to
    be all-inclusive, Western man believes that his mind and
    intelligence, the very essence of himself, arises from this
    mathematical, binary dynamic. . . the very same which comprises the
    system of binary numbers used to program computers. So it seemed an
    elementary deduction: if we can think, so can computers, potentially –
    all we have to do is make them complex enough.

    The truth, of course, is that Western binary reasoning is not
    comprehensive at all – it does not exhaust the possibilities
    operative in general human reason.

    What, then, are the possibilities? As intimated earlier, there are at
    least four. For purposes of clarity, we shall here transform the ‘A’
    to an ‘X’:

    Point 1: X.
    Point 2: not-X.
    Point 3: both (X and not-X).
    Point 4: not (both (X and not-X)).

    And these are in fact the four points of thought as formulated by the
    Aryovedic culture in what are to us the dim mists of prehistory. This
    system of quaternary thought became the foundation of the most
    advanced civilization of its time, that of Hindu India. The eclipse
    of quaternary thought later occasioned its fall.

    Point 3

    Point 3 seems like an utter contradiction and impossibility to the
    mind conditioned by Aristotelian logic. How can each of two separate
    entities be itself and the other at the same time? For the answer, we
    begin with sex – or more specifically, sexual love.

    Binary Western materialist-reductionist science is absolutely
    impotent in the face of love. It cannot define it, measure it, or
    deal with it in any meaningful way. It covers up its ignorance in
    this field by claiming that love is forever beyond the purview of any
    scientific inquiry – except perhaps psychology, which as practiced
    today in the West is a farcical pseudo-science.

    Point 3 is grounded in the experience of ecstatic union between
    lovers in the act of sexual intercourse. This indeed is the essence
    of real love: the two become one. The man and the woman literally
    become each other: both (X and not-X).

    Western pseudo-science writes this off as a subjective hallucination,
    a literal impossibility because it violates the second and supposedly
    final cardinal point of logic. But in a culture based on Aryovedic
    thought, the deepest intra- and intersubjective experiences would be
    subject to rational understanding and scientific knowledge, as they
    were in ancient India… which among other things gave rise to the
    art and science of Tantra.

    Western civilization came to a collective discovery of Point 3 at the
    time of the Renaissance, and began to implement it culturally even
    though it did not yet understand it intellectually and
    scientifically – and still doesn’t. To understand what this means,
    it’s first necessary to explain the operation of Points 1 and 2.

    The first two points of thought are the basic dualism with which
    primitive humanity confronts the world. It’s the final binary fulcrum
    of all existence: life or death, friend or foe, help or hurt, fight
    or flight, good or evil, eat or be eaten, to be or not to be. Point 1
    is ‘X’: us, the absolute positive entity, the ne plus ultra, the only
    group of souls that would exist, if things were as they should be.
    Anybody else is Point 2: ‘not-X’; i.e., them, the enemy, the negation
    of our very being. They must be killed, annihilated, enslaved – it’s
    the right thing to do. The enemy can be dispatched with absolute
    moral certainty and unity of will. There is tremendous power in this
    primal law, for it is the mechanism of survival for all living
    things, including humanity – up to a certain point in humanity’s

    That point is the moment when a human society reaches the stage at
    which it engages a higher dyad: the more complex dynamic of Points 3
    and 4. This is the moment when the society transcends the merely
    primitive. It begins to develop a culture able to apprehend the world
    in more sophisticated terms than either-or. The kicker is that this
    causes the society to lose its primitive self-certainty, its
    consensus of belief, its unity of spirit – for all these things are
    rooted in the primal dynamic of binary thought. This accounts for the
    phenomenon, noted by Oswald Spengler, that at the very moment when a
    culture truly begins to flower, it has already begun to decay.

    Interesting things happen in a society when it develops Point 3.The
    leading lights of the culture make the stunning realization that the
    peoples of other countries and other societies are not truly alien
    but are rather human beings like themselves. And even should the
    foreigners make war on the subject culture, the Point 3 mind is able
    to see them not as devils from hell but simply as opponents. The
    enlightened ones will be able to entertain the heretical notion
    of ‘both (X and not-X).’ That is, they will be able to conceive of
    both themselves and the enemy in a single inclusive category, which
    is usually referred to as “human.”

    And indeed, if the culture survives beyond the first blush of Point
    3, it develops a very historically specific mode of thought which in
    our own society has been labeled “liberal humanism.” Beginning with
    the Renaissance, people on the cutting edge invariably adopted this
    perspective, and it evolved to become the dominant purview of our now-
    global society. In its youthful hubris, this new collective awareness
    egotistically assumed that it was a fresh evolutionary stage in human
    development, and that it had never existed before; but as the culture
    developed further, its own discoveries forced it into the painful
    awareness that it was but another repetition in the endless cycle of
    recurrence. Spengler in particular, in The Decline of the West,
    showed that every high culture in recorded history had developed its
    own variation of liberal humanism at the appropriate stage. And, if
    we may redundantly remark, subsequently went down the tubes.

    So liberal enlightenment, in any or all of its guises, is not the
    solution to the planetary malaise, but can fairly be charged with
    being the cause of it. But if at the same time it is a true awakening
    to a higher mode of thought, how is it that we are hoist on this
    ironic petard? Is existence after all a tragedy, and we but
    foredoomed pawns in a game played by sadistic Fates and Furies? It
    has seemed that way to every civilization and mega-culture that has
    preceded us on this planet, for every one of them succumbed to the
    fatal dynamic, in which God – or the Devil – seemed to be playing
    with loaded dice. Is there no solution, then, no way out of the
    predestined doom?

    There is, but it’s very tricky. Or rather, it’s so painfully obvious
    that all of our predecessor cultures have overlooked it. The solution
    to the conundrum, the means of our planetary and species salvation,
    the final answer to the riddle of the cosmic Sphinx, is Point 4.

    The Complete Formula

    “Not (both (X and not-M).” In the context of a global civilization on
    the verge of collective self-genocide, what in the name of God does
    this mean? Here is a formula. What is its significance?

    The first crucial piece of information about Point 4 is that Point 3
    can neither function nor exist without it. Points 3 and 4 are a
    mutually self-creating dyad, just as are Points 1 and 2. You can’t
    have ‘1’ without ‘2’ nor ‘3’ without ‘4,’ just as you can’t have
    light without dark, up without down, or good without evil… or a one-
    sided coin or a mirror without an image. Every civilization in the
    history of the world has collapsed because it has attempted to
    implement Point 3 without Point 4, which is impossible.

    How and why does this happen? Consider the mental state of a very
    young child, which has not yet awakened to the knowledge that it
    can’t have Point 1 without Point 2. When things are good, they’re
    very, very good: there’s Mommy, and warm milk, and endlessly
    fascinating new discoveries. When things are bad they’re horrid, but
    quickly forgotten – the baby does not yet have the mental continuity
    to compare the two states in any meaningful way. Thus in the moments
    when it’s happy, the child “believes” that this Point 1 condition is
    all there is – certainly all that there ever should be, which is why
    it gets so angry whenever that perverse and inexplicable Point 2
    shows up. And indeed, children who fail to attain emotional maturity
    may never become fully reconciled to the necessity of negative
    experience, and grow up to be neurotics and even psychotics.

    This in fact is the condition of civilization in its “liberal
    humanist” phase. It has grown up with a collective mental disability –
    it believes it can create a society in which all of the old
    primitive evils are eliminated, a utopia that is totally good,
    meaning that everyone is happy there, or at least free to pursue
    happiness. The whole body of law, the form of government itself, the
    beliefs and expectations of the citizens – indeed, the total thrust
    of the culture is fixed upon this false ideal.

    Where do we begin in our search for a true ideal? Let’s start with
    that elite who first developed Point 3, being able to see their own
    people and the enemy as ‘both (X and not-X).’ Fortunately for this
    fledgling high culture, the common lot of its soldiery is still in
    binary thought; otherwise, it would quickly be overrun by its more
    primitive opponents before it had a chance to fairly explore the
    further ramifications of Point 3. The few enlightened intellectuals
    and mystics will wisely stay behind the lines, for they will lack the
    raw primal force of Point 2, which is what gives primitive humans the
    power to marshal their total being and pit it ruthlessly against a
    deadly opponent.

    Gradually, however, if the culture is successful and grows into a
    civilization or an empire, the Point 3 perspective (under whatever
    name) comes increasingly to dominate the life, thought, and action of
    the whole citizenry. Of the multifarious aspects of Point 3, we are
    here using one as a characteristic example, viz. the loss of nerve
    for mortal combat, the waning of the will to war. In our own culture
    in our own time, we were able to witness in stark and dramatic
    fashion what can fairly be said to have been the final stage of the
    process, in which this aspect of Point 3 cascaded like a descending
    tidal wave from society’s higher strata to engulf the vast mass of
    the people: a large movement, well orchestrated by the elite,
    promoted pacifism as a virtue and caused the ’empire’ to retreat from
    a war as its own soldiers rebelled and deserted.

    This example is significant, because the peace movement of the 1960s
    was part of a larger social phenomenon in which all the elements of
    Point 3 suffused themselves over the whole population, effectively
    destroying the last vestiges of binary morality and cultural
    integration. We have now entered the phase of total decadence and
    disillusionment – and of reaction. For this is the natural tendency –
    there is alarm as a rising proportion of the populace sees more
    clearly that their society is headed toward the abyss. A desperate
    effort is made to reverse the plunge by going back to the old ways,
    returning to the simple certainties of Points 1 and 2. But short of a
    mass prefrontal lobotomy, it can’t be done. We can’t peel off the new
    layer of consciousness. Once you descry the hidden image in Dali’s
    trick picture, it will never go away again – it’s there, and you
    can’t force your eyes not to see it. There’s no way back to the past.
    The future is either doom or Point 4.

    Thus we see that the addition of Point 4 is necessary to complete the
    formula for the new advance in consciousness, which is quaternary
    thought. We shall now designate it ‘Q’ for short.

    So how does Q deal with the given example? What should an enlightened
    human being truly do in the face of an enemy who seeks his death?

    We are fortunate to still have extant a single surviving piece of
    religious literature which embodies the essence of quaternary thought
    as it was originally formulated in the ancient Aryovedic culture. And
    it speaks specifically to this example.

    The Bhagavad Gita is the record of an interaction between a god and a
    man on a battlefield. The noble warlord Arjuna gathers his host to
    confront a large opposing army, in a war that began as a family
    squabble. He beholds many of his relatives and friends among the
    enemy, and is overwhelmed by a sudden rush of Point 3. “Those are my
    brothers over there,” he says to his charioteer; “I will not fight!”

    By a fortuitous mythological twist, Arjuna’s charioteer is Krishna,
    an Avatar: an incarnation of the supreme deity. Through many pages of
    insightful and Inspiring verse, Krishna guides Arjuna to the next
    level of enlightenment, culminating in the ultimate vision of
    Godhead. The result is that Arjuna acquires Q. The knowledge that the
    enemy is his kin is just as trenchant for him as it was before, and
    even more so, for he now has complete spiritual understanding. But he
    girds his loins and leads his soldiers into battle. His army wins a
    great victory, and wipes out the enemy to a man.

    This tale is utterly incomprehensible to the mind stuck In Point 3,
    and is likely to be regarded as a regression to the primitive. In an
    effort to explicate, let us put forth the bare bones of the formula,
    and proceed to flesh them out.

    The binary-minded warrior can be construed as ‘X,’ casting himself
    body and soul into mortal combat against ‘not-X,’ the enemy. The
    Point 3 mind can be identified as “both” – that is, the element that
    sees an essential unity between the self and its opponents. It cannot
    fight, at least not effectively, for it no longer sees a real enemy,
    it is disarmed by its compassion for the foe. Point 3 never overcomes
    the contradiction between its visionary apperception and practical
    reality, because real life in the Universe always contains entities
    and forces arrayed in mortal opposition to each other. Who does not
    fight shall not live.

    Q is the next higher level of insight: “not (both (X and not-X).” The
    person who has attained this layer can be considered as the “not” in
    the formula – and in fact, in the Hindu tradition and its
    derivatives, the ultimate enlightenment is held to have an aspect of
    vacuity. . . there is a kind of sublime nothingness inherent in
    samadhi or nirvana. But in more direct terms, the formula shows us
    that the Point 4 mind contains the essence of the lesser layers. And
    specifically, it has the full ‘humanist’ awareness of the spiritual
    unity of friend and foe, and even, in Buddhist terms, of all sentient
    beings. But it is able to attain a negation of this on a higher
    level, a greater enlightenment which does not deny oneness but
    subsumes it, in order, as Krishna tells Arjuna, to carry on the
    necessary work of the Universe. This is called, in Sanskrit: dharma.
    It carries the implication of “duty” in the highest spiritual sense,
    and of “destiny.” It is the transcendence of the more familiar Hindu
    notion of karma. If the concept of dharma could be fully understood,
    and accepted, the world would surely be saved.

    This in fact is the effective substitute for the raw power of the
    primitive. Arjuna fights and wins even though he feels kinship with
    the enemy, because he is moved by the same force that makes morning
    and evening, that shifts the tectonic plates of continents, that
    causes stars to be born and galaxies to collide. He has become one
    with God, “from whom all things come and who is in all.” (Gita
    18:46.) In every specific situation there is a specific work to be
    done, the dharma indeed, the work of the will of God. And in this
    moment on the battlefield, God himself unveils his will to Arjuna: “I
    am all-powerful Time which destroys all things, and I have come here
    to slay these men. Even if thou dost not fight, all the warriors
    facing thee shall die.” (Gita 11:32.) Arjuna wisely aligns himself
    with the cosmic tide, and is thereby used of God to do his work. The
    larger message of the Gita is that the human who attains Q can do
    this all the time, every day of his life, with every beat of his
    heart. His life will be a total unfolding of destiny.

    The problem facing us, in order to avert the ruin of our world, is
    how to implement Q on a collective level. Until this moment it was
    impossible, because no one knew the underlying processes nor what
    truly needed to be done. These words you are reading change this
    situation, and you yourself now have the opportunity to become an
    agent of destiny. The prescription is radical indeed, and flies so
    offensively in the face of liberal humanism that its established
    pathology will attempt to censor and extinguish this resurgent
    dharma. But all it will take in the beginning is a few courageous
    souls. If they stand their ground and promulgate the dharma, they
    will proliferate, and ultimately the ignorant and corrupt elite win
    be replaced by a truly enlightened Elect, who can guide the planet to
    its salvation.

    Primal Civilization

    The basic principle of a society based on quaternary thought is that
    it reinstitutes all the essential practices of primitive cultures,
    but now performs them consciously, from the high perspective of Q.
    What was once done reflexively and unconsciously in a state of nature
    is now cultivated as a high spiritual art. To designate this state of
    conscious primality we concoct a neologism – the word metaprimal.
    That is, “meta-primal.” We construe “meta” with the various shades of
    meaning implicit in its Aristotelian origin, where “metaphysics”
    meant “beyond physics,” with the implication of including and
    subsuming physics.

    So, what it will take to head off a cataclysm which would reduce the
    survivors to a merely primitive state, is the creation and
    cultivation of a metaprimal humanity, a new hardy breed able to cast
    off the comforts of the present degenerate culture, and carry the
    high refinements of consciousness onto the brave turf of a
    deliberately dangerous world. This new development, unprecedented in
    the history of our species, could accurately be described as a primal

    To get an idea of what life might be like therein, let’s briefly
    sketch out how Q will deal with the most pressing problems and
    thorniest issues confronting our society today. We can start with

    The pundits of Point 3 note that the population has stopped rising in
    the advanced industrial countries and conclude that the problem there
    has been solved. They then analyze the reasons for the decline in the
    birthrate, and seek to reproduce the phenomenon by the same means in
    the Third World, where the problem is still acute.

    There have always been, however, at least a few keener minds who can
    see that the population problem in Europe and America has not been
    solved at all, but rather superseded by a worse one. The decline in
    the birth rate is due to causes associated with prosperity,
    technology, and feminism. Further, modern medicine and improved
    public hygiene have caused a simultaneous decline in the infant
    mortality rate and the death rate in general. The net result is that
    almost everyone born lives to adulthood, and the population thereby
    consists of almost the total “crop” of babies. And despite the
    decline in the total number of people parenting children, the great
    majority of the populace will reproduce themselves, albeit at a rate
    less than 1% above the replacement level.

    Implicit in this accurate description of our society is the fact that
    it is violating a fundamental and vital law of nature. Do you know
    what it is? Can you figure it out? Darwin himself saw it, and
    described the problem in The Descent of Man. Knowledge of the problem
    and its consequences has since been suppressed because it affronts
    the dogmas of liberal humanism. Yet the problem is still carrying us
    ever faster toward disaster.

    The problem is that life as it’s lived in our society totally
    abrogates and annuls the law of natural selection.

    Nature’s way of assuring the quality of a population of any given
    species is by arranging things so that only a minority of the
    individuals born reach adulthood and reproduce; these will thereby be
    the strongest, the smartest, the best. As soon as the childhood
    mortality rate goes below 50%, the quality of the people in a gene-
    pool has begun to decline. With an infant mortality rate in single
    figures, and the childhood rate not much higher, the quality of the
    population in the “advanced” countries has been plummeting like a
    snowball on the way to hell for over a century.

    Does this mean we need to undo all our technological advances and
    return to the natural state? No, for this would be a regression to
    the primitive: to the world of Points 1 and 2. What we need to do is
    advance to a world guided by quaternary thought.

    There are many ways to view the consequences of the axing of natural
    selection. Any person of reasonably high sensitivity can view the
    horror directly simply by stepping into the center of any moderately
    large city. The effect can be like a punch in the gut. Sustained
    exposure can cause serious miasma. Being in the midst of such a vast
    number of psychically deformed and defective entities is extremely
    depressing, and can be dangerous.

    Liberal humanism has no program for dealing with the psychic aspect
    of the problem because in this sphere it is grounded not even in 3-
    point thought but merely in 2-point materialist science, and
    therefore it does not even recognize that this phenomenon exists.

    The physical side of the problem, however, is harder to ignore. A few
    years ago an official estimate, published in the mainstream media,
    held that 12% of American children were born with significant
    physiological defects. This is an astonishing figure, and surely must
    be the highest of any society in the history of the world. Even Rome
    and Babylon at their most corrupt had not the technological know-how
    to sustain a population one-eighth of which was crippled!

    The solution of liberal humanism to this aspect of the problem is to
    provide logistical and financial support to the disabled. If this
    approach were combined with a simultaneous program to rigorously
    reduce their numbers in each generation, it might be enlightened. But
    there is no such proviso attached to the Point 3 largesse, and thus
    its pathological nature is unveiled. The Point 3 mind cannot look
    beyond the moment; it has compassion for the suffering individual in
    front of its face, yet acts in a way that will produce hundreds and
    thousands and millions of more suffering people in the future.

    There is a mind and a soul that is qualified to decide life and death
    for helplessly stricken people. Its heart breaking with compassion,
    it can do what must be done, not out of contempt for the living but
    for love of those unborn. Our planet and our species are dying for
    lack of intervention by this higher mind.

    Just as quaternary thought has the compassion and spiritual authority
    to say “no” (or “not,” as it were) to the continued degeneration of
    the human species, so it can intervene in the hopeless pseudo-
    humanitarian muddle of “equality.” The primal mind spontaneously
    distinguishes the shades and gradations of human quality, and ranks
    them in a natural hierarchy. However, over generations, this becomes
    ossified into rigid orders determined by birth or other methods of
    acquiring privilege. The knotty problem faced by every society is how
    to sort out the higher from the lower, the fine from the gross, the
    wheat from the chaff, without resorting to formalized systems which
    ultimately defeat the purpose.

    The solution of liberal humanism, as might be expected, is to gloss
    over the problem entirely and claim that it doesn’t exist. “Both (X
    and not-X),” it says – one human being is as good as another, and
    it’s “prejudice” to make distinctions. But if we add Q we attain the
    higher negation of this, and are able to conceive a solution in which
    true human differences are recognized and effectively dealt with, but
    without the callousness and cruelty with which the binary mind treats
    those who are less capable than others. Because it subsumes Point 3,
    the quaternary mind fully recognizes the humanity of all, giving each
    individual the respect and compassion they deserve – even though it
    does not indulge in the folly of pretending that all these human
    beings are equal in any meaningful way beyond their bare humanity.

    A theoretical element that is historically involved with this issue
    is the “nature vs. nurture” dispute, which has been going on since
    before the time of Darwin. It is at bottom not scientific at all but
    political, for the sides have always been clearly drawn. The forces
    of Point 3, whether or not they’re willing to compromise and admit
    that genetics may have some influence on the manifest quality and
    behavior of human beings, are adamant to the point of fanaticism that
    environment is the essential and determining factor. The reason is
    easy to see: liberal humanism is forced by the logic of its own
    pathology to try to impose its skewered ideal upon an intransigent
    real world. “if everyone is not equal,” they say in effect, “then our
    job is to make them equal.” So obviously, nurture and not nature must
    be the determining factor, for if it weren’t, the Point 3 agenda
    would be forever impossible to execute.

    In the Darwinian era, a key element of the debate was the question of
    whether or not acquired characteristics could be inherited. If they
    could, it would lend tremendous credence to the “nurture” camp, and
    in fact many of the best minds on both sides felt that a definitive
    resolution of this question would decide the entire issue once and
    for all. Not long after the turn of the century the scientific proof
    finally came in, showing conclusively that acquired characteristics
    cannot be inherited. Not surprisingly, however, the proponents of
    environmental determinism did not close up shop and go home. In fact,
    in the Soviet Union, where Point 3 had been enshrined as state
    ideology, the heritability of acquired characteristics was retained
    as official scientific theory until well into the 1940s.

    The Point 3 mind is predictably horrified by the inevitable breaking
    up of its pseudo-world order, built as it is on an incomplete
    principle. “Both (X and not-X” it says, and patches together wildly
    divergent peoples in farcically artificial nationstates. As soon as
    the central power weakens, the ancient battles for blood and soil
    resume, the same primal opponents often picking up where they left
    off centuries before. Desperately fighting this losing battle,
    liberal humanism resorts to the same ploy it used in the 19th
    century, and recruits its tame scientists to produce politically-
    motivated evidence that ethnicity and race do not even exist. Only
    the armed might of the state can enforce such absurdities, flying in
    the face of healthy primal perception and simple common sense.

    How does Q deal with this explosive issue? As we know from the
    formula, it negates the attempts of Point 3 to annihilate the
    differences between people of radically different gene-pools. It
    acknowledges the biological differences between races, and the right
    of every significant ethnicity to have its own sovereign state and to
    wage war with conventional weapons against its neighbors. It, in
    effect, and not the skewed liberal-humanist Point 3
    perspective, “Celebrates Diversity.” Since the quaternary higher mind
    is able likewise to comprehend the humanity of all races and all
    combatants, it can referee the territorial and racial disputes with a
    compassion and fairness unknown to the New World Empire of Point 3.

    Indeed, the primal civilization will be a global patchwork of
    ethnostates. The natural hostility between races will not be declared
    immoral and suppressed as it is today (“politically incorrect” is to
    liberal humanism as “sin” is to Christianity), but will be kept
    within the limits of small-scale conflicts that are adjudged
    beneficial to natural selection. And it will all be within a larger
    framework in which the highest individuals of every race and
    ethnicity can meet as equals in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

    This brings us to the ultimate issue, the most important single
    factor determining the future of our species: sex. That is, the
    relationship between male and female.

    We have noted that the breakthrough to Point 3 begins historically
    with sexual love. Now we must clarify that the meta-sexual union of X
    and not-X — or, as would be more appropriate in this case, X and Y —
    happens specifically because the two entities are polarized: the X
    must be truly X and the Y, Y before they can merge. Ironically, the
    political forces of Point 3 now use the formula in an exactly
    opposite way in order to bring about maximum insanity here at the
    furry far end of its reign. To this demented collective mind, “both
    (X and Y)” means that female and male are equivalent, identical, the

    Today liberal humanism says that race does not exist. Tomorrow, or
    eventually, anyway, it will be forced by the logic of its own formula
    to declare that sex does not exist. In essence, it already
    has. “Since the sexes are not the same, it’s our job to make them the
    same,” they say among themselves, and all the recent legislation
    relating to sex proves it.

    One of the most pernicious effects of the genetic deterioration
    described above is that it gradually depolarizes the sexes. In a
    healthy society, only the most Yang males and Yin females reproduce,
    and this tends to perpetuate the natural polarization of the sexes
    from generation to generation. But with the degenerative trends over
    the last century and a half, intensifying in the last fifty years,
    this selection factor has been virtually lost, resulting in a
    horrendous decline of sexual polarity. So it is that when the savants
    of Point 3 assert that society is populated not by two sexes but by a
    gradual scale of individuals ranging from male to female at the far
    ends and including many entities in between who are neither one nor
    the other, it cannot be denied, for in this perverted culture it’s
    the simple truth! But this is not as things should be.

    The modern wave of feminism can be said to have begun in the latter
    half of the 18th century, as a side effect of the American Revolution
    in concert with certain trends in Europe. As might be expected, it
    was dominated from the beginning by Point 3, but over the course of
    200 years the true quaternary perspective appeared sporadically in
    isolated developments centering on exceptional individuals. The Point
    4 feminist says “not” to the ambisexual merging of male and female,
    which emasculates the one and slays the essence of the other. She
    knows that it is no weakness to be a woman, and she has been well
    described as Venus Plus X; the ultra female, vibrating with an
    enlightenment that embraces the best of postmodern liberation and
    consciousness, yet is strong enough to apply this to the primal
    female role.

    A society set up to reestablish polarity will take a long time to
    accomplish its goals, because of the genetic basis of the problem.
    Eventually, though, it will happen, if the species is to survive. And
    the rewards will be great. All the immediate social problems
    confronting us in this despicable age are caused ultimately by the
    loss of primality in the people, and the essence of primality is
    sexual polarization.

    What does this mean in practical terms? The absolutely most important
    change is that the human race will get its Mother back. Whatever else
    may be said about the mass abandonment of natural roles, it has
    certainly caused the greatest sustained wave of neglected, bereft,
    abused, confused, emotionally mangled children in the history of the
    world. Even when she was trying her best, Point 3 Woman had a hard
    time being a good mother because of her deprimalized condition; but
    when the message of liberal humanism on this matter took total hold
    in the media some three decades ago, the situation instantly became
    unutterably worse. Women are now encouraged to think of motherhood as
    a mere sideline to the real business of their lives, and an optional
    one at that. Daycare is offered as the great solution to the problem
    of how to have “both (X and not-X).” But the perceptive ones know the
    secret: people who are raised in daycare turn out to be
    robots. “Humatons” is a word coined to describe the condition more
    specifically: they are people who are not up to snuff as human
    beings. There is simply no substitute for a real mother.

    Furthermore, with the return of real, primal sex will come a great
    reflowering of love. This is the most important part of all, for it
    marks the difference between life experienced as hell or heaven.
    There is a broad spectrum of the types and kinds of love, but full-
    blooded, heaven-opening, romantic sexual love only operates in a
    world populated by polarized people. The failure of romantic love in
    our dissolute times is a direct consequence of a lack of men and
    women qualified to indulge in it. The ambisexual creatures wearing
    suits and dresses (or sometimes suits and suits, and dresses and
    dresses) are like prepubescent children playacting the roles. Or like
    the sexless, machine-bred turkeys in a factory farm. No wonder
    romance always seems to go sour nowadays, and love so quickly wilts:
    the postmortem robotic gobblers just don’t have what it takes.

    These, then, are the four basic areas in which Q will impact society
    in order to make its revolutionary change:

    (1) The establishment of genetic hygiene. This is a change which all
    enlightened people have always known is necessary to the salvation of
    the human race, but the outcome of World War II enabled its opponents
    to totally suppress it. We need to try again, because humanity
    silently cries out for it, and the alternative is certain doom.

    (2) The replacement of the false doctrine of “equality,” which in
    actual practice rewards the worst and handicaps the best, by a new
    system which acknowledges the natural human hierarchy and allows
    rewards and power to gravitate into the hands of those who really
    deserve it. And beware! Some of those at the very top of the present
    corrupt hierarchy will be cast down hard by this principle.

    (3) Elimination of the horribly artificial and unnatural ethic which
    kills ethnic diversity and deliberately promotes the genetic
    conglomeration of all peoples into one. If this Point 3 pipe-dream
    were even possible of literal fulfillment, it would be the worst
    disaster to strike the planet since the last meteor. Q replaces this
    abomination with the healthy reign of the ethnostate, in a true world
    order of primal civilization.

    (4) The return of sexual polarity, and thereby of real sexual love.

    This agenda should make it clear that Q is revolutionary. In line
    with the second item, the success of the revolution does not depend
    on the broad masses awakening to Q, but only an Elect. The best
    people today are wasting themselves in the conceits and illusions of
    Point 3. If only a few of these souls were to attain the light of
    quaternary thought, the shape of things to come would change


    Dick Wagner Reply:

    @G. Eiríksson, that was methamphetaminic. True barnyard banter worthy of a stay at the Cathedral’s gulag spa; truly a comment that defines “Aufheben”.

    Despite that, this caught me off guard:

    “Indeed, the primal civilization will be a global patchwork of
    ethnostates. The natural hostility between races will not be declared
    immoral and suppressed as it is today (“politically incorrect” is to
    liberal humanism as “sin” is to Christianity), but will be kept
    within the limits of small-scale conflicts that are adjudged
    beneficial to natural selection. And it will all be within a larger
    framework in which the highest individuals of every race and
    ethnicity can meet as equals in an atmosphere of mutual respect. ”

    Going back to the primal has its downsides. We didn’t “move” out of it neutrally; we overcame it. The Cathedral is the Gods-of-Darwin’s final finished product. What you postulate rhymes with gnomble lye.

    The darkest part of HBD is that there is a hierarchy of aristocracies. You can’t propose hierarchy and then adopt pluralism. Notice that India doesn’t have an nRX? Speaking Realpolitically, India is garbage. Their Culture-Determining Ideology groped at Power like Tantalus. The Euro-Aryans have been chosen to usurp the former chosen people and colonate the globe. Pluralism is just polite, nice-talk.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    right. this is written by Joseph Kerrick of the now defunct White Order of Thule. he´s a roundheaded White Nationalist / “National Socialist”.

    i composited and wrote an article on them in my early twenties:

    i was also made an administrator of two groups w/ related material on them around that age, by an occultist fascist american living in iceland at the time.

    i believe Kerry´s work was as brain-altering to me as reading «On Truth and Lies In A Nonmoral Sense» by FW Niezsche at age 18.

    the true hierarchy of races is a mystery even to him.

    Posted on October 17th, 2016 at 9:46 am Reply | Quote
  • Melanie L'Heuremaudit Says:

    Je répondrai à votre message dans les plus brefs délais.


    Posted on October 17th, 2016 at 3:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • Melanie L'Heuremaudit Says:

    @ G. Eiríksson

    Chance is the most ancient divinity of the world, and behold, I come to deliver all things from their bondage, under Purpose….


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    yeah bro. rolling w/ the dice is a thrille, it can let ur wildest dreams come tru without effort.


    Posted on October 17th, 2016 at 6:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • Melanie L'Heuremaudit Says:

    Wildest dreams?

    More like impersonal will, or fate decided elsewhere

    In the past it was decided by the stars, a chicken’s entrail’s, or the flight of birds.

    Mallarme’s “Un coup de dés jamais n’abolira le hasard” (a throw of dice will never abolish chance) had nothing to do with his wildest dreams and (like his earlier poems) might have been written not only to mourn his son Anatole, who died when he was eight years old, but also in a certain way to eternalize his dead son by means of the poem


    G. Eiríksson Reply:


    aside from french literary faggotry: dicing is an Indo-European idiom dis-covered in e.g. Roman and Indo-Aryan segments of society.

    i´ve already posted twice on it at this web-site in the recent past.

    here is a third post, which, unlike the two before are not the the same post:

    ▬ 1.) To what we `owe’ Nietzsche: a warning to “…everyone and no one.” There is a paradox, should one bother such things, with respect to the degree to which Nietzsche is our creditor. The reason being that there is an essential difference in one speaking of a type of individual; and, the individual being spoken of, regardless of the accuracy, pin-pointedness, and delineative scope of the individual described: from cognition, to description, to categorical recognition, and subsequent placement, in the `periodic table’ of man. In short, understanding the essence of a type does not self-include the individual of one who understands the type into the category —after all, and easy enough, Nietzsche understands the slave as well, if not better, than he understands the master. Does he not? It has troubled me for years to know where to place Nietzsche on this table, or how and in what ways I ought to make concessions, if any, regardless of the palpably higher nature of the man, in that so many have not possessed the intuitive rubric to see what `it’ is, or who `it’ is that Nietzsche has risen from destruction, as it were: the search for even the most menial consensus in matters of distinction is a powerful, obfuscating, all-too-human trait, and one of the last to be shed. This is not to speak of the fact that the tools to escape his “snares” are always a birth-rite; and cannot be borrowed, though many have attempted, and continue to attempt their theft. An example: many an emotional devotee, who via the lack of the proximity of anyone higher, has confused themselves as something else— the only vestiges of the plebeian in the devotee—simply by the fact that Nietzsche appears as an “unmoved mover” when his being is, in the final accounting of the highest of men, fundamentally reflective— if not a reflection; and, the emotional devotees (who, without exception, can know themselves by the furiousness with which they already feel toward me as we exit this first paragraph), themselves, possess modestly more than the power of oratory, susceptibility to `belief’, recognition, and possession of supra-conventional eyes for the world (which, incidentally, is forgivable—respectable even—so long as deference is shown to those illuminated by fate, and are recognized as such: modernity, surely, makes this no easy task for the respectable devotee. This difficulty is not their responsibility, making them conditionally absolved—for now). That one must “reason” (ratiocinate) what instinct is, even when done- up in the poetic (the only means to bridge the arroyo of the communicable and the incommunicable) is already a slip—a retrogression, of sorts, for Nietzsche, which proceeds from the assumption that cognition of a type is, in fact, ever definitively cognized by the highest of types, which he, and many others, claim to not attribute to the master, and yet his `actions’ speak differently. This is a semantic and laughably surreal modern psychological quagmire, to be sure, and, in my experience, the point at which most will be able to gamble no further. The highest man of instinct need never take possession of the knowledge of anything that is already known from his recesses to be his, pre-cognitively. “Thus and thus are mine, etc. and all else follows” is the sub-vocal mantra of every highest man of instinct (sophomorically enough miscalculated in today’s psychological taxonomy as “sociopathic” as it does not fit any Abrahamic mold), arising as vapor from the nadir of his animating energy: it is the membrane that binds a self-antipodal ontology: the coolant that halts the implosion/explosion of an essence that contains antithetical, yet equal, drives: it is the externally reactive choice that is made amongst an internal, and eternally youthful, universe of active, and possessed, possibilities—each of which being, themselves, poly-typical: incipit Arya. The rarity of such individuals, the rarity of ourselves, individuals who are embodiments of the incommunicable; individuals who can describe how to get there yet decline the power of speech as vulgar in the presence of the too awful for words—a fleshy microcosm of the macrocosm—is no argument for our impossibility or non-existence; but is, rather, an argument for our rarity and our controlled chaos: we are not decisive—we are decisiveness. Nietzsche toyed with this, most definitely, not as something basically, pre-cognitively known about his own being, but rather as recognition and resultant admixture to self: “I am no man, I am dynamite” But surely had to `talk’ himself into it in an innocent self-flirtation (“…there is an innocence in lying that shows good faith in a cause”) etc. Well, so be it. Further more, to place such worry and dramatic import in and on the appearance of a type so irreversibly—spiritually—retrogressed (the “last” man), and to take from this theatre the notion that this appearance is the heralding of the eradication of the/a `master race’, and have enough material to produce books is—bothersome; and tends toward the creation of intemperate pigs obsessive to a bizarre degree with the most trivial ideas such as the weightiness of eye and hair color, and the vulnerability to credence in mythological glory that has been robbed of them e.g. Adolph Hitler. Here was a man that became glorified as an exemplar of highness by the emotional devotee, (is, to this day, unaccountably bound to Nietzsche by emotional devotees and academics alike) all the while without realization that they are giving homage to little more than devotion to the highest exemplar of emotional devotion to yet appear; not to the exemplars, let alone the ideal, of the highest of men, which escapes them, thank the gods, unreservedly…Hitler, as it has been said, failed because he was not immortal: How true! What has not been said is that he simply did not know when to stop, and allow his manifestation to finish its development in the hearts and minds of a disordered Arya. A consequence? Look, well…’everywhere.’ With each suppression from quantity comes an isolation of quality: the reduction of quantity in the higher types, to be sure—but its isolation, contained preponderance, duration as well as strength become ever more vital and exemplary in the appearance of the highest atavistic singularities, as natures fundamental agency with respect to what she divines as balance—irrespective of how humanity (and Nietzsche is part of humanity) has thus far defined, and refined, the idea: the order of rank between man and man has never been more notably, recognizably, or remarkably stratified to the uber- hyperborean: this increases feelings of power and exaltation; ergo, it is good. Nietzsche’s own acumen bares this out all over the place, although he, for whatever raison d’être, missed it: nature has, does, and will continue to departmentalize ever greater power constellations within the highest atavistic singularities, while she simultaneously keeps in check, the (of course, non-pejorative) stagnation of the higher types, as well as the allowance of the spread of the “ineradicable”: counter intuitively to most, nature favors the tyrannical, and moves in the direction of preparedness for such a daunting and redoubtable responsibility: dominion of the few— and then the fewer; and then the one. Upon sufficient scrutiny, one is able to see the abundant utility for us in that which is, in fact, “ineradicable” especially when the “flea beetles” must be told what their essence is to be placate i.e. need to be lied to; moreover, they must be liars: we have no qualms about lying to liars, or, being the reactive aspect within such a dynamism as this is the only way such divergent spirits are tolerably co-existent. And even more histrionics that makes us question: “…a master race is either on top, or it is destroyed.” What fantastic, fanciful, and reflexively aversive asymmetry is presented before us in Nietzsche’s most negative and apocalyptic argumentative and observational derivatives of the term “strength”! One feels insulted with his most erroneously assumed fragility of that which, and who, masters—over that which is, and who is, strength: one is offended by his lack of `faith’: the words “fire” and “brimstone” are only a few degrees of separation from his more thespian, and therefore immediately moving convictions— for which he did have the courage. A concubine who bares a noble’s progeny is not looked on positively or negatively by a noble simply for having given birth to the assumed possibility as opposed to the tacit probability of his seed—which may, indeed, lay dormant for generations before its atavistic reappearance regardless of the `breeding’ of the female that is, objectively speaking, the vehicle to the means of continuation as it has been implicit. In fact! Its actualized germination may in reality be expedited in certain such cases through the act of the will of that which was passed on, to over-throw the weaker elements of that to which it has been fused: as a non-visible demonstration of the stalwart nature of the master. The master is by no means a perennial, despite the quality of the soil, or how well it is cared for after it breaks free from the ground; there is no reliable ecological structure conducive to his sustenance let alone segregation into an (when looking out and down on the issue) arbitrarily, yet not capriciously, choice elite—which has always had nauseating political effects. Furthermore, how many times throughout history have apparently noble souls combined only to produce (relatively speaking) worthless offspring? Moreover, how many times have more distinguished characters of history not bred at all? The point: nature allows not for the destruction or dilution of the master; only his dormancy and protracted and hibernated gravitas—it’s protracted gathering: the husk from which it comes, from which it springs forth in preparedness is, almost, incidental. The master is not bound by biology, as is the baser, more idiomatic, assumption amongst the higher types in spite of their intuitive aversion to everything colloquial. The master is bound by the apparent caprice of nature, herself: nature favors secretive recessives, but the price we recessives pay is patience—something not always at arms length to us, relative to our own live ideal. A workable, higher minded, eugenics must be, from its inception, a spiritual matter that takes into account the, more often than has previously been noticed, lifting-up- and-out of the master from one biological lineage, as science currently understands such processes, into another—inevitably more spiritually constructed for nature’s experiments: nature gleefully and excitedly plays trait hopscotch in such matters; and, thus far, even the highest of men yet exampled on earth have, at least consciously, misunderstood nature’s riddle with respect to the `phenotypic’ expression of the master as being fundamentally imprinted in the necessity of “blood” when blood is, perhaps, exceptional smoke and mirrors. After all, nobles characteristically have concubines. Do they not? This is evidence that nobles have held, and continue to hold, unconscious insight into matters of breeding, and the virility of their own poise in what has been the sheer roll- of-the-dice of breeding the spirit, that runs counter to what it takes to breed a specific type of, let us say, dog—a rigorously biological matter. They misunderstood themselves, and we have misunderstood them, and we have misunderstood ourselves: to put it purely, there was always the causal worry that one might lose— eternally. I cannot passably portray the amusement this notion now gives me. Accordingly, I show deference to the incommunicable—which at this moment should be speaking volumes to those with the ears to hear: for some, you will go nearly deaf. Excuse my easily provoked sense of honor; but, yes, Nietzsche, too, must justify himself of his choices, of each and every fork in the road he came to, and went down the more negative observational and interpretive path; Nietzsche, too, if he is to be viewed as a Philosopher-Artist must be divorced from his work and taken much less seriously than it; Nietzsche, too, must live in the world as if he willed the whole piece and play into existence… It is so difficult to disagree with one’s father and tear from him and hold by the throat his own hypocrisies; and yet hubris, contradiction, and temerity were his greatest lessons and gifts to us: it is the imbued responsibility of noble progeny to become one’s own will, even if the patriarch must die so that his sons may bare fruit, as they are closer to the future. Nietzsche was of a higher type. Nietzsche was not, however, an exemplar of the highest, which remain definitively, yet non- pejoratively, static even as we atavistic singularities, we highest of men, continue to draw more to ourselves, continue to take more, continue our ascent from within and without, and continue to become ever more invisible—apparently impossible—as all of the most beautiful things of the world are: rare and rarely seen, if ever found at all—and always, without fail, mistaken by everyone other than ourselves: such is the credit of our instrument. Nietzsche is an unbreakable Aryan mirror into which we must frequently gaze lest we mistake ourselves as impossible—which is truer, prima facie, than our preeminent destruction. He never lies in matters of distinction, and there is nothing of him vainglorious: to this, and if only this, he is, paradoxically, owed his pound of our most noblest flesh even though he, himself, is not amongst the most noble, for lacking the patience of a god in matters of definition and interpretation, when it is begged for by a genuflecting posterity. From looking out and down from atop his honorable shoulders, we drift further upwards, composed of loftiness, potentiality, his language, and he is proud. Proud that laughing lions are come, once again; and have made the time to stop and ruminate with him awhile—in the chamber of the hall of heroes, reserved for the recantation of the proud, and the inevitable melancholy of having been straightforward, yet wide of the mark: “noble enough was he to recant.” Caution: The master was, is, and will remain the one-aeterna veritas. And although the master is existential in very few of us, we possess the combined barbarism of billions; but, the Earth is not yet ripe—but soon my brothers. The sheep now prepare themselves for slaughter. It is but a matter of time before they cut their own throats. The world longs for a spiritual cure: “Ask and ye shall receive.” So be it.

    ▬▬ said suut Jan 11, 2006


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    difference between me and suut is that i never viewed Nietzsche as a father.


    Dick Wagner Reply:

    “(and Nietzsche is part of humanity)”

    Is he trying to convince himself or us?

    “the tools to escape his “snares” are always a birth-rite; and cannot be borrowed, though many have attempted, and continue to attempt their theft.”

    It’s imprudent to put this into words. But since we’re on the subject I’ll note that trigger-happy patricide is one such snare.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    >trigger-happy patricide is a snare.


    Posted on October 17th, 2016 at 8:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    I am quite cool & not at all eager about it because, roused by a Saturnian hunger, I would rather see them all devoured.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    by the power of Anissimov!


    Posted on October 18th, 2016 at 10:48 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    Published on Jun 23, 2016
    From episode 2 of ‘The Prisoner’ (1967).


    Posted on October 18th, 2016 at 12:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Melanie L'Heuremaudit Says:

    the 3 Rs


    Posted on October 25th, 2016 at 2:47 am Reply | Quote
  • Melanie L'Heuremaudit Says:

    “True sanity entails in one way or another the dissolution of the normal ego” – R.D. Laing, The Politics of Experience

    “The visit to London is our visit to Pythia. Turner is there. Looking at his paintings, one understands what it means to scale the wall, and yet to remain behind; to cause flows to pass through, without knowing any longer whether they are carrying us elsewhere or flowing back over us already.

    The paintings range over three periods. If the psychiatrist were allowed to speak here, he could talk about the first two, although they are in fact the most reasonable.

    The first canvases are of end-of-the-world catastrophes, avalanches, and storms. That’s where Turner begins.

    The paintings of the second period are somewhat like the delirious reconstruction, where the delirium hides, or rather where it is on a par with a lofty technique inherited from Poussin, Lorrain, or the Dutch tradition: the world is reconstructed through archaisms having a modern function.

    But something incomparable happens at the level of the paintings of the third period, in the series Turner does not exhibit, but keeps secret.

    It cannot even be said that he is far ahead of his time, there is here something ageless, and that comes to us from an eternal future, or flees toward it.

    The canvas turns in on itself, it is pierced by a hole, a lake, a flame, a tornado, an explosion. The themes of the previous paintings are to be found here, their meanings changed.

    The canvas is truly broken, sundered by what penetrates it. All that remains is a background of gold and fog, intense, intensive, traversed in depth by what has just sundered its breadth: the schiz.

    Everything becomes mixed and confused, and it is here that the breakthrough, not the breakdown, occurs.”

    “Anti-Oedipus”, Deleuze and Guattari, pg. 132


    Posted on October 30th, 2016 at 4:18 am Reply | Quote
  • Melanie L'Heuremaudit Says:

    As Witold Grombrowicz says, the structuralists “search for their structures in culture. As for myself, I look for them in immediate reality. My way of seeing things was in direct relationship to the events of the times: Hitlerism, Stalinism, fascism….

    I was fascinated by the grotesque and terrifying forms that surfaced in the interhuman, destroying all that was held dear until then.”

    L’Herne, no. 14, p. 230


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    similar to italo Futurism, which courted the destruction of all that is old. at least all buildings, & works of art.

    see also, Lenin the High Modernist:


    Posted on November 1st, 2016 at 2:03 am Reply | Quote
  • Melanie L'Heuremaudit Says:

    Interesting that the comment above made you think of Italo futurists, such as Marinetti, very active in Fascist politics until he withdrew in protest of the “Roman Grandeur” that was dominating Fascist aesthetics around that time (1908 – 1909)

    Manifesto del Futurismo, Article 10 (by Marinetti) states:

    “We want to demolish museums and libraries, fight morality, feminism and all opportunist and utilitarian cowardice.”


    Posted on November 1st, 2016 at 2:30 am Reply | Quote
  • Melanie L'Heuremaudit Says:

    “The artist is the master of objects; he puts before us shattered, burned, broken-down objects, converting them to the regime of desiring-machines, breaking down is part of the very function of desiring-machines;

    the artist presents paranoiac machines, miraculating-machines, and celibate machines as so many technical machines, so as to cause desiring machines to undermine technical machines.

    Even more important, the work of art itself is itself a desiring-machine.

    The artist stores up his treasures so as to create an immediate explosion, and that is why, to his way of thinking, destructions can never take place as rapidly as they ought to.”

    Anti-Oedipus, Deleuze & Guattari, p. 32


    Posted on November 3rd, 2016 at 1:41 am Reply | Quote
  • Worm Says:

    The discovery of neutrino oscillations and its implication that neutrinos have mass have boosted the importance of neutrinoless double beta decay (0νββ). Indeed, this process proved to be a key tool to investigate the Majorana-Dirac nature of the neutrino, giving also information on the absolute scale and the mass hierarchy.

    In the assumption that the 0νββ transition is mediated by the three known neutrino, a fundamental role is played by the Majorana Effective Mass, namely

    c i = ∏ j = 1 , i ≠ j D λ j λ j − λ i {\displaystyle c_{i}=\prod _{j=1,i\neq j}^{D}{\frac {\lambda _{j}}{\lambda _{j}-\lambda _{i}}}} c_{i}=\prod _{j=1,i\neq j}^{D}{\frac {\lambda _{j}}{\lambda _{j}-\lambda _{i}}}

    This parameter can be thought as the absolute value of the ee-entry of the neutrino mass matrix, where m_i are the masses of the individual v_i, δ and α1,2 are the Dirac and Majorana phases respectively and U_ei are the elements of the mixing matrix that defining the composition of the electron neutrino.

    Within this scenario, the theoretical expression of the half-life of the 0νββ can be factorized as:

    Differential cross-section:

    d σ d Ω = | 2 μ ℏ 2 ∫ 0 ∞ sin ⁡ ( Δ k r ) Δ k r V ( r ) r 2 d r | 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {d\sigma }{d\Omega }}=\left|{\frac {2\mu }{\hbar ^{2}}}\int _{0}^{\infty }{\frac {\sin(\Delta kr)}{\Delta kr}}V(r)r^{2}dr\right|^{2}} \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} = \left|\frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}\int_0^\infty\frac{\sin(\Delta kr)}{\Delta kr}V(r)r^2dr\right|^2

    where m_e  is the electron mass, G_0v is the phase space factor and M_0v is the nuclear matrix element describing the transition. In particular, in the recent works, this last term is written emphasizing the axial coupling g_a:
    M_0v = g_A^2 M

    where M depends mildly on g_A and can be evaluated modeling theoretically the nucleus. An experimental limit on the half-life translates in a limit on the Majorana effective mass by using the above definition.
    The main sources of uncertainty in the inference are the nuclear matrix elements. Indeed, despite the fact that independent calculations have assessed a relatively small intrinsic error of about 20%, it also emerged a more important role of  g_A than originally thought. It is commonly expected that the value of  g_A measured in the
    weak interactions and decays of nucleons is modified (or renormalized) in the nuclear medium toward the value appropriate for quarks. But a further reduction might be rather plausible. Therefore, a conservative treatment of the uncertainties should consider at least three cases:

    \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}=\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\frac{dN}{d\Omega} = \left(\frac{\alpha}{4E}\right)^2 \csc^4\frac{\chi}{2}\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}=\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\frac{dN}{d\Omega} = \left(\frac{\alpha}{4E}\right)^2 \csc^4\frac{\chi}{2}\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}=\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\frac{dN}{d\Omega} = \left(\frac{\alpha}{4E}\right)^2 \csc^4\frac{\chi}{2}

    where the last formula includes phenomenologically the effect of the atomic number A, as observed in the two-neutrino double beta decay transition in different nuclei.

    Thanks to the knowledge of the oscillation parameters, it is possible to constraint the allowed region for m_bb. In the picture,  m_bb is plotted as a function of the cosmological mass (i.e. the sum of the three active neutrino masses) which is probed in cosmology. The different colors refer to the possible ordering for the neutrino mass spectra: the normal hierarchy (orange) and the inverted hierarchy (blue). It has to be noticed that the Majorana phases cannot be probed in neutrino oscillation experiments and thus are let free to vary, this resulting in a vertical broadening of the bands.

    L Q C D = ψ ¯ i ( i γ μ ( D μ ) i j − m δ i j ) ψ j − 1 4 G μ ν a G a μ ν = ψ ¯ i ( i γ μ ∂ μ − m ) ψ i − g G μ a ψ ¯ i γ μ T i j a ψ j − 1 4 G μ ν a G a μ ν , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\mathcal {L}}_{\mathrm {QCD} }&={\bar {\psi }}_{i}\left(i\gamma ^{\mu }(D_{\mu })_{ij}-m\,\delta _{ij}\right)\psi _{j}-{\frac {1}{4}}G_{\mu \nu }^{a}G_{a}^{\mu \nu }\\&={\bar {\psi }}_{i}(i\gamma ^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }-m)\psi _{i}-gG_{\mu }^{a}{\bar {\psi }}_{i}\gamma ^{\mu }T_{ij}^{a}\psi _{j}-{\frac {1}{4}}G_{\mu \nu }^{a}G_{a}^{\mu \nu }\,,\\\end{aligned}}\,\!} \begin{align} \mathcal{L}_\mathrm{QCD} & = \bar{\psi}_i\left(i \gamma^\mu (D_\mu)_{ij} – m\, \delta_{ij}\right) \psi_j – \frac{1}{4}G^a_{\mu \nu} G^{\mu \nu}_a \\ & = \bar{\psi}_i (i \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu – m )\psi_i – g G^a_\mu \bar{\psi}_i \gamma^\mu T^a_{ij} \psi_j – \frac{1}{4}G^a_{\mu \nu} G^{\mu \nu}_a \,,\\ \end{align} \,\!
    Electroweak interaction : L E W = L g + L f + L h + L y . {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{EW}={\mathcal {L}}_{g}+{\mathcal {L}}_{f}+{\mathcal {L}}_{h}+{\mathcal {L}}_{y}.\,\!} \mathcal{L}_{EW} = \mathcal{L}_g + \mathcal{L}_f + \mathcal{L}_h + \mathcal{L}_y.\,\!

    L g = − 1 4 W a μ ν W μ ν a − 1 4 B μ ν B μ ν {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{g}=-{\frac {1}{4}}W_{a}^{\mu \nu }W_{\mu \nu }^{a}-{\frac {1}{4}}B^{\mu \nu }B_{\mu \nu }\,\!} \mathcal{L}_g = -\frac{1}{4}W_a^{\mu\nu}W_{\mu\nu}^a – \frac{1}{4}B^{\mu\nu}B_{\mu\nu}\,\!

    The horizontal bands show the limit on m_bb obtained with recent experiments using 136Xe and they refer to the three cases of g_A quenching mentioned above. The bands take into account the intrinsic uncertainty of the nuclear matrix elements and phase space factors calculations. As it is clear from the plot, the effect of the uncertainty of g_A  is huge (almost an order of magnitude)!

    Our final message is that nuclear physics is fundamental for neutrinoless double beta investigations. In particular, the issue of the axial vector coupling constant quenching has to be sorted out in the future, either theoretically or experimentally.


    Posted on December 14th, 2016 at 1:38 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment