Horseshoe Quiz

Nazism is the only political form that corresponds to the soul of the European people.

— Without peeking, see if you can guess which ‘end of the political spectrum’ this comes from.

ADDED: Relevant —

July 9, 2017admin 170 Comments »


170 Responses to this entry

  • Julius Evola Says:

    Are these people retarded?


    Posted on July 9th, 2017 at 10:44 am Reply | Quote
  • Nulle Terre Sans Seigneur Says:

    No true National Socialist would call himself a “Nazi” anymore than a true international socialist would call himself a “sozi.” Unless he’s new to it, I suppose.


    John Reply:

    Shut up. The original National Socialists such as Goebbles regularly addressed themselves as “Nazis”. And besides, appropriation of enemy memes is a key component of alt-right strategy, so even if you were technically correct (you aren’t), that would be irrelevant.

    Educate yourself.


    Uncle Saturday Reply:

    Ignatz/Nazi is Richard/Hick. Dexter calls itself “Red States Next,” then sinister sneers “rednex,” then dexter embraces.


    Posted on July 9th, 2017 at 11:00 am Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    Dont see whats so tricky about your question, except open democracy is a funded by a billionaire Jew investment banker, but we knew the capitalists had betrayed western civ and its people decades ago, making the political spectrum frame you ask us to locate this in a red herring.To answer your question these two are a couple of your former comrades european cultural marxists. what of it is remarkable?

    A more interesting question is what do they really think. I for one find it impossible to believe that even people of average intelligence can not see that multiculturalism is not going to help but a tiny fraction of muds for a very short time and in the process extinguish the engine of the world, the engine that socialism is parasite of.

    Most of you think they are simply religious martyrs that are willing to die and for all of us to die too in order that we die holy. I dont buy that,leftists in their personal lives are more self centered than any people in history and they dont believe in an afterlife. I think the Soros level are simply after wealth and power and naively believe they can manage the new world disorder and make a lot of money doing so.

    The SJW class is operating under bad information and a lot of peer pressure but mostly simply trust the experts. They actually believe things like somalians are a boon to the economy and running massive debt to support somalis is just modern economics and nothing to worry about. They really think Islam is a peaceful religion and they are not very good at math or logic because the left has taken over the schools.


    Abelard Lindsey Reply:

    This seems to be an accurate assessment of the mindsets of both the Soros crowd as well as that of the SJW’s. I don’t think they are evil. They are merely delusional and, like delusional people in general, cause lots of damage and harm to those who are not delusional. This is why asylums exist.


    1 Reply:

    Yeah actually it’s a good experiment to really try to understand how people come to believe such outright nonsense. It’s scary, and not really “enjoyable” to look into that space… it’s uh, unpleasant. It’s like dipping your foot in a pool of spit. However, it needs to be done. It’s hard work. It takes effort. When we have a more comprehensive idea of what the inside of these peoples’ brains look like, we’ll be able to address it more effectively. I don’t think we have that yet. And I think the reason is that nobody wants to look at it, because it’s disgusting.


    Posted on July 9th, 2017 at 12:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    Nazism is left wing. But let’s pretend it’s right wing.
    Wow, the left and right extremes sure look similar don’t they. Surprising.


    Wagner Reply:

    Jee Alrenous, I wish I was a grown adult who could only repeat the Dark Sith Lord like a smoking, spluttering automaton that’s had a bucket of stagnant water poured in its wires. Can you teach me how to be like you?


    Artxell Knaphni Reply:


    Berardi is an okay writer. His semio-critique is quite appealing, I’ve seen bits of it on Facebook; a linked interview; but haven’t had the chance yet to check him out properly.

    The letter is a dramatic and passionate gesture, but could be a little naive, like most 21st century discussions. Most political writing is naive, though. Necessarily so, because of the limitations of what I have called, back in the last century, l.c.d. (lowest common denominator) thought.

    The very techniques of modernity, exploited to generate European prosperity, necessarily displace all conceptions of responsibility. Ideologies of dominion economy, necessarily displace all conceptions of ecology. In short, that’s the basic logic at play, in practice. If you want a ‘world’ to live in, it doesn’t really matter whether you ‘believe’ in it or not, but you do have to look after it, not just incessantly take it, and use it. In practice, particularly in the USA, there is only the transaction of simplistic, blocked-beliefs, not of thoughts or thinking. It is a narcissistic economy of blocked credibilities, with no perspective on itself, though it hallucinates many in its hysterias of self-consuming. It’s so simple to see, the avaricious, Occidental android fever, of commodity. Its rhetoric of polity, a logorrhoea of absolute convenience.


    Seth Largo Reply:

    The very techniques of modernity, exploited to generate European prosperity, necessarily displace all conceptions of responsibility.

    No, we daily weigh the pros and cons and decide that Netflix, porn, cars, planes, AC, and antibiotics are far superior to whatever communal comforts the hunter-gatherers had.

    Ideologies of dominion economy, necessarily displace all conceptions of ecology.

    That everything on the planet is just six degrees of separation is a mathematical quirk, and it boggles my mind why anyone would make said quirk the basis of their moral passions. A friend of mine was very badly injured during a hurricane many years ago; no one in his family would dream of blaming butterflies in Tokyo.

    It’s so simple to see, the avaricious, Occidental android fever, of commodity.

    But more like jungle fever than malaria. Everyone wants what Europe got.


    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    @Seth Largo

    It’s not going to work, too simplistic and naive.
    Americans often tend to hallucinate moral arguments that haven’t been made.
    The argument was, ostensibly, one of ecological responsibility; but a lot of other things were hinted at.

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:


    My comments above, was not a response to yours.
    You’re right, of course, I’ve made the same point myself on this blog, before.
    I would say, that it’s not really surprising, though.


    Alrenous Reply:

    A: it happens.
    B: sarcasm

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    A: It’s happened twice, to what were supposed to be independent comments.

    B: OK, didn’t register it.

    Malgo Reply:

    Yeah yeah, primitive muds wuz kangz n sheet until whitey came.


    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    Like flies to honey, I guess. But then they turned into All-Trite maggots like “malgo”, desperately clinging on to their self-serving lies.
    Here is an old comment for you.

    “The rhetoric of European racism is far more profuse with neologistic invective than any language that demeans Europeans. Although its practice may be most pronounced amongst the lower classes; being the uncomprehending losers to the ruling orders of their own race increases their virulence against other, previously subjugated races; its presuppositions are not entirely absent from higher level discourses.”

    collen ryan Reply:

    Why cant I stop thinking of you Art it must be that Aryan masculinity


    admin Reply:

    (Hence the square quotes.)


    Abelard Lindsey Reply:

    Actually its not. Read “Mein Kampf”. Nazism was a combination of both left as well as non-libertarian right. Much of “Main Kampf” come across as quite reasonable, much like modren-day social democrats with a bit of traditionalism/crunchy con thrown in.


    Alrenous Reply:

    “It’s not sewage, it’s a combination of wine and sewage.”


    Abelard Lindsey Reply:

    You should read his second book. Hitler did write a second book, around 1928, that was not published until recently. He gets into far more detail on his social/economic policies than in “Mein Kampf”.

    The basic flaw of Nazism (and why it ultimately led to Germany’s destruction) was that it was at heart a malthusian world-view (e.g. a 1920’s version of “limits to growth” ideology). The problem with Malthusian world-views is that they are inherently zero-sum. Thus for my tribe to expand and prosper, your tribe has to go away. Hence the mad wars of conquest that ultimately led to Germany’s destruction (which is still on-going, BTW).

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Yeah, Hitler and alike totally over-reacted. Ruined their own prospects.

    Malcer Reply:

    >The basic flaw of Nazism (and why it ultimately led to Germany’s destruction) was that it was at heart a malthusian world-view (e.g. a 1920’s version of “limits to growth” ideology). The problem with Malthusian world-views is that they are inherently zero-sum. Thus for my tribe to expand and prosper, your tribe has to go away. Hence the mad wars of conquest that ultimately led to Germany’s destruction (which is still on-going, BTW).

    The modern Left is more or less Malthusian in its narratives. Whether it’s “privilege theory” talk or even trying to force diversity in vidya, the modern Left ultimately operates under the notion of seriously limited space with the space in question being reserved for victim groups.

    Malcer Reply:

    >Yeah, Hitler and alike totally over-reacted. Ruined their own prospects.

    They also made the mistakes of not only allying with the Japanese, but also not cutting ties with them once conflict with the United States was pursued.

    Posted on July 9th, 2017 at 12:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    “a letter from Franco ‘Bifo’ Berardi that works like a punch-in-the-stomach type of wake-up call addressed to all Europeans”

    Punch in the stomach? Wake up call? Berardi’s letter repeats verbatim the same points that I’ve in my short life heard repeated hundreds of times – and I actively avoid hearing these points!

    “Words can be repeated or imitated; the thoughts conveyed by the words cannot: an ‘imitated’ thought is not a thought.”

    Eventually, hopefully, people will yearn to think and to hear thoughts.


    Posted on July 9th, 2017 at 2:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Orthodox Says:

    He doesn’t like the soul of Europe. He wants to exterminate it. Communists have been trying to do that for nearly 150 years.


    Posted on July 9th, 2017 at 3:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mathias Says:

    Yes, Bifo, you’ve described my dark Euro-Nazi soul, obsessed with extermination, and committing daily crimes

    I remember that old man, the Muslim, I don’t remember why we stopped near the building, maybe because there was a corpse on the threshold, so I emptied an entire cartridge clip in the old man’s head and chest, machine-gunned him from quite close up and his dog too

    I have a guilty passion for decapitation, and like to slit the darkie’s throat with a bayonet, that’s one of my weaknesses, not to say my hobby

    As a Legionaire I gathered pretty wicker baskets garnished with decapitated Berber heads, and while serving in Algeria, I used to stave off colonial boredom by decapitating Arabs like artichokes

    I have several of Henryk Ross’s photos of the Łódź ghetto in my kitchen, and every morning over coffee am delighted once again by a crate full of jew heads next to another larger one where the headless jew bodies are piled up

    I remember that African I hanged one day who had stayed up too long in the tree and ended up being decapitated from his body and fell and his head rolled between the cars provoking an accident which caused one more death

    I learned to handle knives by practicing on lambs or sheep

    My favorite part of history is the Ottoman siege when Jean de Valette shot Turkish heads out of his cannons like cannonballs, to frighten the enemy

    And of course my favorite painter is Caravaggio with his head of Goliath David’s fist closed in the bloody hair or in the so-refined Palazzo Barberini Judith with her sword in Holofernes’s throat, where the blood gushes so nicely


    Posted on July 9th, 2017 at 4:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • Seth Largo Says:

    Struggle sessions are great fun to listen in on.


    Posted on July 9th, 2017 at 5:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • Claire Colebrook Says:

    Rothsteinberg here

    Franco ‘Bifo’ Berardi: “Nazism is the only political form that corresponds to the soul of the European people”

    Truer words were never spoken

    my grandmother Eva was raped repeatedly by Nazi guards in Poland

    60 times a night for over 60 days and then skinned alive and made into a lampshade for the chief rapist and his Nazi family


    collen ryan Reply:

    I saw the lampshades on netflix last night, That was your grandmother? Wow Captain John Ford made the film for the US army it has the skins of the jews with tatoos on the table with the lamps, and the gas chamber showers. And they made the villagers come see it all laid out on a table and tour the camp. The villagers seemed amused. Now they say none of thats actually true, it really happened but just in the camps the russians never let anyone see. But that would mean the US army had John fucking Ford fabricate a complete lie, if thats true maybe other things are true,Can you get some DNA I want to test these lampshades they say are turned into goatskin. The best holocaust deniers are now all jews.


    Posted on July 9th, 2017 at 7:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    “Most political writing is naive, though. Necessarily so, because of the limitations of what I have called, back in the last century, l.c.d. (lowest common denominator) thought.”

    Yes–wait a second, are you an elitist? Is Mike farther left than you? Anyway, your thought can be applied to as well as to your own post, Artxell. The first first: Moldbug and Land following him, like virtually all post-war political theorists of the right (who we’ve ever *heard* of – well we’ve heard of Charles Manson, haven’t we?), have to deliberately disassociate themselves from the forked-tongued demon regime known as NotSeeism in order to not cause a spasmodic recoil in their audience whose oligarchically-bestowed pre-theoretical “understanding” of “rightism” is merged in essence with *contemptuous face of Hitler in war hat gif with dark cloud filter, eyes blackening, fluctuating with b&w starved-corpse-pile.jpegs*.

    Was it Land himself who said Nazism is the worst “brand” in history? Pre-alt-right, it was thought to be necessary to package rightism in a box with a big red stamp on it reading “The road to the New State is long, long, LONG, and we have barely started down it. But we know one thing: the New State will be a Jew State. Or at least, it will be chock-full of Jews” but apparently the Zeitgeist pivots unexpectedly (and/or takes hits from the Outside) and now a burgeoning cornucopia of gutter scum like myself is enacting the deed of cyber-speech on behalf of the dismantling of post-war mythology.

    Naturally, the occidental will to truth turned out to be insubordinate and elusive like its fathers Achilles and Odysseus, not to mention Socrates. Platonism for the mob endured nearly two millennia. Our post-war mythologists-of-the-grand-style should have been able to predict this wave of malcontent – Hindu mystics prophesied thousands and millions of years in advance after all and they didn’t even have “Sociology”, eh, Art? But imagine ‘they’ did predict it, that their worm burrowed too into the brain of Moldbug that most shameless shamer of shams, and as a true patriot he sought to preemptively stymie a demotic reaction of the white male scapegoat caste against the American dream-logic of freedom and equality ever unfolding toward universality (by 2060 it’ll be the law to like Jains gently sweep bugs out of one’s black female slavemaster’s path) and sublimate it into the more temperate (democratic) hyper-corporatic “Have It Your Way” nomadism of patchwork and exit, and more accurately, the utopia-in-speech of patchwork and exit.
    ♪ Imagine all the patches
    living life in peace.
    You may say I’m a last man
    but I’m not the only one ♪
    The formula is: define leftism as chaos then define Hitler as leftism, thereby salvaging rightism from its perhaps rightful taint. I was going to go into the second point about your post Art but this is already long enough. Suffice it to say you are at a level of least common denominator lower than the people of the least common denominator I have (politically) written most of the above for so I don’t expect you to understand it. Many of us have already absorbed ad nauseaum your critiques and have overcome them. It is now our task to overcome our newest freedom-restriction known as N-wordx (NRx heh). In order to join us in this phase of consciousness you must continue unwinding your ironically deep xenophobia and ire against civilization itself. Get it out of your system even if it means blowing a gasket, otherwise you will reincarnate into yourself again.


    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    Big W, just read your comment quickly, in the e-mail client. Enjoyed it immensely, was smiling, lol! You know, Big W, I could do a facile refutation of the ‘level lower than the lowest l.c.d. level, so far’, by making Heideggerian noises about a level so radical, so rooted, so near to and yet so far from, social l.c.d. universality, that my critiques, which you claim to overcome, are transformed into emanations of the most profound transcendence. A transcendence beyond any ontological, epistemological, scientific, or aesthetic distribution; etc., lol!
    But I’m not gonna do that! Perhaps that’s what you mean, anyway, with the “against civilization itself” point? There, of course, a route of possible agreement could obtain. Not as a revelation of hate, in the face of impositions of compulsory civility. But rather, in questioning the notion of civilisation as an ‘itself’; as identity or object. Civilisations arise through living; it is important not to forget that in favour of some blocked-idea. Not that idealisation is a bad thing. I could say a lot more, expanding on these somewhat trite clichés. But there’s no need.
    It’s a choice, really. How to conceptualise civility, the civil.

    Couple of classic SF stories on this.

    Robert Silverberg, “House Of Bones”

    “The Man Who Came Early” Poul William Anderson (Eriksson, but not Eiriksson, makes an appearance in this)


    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Pre-theorectical is a good word. So is object a or surplus enjoyment.

    Will to Truth is not insubordinate. It remains in it’s original ordinal position as Data, topological/spatial visualizations of a pure informational abstract space, itself a proper, metaphysical outer-boundary.

    Re-presentations of the ‘socius’ is precisely what is in-subordinate and what does not attain the dignity of a scientific object.

    If I were to descend to the most unsprightly generalities, I would say every man fancies himself a Neo and not a slumbering pod.


    Wagner Reply:

    Don’t be insubordinate now, Rohme. We’re all Greekbot2017s set to upgrade to Greekbot2018s. Socrates is Achilles in agon with himself. We have picked up the virus, we are Socrates in dialectic with himself.


    Wagner Reply:

    To synthesize, Rohme, consider the Socratic dimension (or causal inheritance who knows) of Jesus Christ. He was subordinate to God but insubordinate to the world. In a similar way, Achilles was subordinate to his instinct (however primitively kleos- or thymus-driven it was) but insubordinate to King Menelaus. The Iliad isn’t just earthy immanentism though, it constantly flashes to scenes of the lives of the gods in the heavens. So Achilles’ instinct is rooted in this theology, he seeks to be Zeus-like, he is subordinate to Zeus in a different way than Christians or Muslims are subordinate: Zeus killed his father, his superior; Achilles mimics Zeus in disobeying Menelaus; Socrates mimics Achilles in disobeying Homer; and here we are today still trying to “accelerate” this tradition.

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    I get what you mean Wagner. It is a lucid construction.

    Socrates’ dialogism can be best summed as anti-sophistical technology.

    What is language but algorithms, essentially task-driven and goal directed, some clusters of it less effective than others?

    To tie in what Erik wrote to you about Nietzsche and Lacan; Nietzsche first uncovers language as affective or symptomatological; Lacan’s later system describes how symptoms emerge.

    The will to truth exists contemporaneously as the conversion of social activity into fields of knowledge via statistical modeling.

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Every time I watch an advertisement for Grammarly, I want to throw up.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:


    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Thank you Erik!

    A philanthropic gesture!

    Wagner Reply:

    Rohme your understanding of the will to truth can also correct my metaphor of Odysseus. I knew I made the mistake right after I pressed submit comment: Odysseus is elusive but not in the wider context, for he ultimately–if belatedly–returns home to Penelope and Telemachus. He is not “elusive” when it comes to his family and kingdom. He eludes Circe, Scylla and Charybdis, the cyclops, etc. but this elusiveness is part of the telos of his returning-home. How many years is our will to truth going to spend bangin’ Calypso? (Calypso etymologically “I hide”: “she who conceals”.)


    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Calyspo.. hilarious!

    My understanding comes from Foucault.

    History is the poor man’s information, essentially post-dictive, retroactively clairvoyant.

    It might have been useful to imagine oneself as an actor within a historical drama, but it is more useful to map the progress of discrete temporal processes and intelligently make predictions based upon simulations of futurity.

    It’s not just the stock market or designer babies. It is (has always been??) the very formal delineation of power.

    Like castle architecture, emergent, open towards time and towards necessary modifications, power is the (sedimentation?) of ways of seeing. It’s optical asymmetry. It is not trickery, because the tricked trick themselves. Concealment is volitional.

    Phenakistoscopes for us and data science for our rulers!

    Whence cometh your understanding?

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Impressive self-overcoming, D. Wagner.


    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    This was posted a few days ago, but it didn’t go through, for whatever reason.

    Big W, just read your comment quickly, in the e-mail client. Enjoyed it immensely, was smiling, lol! You know, Big W, I could do a facile refutation of the ‘level lower than the lowest l.c.d. level, so far’, by making Heideggerian noises about a level so radical, so rooted, so near to and yet so far from, social l.c.d. universality, that my critiques, which you claim to overcome, are transformed into emanations of the most profound transcendence. A transcendence beyond any ontological, epistemological, scientific, or aesthetic distribution; etc., lol!
    But I’m not gonna do that! Perhaps that’s what you mean, anyway, with the “against civilization itself” point? There, of course, a route of possible agreement could obtain. Not as a revelation of hate, in the face of impositions of compulsory civility. But rather, in questioning the notion of civilisation as an ‘itself’; as identity or object. Civilisations arise through living; it is important not to forget that in favour of some blocked-idea. Not that idealisation is a bad thing. I could say a lot more, expanding on these somewhat trite clichés. But there’s no need.
    It’s a choice, really. How to conceptualise civility, the civil.

    Couple of classic SF stories on this.

    Robert Silverberg, “House Of Bones”
    “The Man Who Came Early” Poul William Anderson (Eriksson, but not Eiriksson, makes an appearance in this)


    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    The links are causing the problem.

    So, remove the spaces between ‘ht’ and ‘tp’, to produce ‘http’, fixing the broken links.

    Robert Silverberg, “House Of Bones”

    ht tps://

    “The Man Who Came Early” Poul William Anderson (Eriksson, but not Eiriksson, makes an appearance in this)

    ht tp://


    Posted on July 9th, 2017 at 7:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    FILED UNDER :Lunatics 

    TAGGED WITH :Europe , Immigration , Insanity , Leftism

    Kind of a spoiler.


    Posted on July 9th, 2017 at 8:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    Someone tries to thwart the larp. He will ultimately fail, dumbass.


    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    Forget that nonsense, G. Eiríksson, I’ve posted links to two SF stories above. One is set in Iceland.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    I don’t read much fiction at all. Just a few in my whole life. Just « Neuromancer » at ~24 a couple of years before I discovered Land, « Jurassic Park » when I was a kid, a few Lovecraft when I was ~19. Not much else. I wanna read « American Gods » though, especially since I lost my friend’s copy in Berlin. « L’etranger » I did enjoy, and « Catcher in the Rye ».
    Comics, only mentionable mostly are « 300 », « Preacher » & « The Invisibles ». Oh and « Watchmen ». And Jodorowski’s shit! « The Metabarons ».

    Anyway, incidentally:


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    ▬» Laird Barron is a name that has inspired some controversy around these parts mostly for three reasons:
    1) Barron is one of the most talented and skilled living writers of weird fiction.
    2) Barron wrote a satirical meta-fictional story entitled “More Dark,” published in 2012, which features a fictionalized version of Ligotti (Tom L) cast in an ambivalent light.
    3) Barron posted a 2013 blog entry, “Lord of Darkness,” in which he simultaneously extols Thomas Ligotti’s fiction and excoriates Ligotti’s nonfiction. »

    Erebus Reply:

    Barron is a hack — a thoroughly trite and boring writer — whose stance on Ligotti’s non-fiction doesn’t amount to much. He merely wrote:

    “[…] From what I understand, Ligotti is also a kind and good man. This said, I am far less enamored of his pessimist/antinatalist philosophy. His indulgences in that arena smack of sophistry. The self-obliterating darkness that works in his fiction becomes appalling in reality, moreso in the context of the sort of cultish veneration that pessimist philosophy and antinatalism enjoy.”

    He said nothing more — offered no further explanation — and, with its thinly-veiled allegory (e.g., the Poe puppet getting tossed into the dumpster — LOL) and its slavishly recycled themes, “More Dark” is completely sophomoric. It doesn’t say anything worth reading.

    In truth, Ligotti is right — as, of course, was Schopenhauer. Life is a senseless delusion; a mistake or a joke. What the storyteller and the philosopher neglect to notice, but what was Nietzsche’s most cutting observation, is that life can be given meaning through the transcendent. Nietzsche’s greatest laments — “Two millennia past and not a single new god!” — were a reaction to spiritual stagnation and decadence.

    Yet a spiritual rebirth is at hand: Technological maximization has, very clearly and obviously, become man’s transcendental mission on Earth. It is a singular and terminal value, through which we shall either become or create gods.

    …In either case, Nature shall be fully overcome. So there’s no pressing need for ecological stewardship a la our friend Arxtell. And no need for despair, either.

    Of course, this implies that there are a lot of lives that are wholly worthless and meaningless. It implies that only Promethean man is of value. To those others, the philosophies of pessimism and antinatalism apply in full.

    Posted on July 10th, 2017 at 12:53 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:


    ▬» In 2006 a Lacanian analyst and professor of philosophy at Buenos Aires contributes a small paper to a collection put together by Slavoj Žižek entitled: Nietzsche, Freud, Lacan.2 A paper in which said analyst-professor Silvia Ons, makes for the reasoned claim that the Lacan-Nietzsche relation remains still at present under-examined: something she finds both “surprising and symptomatic”.3 Surprising because Nietzsche is the philosopher who would be closest to psychoanalysis: a precursor of whom Freud at one point concedes anticipates psychoanalysis in “the many instances”4 . Nietzsche is the philosopher who as Ons puts it once discovers “the symptom in morality”5 : or as I will put it here for further examination, discovers a certain moral idea of the Good to be symptomatic of a ‘life’ lived in too many ways opposed to life; an idea to be promoted as cure for precisely the problems it is many times source of.
    Lacan’s Seminar The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, with its recurring critique of precisely this idea of the moral Good, contains what I take then to be Lacan’s most direct connection with Nietzsche’s main project of exposing the metaphysics underlying the history of Western morality as a Platonism which leads to neurosis and nihilism. Such metaphysics for both Nietzsche and Lacan might only mean now that some error, fiction, illusion or phantasy of the Good in the imaginary has been mistaken as ‘truth’, as ‘real’, when it is really only the symptom of the abeyance of a particular aspect of the truth, or modicum of the real. As a process which is diagnosable as neurosis or a nihilism, what can and will be argued here is its doing us more harm than ‘good’ in the end after bearing its load nigh for two-thousand years or more: ever since Plato in particular introduced its species into the cradle of the West––whereupon we might find that it continues to protract itself derivative forms, right up to this day
    Contextually, the conjunction I am detecting here between Lacan and Nietzsche in their mutual antipathy towards the moral metaphysics of Platonism is no accident––and not only because Nietzsche anticipates much in Freud and Lacan is a kind of Freudian: but also because Lacan in his early twenties reportedly gives Nietzsche an “avid reading” whence breaking away from “his mother’s Catholicism”6 . What’s more, Lacan takes to Nietzsche around about the same time as his close to become acquaintance in Bataille was also attempting something similar: the very Bataille who later not only exerts at least an undercurrent of influence on Lacan, but also helps introduce Nietzsche into a position of prominence in the very intellectual setting that Lacan was to become something of a doyen in.7 Nietzsche was emerging as a key theoretical figure in Lacan’s post-war Paris, soon to be the driving force behind such luminaries as Foucault, Deleuze and Derrida after Heidegger had earlier helped drive him out across the Rhine8 ; whilst Walter Kaufman was also busily erecting Nietzsche as the monument forever tobehold, out further across to the West.9
    What I take to be at stake in my own paper can be expressed thus: Whereas the
    Nietzschean project can seem most prodigious in its affirmation of life, even though it
    has ostensibly dispensed with the ‘comforting’ illusions that the history of Platonic metaphysics
    has given; the project of psychoanalysis on the other hand can seem positive less
    so, but also appears to have gone further in the process of illusion rending with its more
    detailed disclosure of the Freudian Thing at the base of our drives. Thus given such
    findings of psychoanalysis, can we still make an affirmation of life as such within the
    counter-nihilist ethic of the full Nietzschean spirit? Or would we rather, with this Thing
    within which we deny and despise coming back at us in the real, in the form of mounting
    evidence of an ecological catastrophe approaching, be happily resigned instead to
    this deathly end as a welcome respite. Like the Oedipus Lacan presents at the end of his
    Ethics: as the man of knowledge who feels by now, only that he has known too much––and
    whose “last word is, as you know”, Lacan tells us, “that phrase μή φύναι”10… as if not
    to be born were exceedingly best! »


    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    From the Gay Science,

    The astral arrangement in which we live is an exception; this arrangement, and the relatively long durability which is determined by it, has again made possible the exception of exceptions, the formation of organic life. The general character of the world, on the other hand, is to all eternity chaos; not by the absence of necessity, but in the sense of the absence of order, structure, form, beauty, wisdom, and whatever else our aesthetic humanities are called. Judged by our reason, the unlucky casts are far oftenest the rule, the exceptions are not the secret purpose; and the whole musical box repeats eternally its air, which can never be called a melody, and finally the very expression, “unlucky cast” is already an anthropomorphising which involves blame. But how could we presume to blame or praise the universe! Let us be on our guard against ascribing to it heartlessness and unreason, or their opposites; it is neither perfect, nor beautiful, nor noble; nor does it seek to be anything of the kind, it does not at all attempt to imitate man! It is altogether unaffected by our aesthetic and moral judgments! Neither has it any self- preservative instinct, nor instinct at all; it also knows no law. Let us be beware of saying that there are laws in nature. There are only necessities: there is no one who commands, no one who obeys, no one who transgresses. When you know that there is no design, you know also that there is no chance: for it is only where there is a world of design that the word “chance” has a meaning. Let us beware of saying that death is the opposite of life. The living is only a type of what is dead – and a very rare type. Let us be on our guard against thinking that the world eternally creates the new. There are no eternally enduring substances; matter is just another such error as the God of the Eleatics. But when shall we be at an end with our foresight and precaution! When will all these shadows of God cease to obscure us? When shall we have nature entirely undeified! When shall we be permitted to naturalise our selves by means of the pure, newly discovered, newly redeemed nature?

    Very gay indeed.


    collen ryan Reply:

    Very seldom have i found people change their minds based on argument Im a great verbal arguer but i cant type and my writing skills are poor having left school. I would say most people i have convinced were persuaded more by my personality than my argument. I know i can certainly shake peoples stories they tell themselves to support the beiefs they adopted, mostly because theres a certain type of leftist that incorporates lip service to reason in their worldview in fact most important leftists do this, so if you avoid triggering them earlier (which is hard to resist) then you can trap them into confronting the irrational contradictions and effect cognitive dissonance but its temporary. Often you cant even do this because they have an entire library of talking points that are premade to refute any possible assault on leftism. So usually all that happens is they take one of those off the shelf and hurl it at you and you feel compelled to change the topic and refute that bit of leftism rinse repeat. One thing Ill give moldbug credit for is he designed his blog with links and was careful to not trigger too soon and be witty and irreverent in a way that particularly pleases the type he being one himself.

    So why do i do it? I think it started because i came from a family that talked of nothing but religion and politics and it was competitive in the sense you had to win your argument and if your argument was defeated even temporarily you had to recognize that and address the weakness, this seemed to be reinforced later in primary and what secondary schooling i attended taught mostly by jesuits. So i came from a world where ideas mattered and learned to be persuaded. so while I am extremely passionate about my current ideas deep down I know they might have a flaw. Like most humans I kind of think others are like me and it took a long long time to realize they were not, in fact thinking about HBD from a reactionary perspective probably settled it. Ironically as that happened i thought i had found the people who really were open minded in reaction but it seems its really only a moldbug admiration society. Of course im also mentally deranged in my own way and am compulsive so i swear off commenting here only to relapse again.Finally I really actually have always cared very much about how to selve the problems discussed I like people my people especially and lately its semed more important than ever to solve these problems so as irrationally as it sounds on some level i think Im contributing to the salvation of western civilization, my brother the prog often chides me with why would i do this when i cant personally change it why not enjoy my own life the world be damned. One of the things Ive learned in life is everyone is made happy given purpose by different things some family some work some religion art whatever. So of course theres an element of that in the question and answer but fundamentally its a question that makes me want to scream and throttle the inquirer. If selfish bastards like my brother would not shirk their responsibility others would not have to take up the slack, more importantly how the fuck can a man live and call himself a man with an attitude like that. Of course we know longer have the language that defines men anymore if you have a penis you might be a man is all than can be said, there was a time when that was the least of it


    Rohme Reply:

    Yes, there are numbers of rhetorical postures people use to cloak their specious arguments. But without allowing for some, one cannot enjoy a decent conversation or an indecent one.

    I certainly do not agree with many opinions expressed here but I have come to understand them and, more so, been provoked to want to understand them further.

    When one is asked, “Why do you love me?”, the reply is always, “Because I love you.” The zero-level for justification is always tautology, which rests it’s own self-evidential-ness.

    Beliefs are meant to be shaken, being beams of shoddy scaffolding. But the recalibration of knowledge from the debris of moribund belief only goes towards its toppling another unsupported edifice of belief. Never standing for itself. Such is the nature of theory and hypotheses.

    For you, acceleration is a ruler to measure group failure, no?

    Maybe I myself am full of shit. But this is something I am perfectly willing to accept.

    Tell me what you think of this paragraph.

    “Laruelle’s term ‘philo-fiction’ may be understood as referring primarily to the ‘fictionalist’ school of mathematics, where the warring ontological commitments of traditional debates are eliminated by taking up a stance of hypothetical ‘acceptance’ with regard to the implications of the various objects they propose. In a similarly modest spirit of acceptance, the non-standard approach is content to allow all knowledges equal validity or partial models of the real that determines them in the last instance. Every philosophy, once its intricate and dense meshwork of decision is combed through by the unilateralizing force of generic thought, tells us something about how the Individual fares in its inevitable struggle with the Authorities of the world—a one-sided struggle that non-philosophy refuses to make into a confrontation, all the better to issue an ‘ultimatum’ from its position of eternal weakness—from the uni-verse that is the human’s true habitat—to the philosophy-world, its doublets and its subjects.”

    Wagner Reply:

    “In a similarly modest spirit of acceptance, the non-standard approach is content to allow all knowledges equal validity”

    except the knowledge of Hierarchy. Call this non-non-philosophy, or better yet, philosophy.

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    You punctilious pouncer, Wagner.

    Hierarchy is the order of the angels. It is the finality of rank. The completion of top and low.

    What takes up the grey matter in our heads is not ‘sacral knowledge’ but series of ingrained, propositional attitudes towards some object or other.

    If you’re saying epistemology is higher than knowledge, then I am all for it.

    collen ryan Reply:

    As far as this eighth grade graduate can tell Its a pretty pretentious way of saying they have an effective way of understanding and critiquing a position is from the inside I agree, i have always found this technique useful for several reasons, it keeps one honest, it respects the position constructive to inquiry and it mysteriously seems to actually offer a view from another angle. It also implies running the system through a virtual reality, this too is something I like to do,I build things real things Im skeptical of ideas that cant be tested in the real world,I like ideas they might be the best part of building something for me is first building it in my head but that process is imagining it in minute detail in the world.vague idea dont hold my interest long, as a builder i need to see it down to the last bolt to know it is a real possibility, this is the problem I have with moldbugs acolytes its all too vague. That last bit is pretty opaque never understood the need to write like this, I think its saying what I just did that philosphy may hit a reality wall and that the reality can only be from a human perpective subjective. But I doubt a philosopher would admit that so its probably saying the opposite.
    I lost my enthusiasm for philosophy a long time ago so never invested much time in learning it.So obviously cant say anything intelligent unless i get lucky.Des[pite always being attracted to ideas, i decided much of it was utter rubbish and a huge investment to determine that definitivly which i wasnt willing to make trusting my instincts., oh its interesting as a history of ideas, and I have been turned on to choice bits i appreciated, nietzsche i thnk i agree with, but your average 14 year old is wiser than descartes now. and as you get into he more recent stuff its lt might as well be theology its so untethered to the world, I think when it decoupled from science its lost its way we dont yet know the physical reality of the world but are trying to decide how to engage it talk about putting deartes before de horses.But as i said Im a steamfitter whose only last grade actually passed for eight.


    Claire Colebrook Reply:

    As a steamfitter, you must come into contact with lots of jews, struggling beside their beloved gentile brothers and compatriots to perform an honest day’s labor, while other jews eke out a bare existence, working the night shift in Taco Bell kitchen, longshoremen, Alaska crab fishermen, night watchmen, long haul truckers, auto mechanics, plumbers …

    I noticed nepotism long ago, how all the janitorial and housekeeping staff in all the hotels are Latinos, Mexicans, Nicaraguans, Cubans, never any Jews, because of course, all the supervisors are Latinos and I suspect the hotel owners too, I doubt that a single Jew owns a single hotel in America, because Latino nepotism has shut the door on ((them))) so they are pushed into the Supreme Court, Fed Chairman, or Wall Street banks designing multi-billion dollar credit default swaps or complex derivatives linked to residential mortgages or similar degrading jobs

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:


    I assure you that saying an argument succeeds on the basis of a tautology is not rigamarole!

    Watch this neat video where Boolean logic gives this thought countenance:

    Don’t feign humility with me, you didn’t graduate high school but you made a hydroelectric system that you designed and built yourself? You just read about it? Practical know-how? That’s pretty badass.

    Claire Colebrook Reply:


    I haven’t seen The Turin Horse yet, however I’m planning to, as I’m intrigued by Béla Tarr’s introductory words at the beginning of his film:

    “In Turin on 3rd January, 1889, Friedrich Nietzsche steps out of the doorway of number six, Via Carlo Alberto. Not far from him, the driver of a hansom cab is having trouble with a stubborn horse. Despite all his urging, the horse refuses to move, whereupon the driver loses his patience and takes his whip to it. Nietzsche comes up to the throng and puts an end to the brutal scene, throwing his arms around the horse’s neck, sobbing. His landlord takes him home, he lies motionless and silent for two days on a divan until he mutters the obligatory last words, ‘Mutter, ich bin dumm!’ [‘Mother, I am stupid!’] and lives for another ten years, silent and demented, cared for by his mother and sisters. We do not know what happened to the horse.”

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    From Twilight of the Idols,

    Everywhere reason sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of “thing.” Everywhere “being” is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a capacity. Today we know that it is only a word.

    Nietzsche’s giving me a hard-on.

    What a shame a little horsey unmanned him.


    Claire Colebrook Reply:

    A torinói ló (The Turin Horse) by Béla Tarr

    Gypsy scene, 56 sec

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    I haven’t seen this but reading about it makes me want to watch it.

    Have you seen it? Can’t Tarr movies be a bit of a snooze-fest?

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    More Lacan copulating with Nietzsche,

    “The impossible object, which the discourse of logic summons as the not-identical with itself and then rejects as the pure negative, which it summons and rejects in order to constitute itself as that which it is, which it summons and rejects wanting to know nothing of it, we name this object, in so far as it functions as the excess which operates in the series of numbers, the subject.” – Jacques-Alain Miller

    Wagner Reply:

    Nietzsche was like a child holding a kite in a storm. He wanted it to go as high as it could go so he let it go. He didn’t care that it would eventually crash down. Thomas Mann’s analogy is apt:

    “Like the Alpinist who climbs too high among the glacial peaks until he reaches the point of no return where he can move neither forward nor backward, Nietzsche overreached himself.”

    But I imagine it more as Nietzsche with his long legs stepping from mountain peak to mountain peak and shrinking in between strides one time and falling into the center between two mountains.

    Wagner Reply:

    I imagine Nietzsche’s madness as resembling the sound of a record after the music ends, when the needle keeps going and produces an ululating white noise. Like the end of a record, Nietzsche’s madness, as I see it, does not undercut the sense of what proceeds it, anymore than such white noise annuls the earlier music. This is one of the reveries of Nietzsche that conditions my reading…

    Kathleen Marie Higgins, Comic Relief: Nietzsche’s Gay Science

    Blake tells us in a proverb that had others not gone mad, we should be so. Madness cannot be cast out from the human generality, for its completion requires the madman. Nietzsche’s going mad–in our stead–thus rendered that generality possible; and those who had previously lost their reason had not done it as brilliantly.

    Georges Bataille, “Nietzsche’s Madness”

    “Who was it? What was it?”–the feeling of dismay, of profound affront and injury; the suspicion that such a death might involve a refutation of their cause; the terrible question mark “Why this, of all things?”–this state of mind is only too easy to understand. Everything really needed to be necessary, sensible, rational, supremely rational here; the love of a disciple excludes all chance.

    Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist

    collen ryan Reply:

    Yes im not good with computers i had a very early one but they didnt really spark my imagination still dont im underwhelmed, im probably better with them than many my age but almost never having worked inan office not as good as those who have had to rally conquer them I use them to day trade autocad and as a construction foreman i have an ipad, i have made arduino gadgets to get my heating system to do some things> Im from the generation i suppose the tail end of it that built tree houses and crystal radios and copyscopes. we had erector sets and electric trains If i hadnt grown up in the city i would have messed with engines much earlier. I do think these things make one more comfortable with the physical world and more creative and self reliant and all sorts of other things.One other worth mentioning is an apreciation of those men who have made these things their lifes work. I had an odd upbringing in many ways I was raised between worlds or in simultaneous worlds,so i think i have a unique perspective on may of these dualities. I had a eurpean mother and american father, he was a semi famous actor but chose to live in a slum ilate ended up in upper esast side schools as the poor kid while being the rich kid in the lower east side, one day would be having a gang fight another be at a met gala.This also led tome getting to know other races quite well almost as an insider. I ended up drinking my way out of all the schools and into construction my dads family has been engineers and steam fitters for probably since steam was fit. But he went to georgetown and has degrees in international relations and busines but ended up acting and a conservative, anyway you get the picture it seems any way one might define themselves i was split between two extremes. I think this applies to the computer age which seems to define your generation. I see computers like i see other tech like engines its a tool its fun to find novel ways to apply it but it seems to me your generation is volunteering to be hooked up to it like the matrix, its quite bizarre Im sure i sound old but kids today jeez. people my age just cant help noticing you hardly lve in the world at all and dont seem to get whats wrong with this. Its my problem with land hes old enough to know better he was listening to floyde reading orwell and huxly and watching kubrick when i was so I cant imagine what the fuck is he embracing this. Life may have no ultimate purpose but surely you can think of something better than facebook.I know you were raised to value everything and so nothing, to be snowflakes that must conform ideologically, youre tetherless cynical souless. Its one of the reasons I think some fascism might not be such a bad at this point , not only are you all ripe for it it might do some good to reconnect you to the human again.To your cultural inheritance to the land.
    yes my interests lie outside computers i type with two fingers Im interested in all types of art up to about very early abstract and then only as a historical curiousity, im interested in designing and building anything from vehicles buldings almost anything, I like science and markets and girls falconry homesteading yes my art interests lean more artisan than art the nouveau craftsman period particularly i collect books particularly illustrated ones from that era. Im into aviation and experimental plane building, i watched the moon landing as a kid and have been sold since but to big to be a fighter pilot.Im more impressed with cody wilson than nick land.I have always been interested in social science politics economics and by my late teens was what could fairly be called a reactionary so Im a contrarian as you probably noticed.I like the real estate business and think it might be an AI robotic proof career for the young.Sort of a medievalist and renaisance fan. I like humans I find them facinating and interesting even the nigger races, if it were not for the existential threat of jew led nigger invasion Id still be quite tolerant but now I see its a hopeless dream only white naivete contenances. Ths doesnt make me as happpy and blood thirsty as I often sound but I am a street kid covered in scars and when a thing needs doing i say lets do it with heart. And as much as I have always appreciated other cultures I would never have been in favor of more than 10% concentrated in cities and without much rights which was pretty much NYC growing up in the 60s. But it seems that was too much even because here we are. As much as Im convinced the jews are our mortal enemies I regret that I like them many are friends.I have many acres in the rocky mountains I didnt really decide to homestead as a SHTF thing but as I was leaving NYC in 92 the rodney king riots spread to NY and when i got to idaho a couple weeks later Janet renos thugs were murdering the weavers ten miles from property, my reactionary libertarian side took notice that as moldbug and Dylan signed off with theres something going on here mr jones.
    Computers are great i wish i owned a couple super hacker kids to do some shit for me but if youre not at that level i say go enjoy life dont think you have 100 or 85 years think like you have 55 years of life, because your body and mind starts to go you never think it will be you but lifes short. I have had a way more interestinglife than most people i know and I stll regret every moment wasted and Im not nearly done but done enough to know i wont live forever.

    collen ryan Reply:

    The humility is not feigned well not completely, i know my IQ is 130 not having attended university but a few weeks here and there I was once impressed with my inteligence over the year i realize its a dime a dozen, but since i socialize more often with cognitive equals I am of course sort of insecure about education, on other hand i notice im usually better read and that friends with much higher IQs readily agree when the collapse comes they will more likely be my serfs than I theirs, I think theres something about the practical utility of IQ above a certain level or maybe its how people with that IQ are treated ( i sometimes am greatful my alcoholism made university impossible) but they are kind of helpless outside their fishbowl.But the other thing is I stopped thinking being self educated is actually an equivalent, its pretty difficult to be an autodidact, sure we know of genius who can and certainly i think if i set myself to it i could do anything but it takes much longer than having someone quickly explain things.So it forces you to choose a narrower band of knowledge, so while i may have read more than the average college grad I probably got less out of the books we read in common and deconstructivist writing is translucent to me though when i spend the time toparse it i always conclude i could have phrased it more clearly in plain english thus i do think its pretentious.I have figured out some things that are pretty clever while alternative energy systems really fascinate me they are not really so difficult Im building an airplane and using a corvair engine again less difficult than it might sound but i dont think rocket science is likely to be so difficult i imagine it is much like when I help buld say a hospital in new york city probably as complex as a rocket but I know after thirty years doing it i can do and design properly every part of the skyscraper or at least know where to find the information for each part because when i design and build my own small building i use these state of art techniques, what i find is brilliant about intelligence is not these big things its really about the flash that makes two of the smallest parts of one of these huge puzzles work better a modification a repurpose a reconfiguration etc. This is why I harp on so about the importance of the very fine details of a civilization anyone can imagine the big picture , whether the bolts keep vibrating out or the engine cooling works under all conditions,is the real test. engineers not architects. Yes I have built all sorts of things and yes i just read and often will find experts and interogate them i find five experts will often disagree about best practice but you can usually find if there is a best best or if that answer is situational, i find almost anything can be broken into smaller tasks any smartass can do well at least i can and i know im not a genius.I think we are in a real crises that people dont tinker anymore this is what makes whites and america particularly great i champion white proles because i work with them and when in idaho live among them and find several things onethey are not as sorted as you guys imagine there are plenty of cogelite proles, also they get of work and build things this kid in idaho I know just invented something called a timber sled and its all the rage, im designing a hydrogen electrolyzer to pair with my hydro electric, i know many experimental aircraft builders, This sort of vision dies when everyone is some smaug hipster coder thinking they are the cleverest monkey for it. We need a diverse white culture .


    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    I’m in my twenties so I come from a less handicraft era. Unfortunately, I’ve come to rely on technology I only vaguely understand. Am I right to assume your interest lie outside of computers?

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:


    Thank you for sharing. For as radical as your views are, you certainly can be personable.

    As I take it, you are not a Luddite, you just prefer the handcrafted, custom and well-constructed, particularly if you are its maker. You are not advocating for the horse-and-bugey.

    It takes great amount of technical know how and creativity to construct such things as you are impressively able to build.

    But in defense of Land, I think he is describing a future world that is supplanting the world you love and have grown up with, and where society and technology merely belong to the same element within the Cybernetic.

    Personal computing is bread and circus. We are in agreement!

    But the world of data is a different story.. Computer programs that ‘find cures’, for example.

    The vast computational and storage capacities of computer networks have long outperformed the brain, the most complex known chemical constitution in the universe, all while using a binary logic that seems to be hardwired in our processing (although there is also quantum computing, which may be closer to the true nature of brain and not just the most ‘superficial’ aspects of cognition)

    With that being said, I find a lot of plausibility in Land’s forecasts.

    Now with that being said, there are very few things I can think of as wonderful as building your own plane and flying off with it!

    I hope you are very happy and contented with yourself.

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:


    Thank you for these posts. I especially enjoyed the Bataille quote. Also, I had never heard of the word ‘ululating’ before.

    The thing with Nietzsche was his madness was his cure and as such it was incurable. To have then been cured, he would have to become mad again (like the others – dupes)

    I sympathize with him. I find it impossible to live out a nihilist outlook. I find myself falling back into or playing at or having to pretend so I can exist and so I can locate myself in the world, or whatever you want to call it, symbolic universe, world of language, culture, or whatever it is.

    So I sympathize with the deadlock Nietzsche was in.

    We can judge a philosopher by and we can group philosophers together by their concept on beauty.

    If I were to take influence from your previous posts on Odysseus and put the concept of Beauty into a logical matrix, it would look like this..


    Classical Beauty


    Fully Greco-Roman

    The kernel of Logos
    Gnosis – Duality
    The province of the theologians – the ‘problem of Evil’

    Also, the principle of identity, A = A

    Beautiful outer form is the manifest of beautiful inner content

    If we are staying within this logic, the contrapositive must be true. Soooo..


    The Physiognomist POV and the early ‘criminologists’

    The ugly outer appearance is the manifest of an ugly inner nature


    “Shallow beauty”


    The obsession of Hollywood cynicism and prevalent in all present forms of narrative

    A beautiful outside bereft of an inside

    The inside, deprived of itself, non-exists as the alienation of its outer form

    Lacanian barred subjects & Heideggerian they-selves

    and last…


    Beauty IS not beauty, A = non A

    Beauty and the Beast
    Hunchback of Notre Dame

    The inner content, unrepressed by its opposite outer form, dissolves all appearance and, instead, one encounters the ‘essential qualities’ directly

    Hegelian ‘Spirit’, paraconsistent logic, Individuality, the Universal-Particular

    We must chart Nietzsche’s course to madness. Before he fell mad, he fell madly in love.

    Now, if you recall Nietzsche’s dalliances with Salomé, he was struggling with a Badiou-ian LOVE event.

    Upon losing her, Nietzsche had left in him only the will of one more ‘encounter’; that of when he came to identify with a flogged horse.

    The lesson learned: one must not be both a bad lover and a bad Gnostic!

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Nietzsche’s reaction against “Christian” order made him think that there is more chaos than order. Chaos is just a fantasy. Things order themselves. Even as the comments in this thread, even as the blockchain and the bitcoins.


    Wagner Reply:

    Neetch isn’t an innocent bystander in the rise of social constructivist epistemology. That element of his thought should be shunned. He wanted to be Plato but Plato already existed so he did the *opposite* of Plato (yeah sure I’m sure Socrates is the one with ressentiment, Neetch). I think what caused him to lose his mind was the realization of the simple contradiction that if philosophy is poetry then the philosophy that philosophy is poetry is itself poetry. (Poetry meaning an arbitrary creation, or making – “Macht”.) On the other hand, Salome had really bad taste.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Well said. I think he sacrificed his body to Dionysian rapture, to be reborn as me

    “We are Hyperboreans” (beyond Land’s delimitation of it)

    Evola was a Hyperborean too

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:


    I’m not sure if your attempting to dismiss Nietzschean perspectivism by virtue of simply associating it with contemporary feminist epistemologies like standpoint theory and strong objectivity. If so, that’s an incredibly dodgy move, my man.

    Social constructivist epistemology should be shunned for the sake of what, exactly? Are you versed in the myriad nuances of correspondence or coherence theories of knowledge? What leads you to such a hasty conclusion and requisite shunning? And what is there to be saved of Nietzsche once you take away his perspectivism?

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Too many fancy words, Giuliano. Too little substance.

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    I forgot to use the word Hyperborean.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:


    Wagner Reply:

    “attempting to dismiss Nietzschean perspectivism by virtue of simply associating it with contemporary feminist epistemologies”

    You don’t think there are grounds for doing so? Nietzsche in the wrong hands is dangerous, inconducive to the flourishing of life individually and societally. He gives everyone the *feels* that they’re enlightened and the green light to exert their dubious wills to the fullest of their pleasure. (This latter probably sounds like a paradise to Land, libertarianism and communism share the neurotic will-to-freedom-at-all-costs.) Always-already it’s a matter of whether one is physiologically “exactly allergic” to ancient and medieval modes of thought. Aquinas said that by nature men are equal in liberty but not in other endowments. It follows from this that the freedom to express deficient faculties should be constrained. But again, if one has been steeped in poz, in degenerate cartoons in childhood to present-day fake-news and fake-theory, the window for seeing this is boarded up, motherfuckers. We robots can only reprogram ourselves so far. Nietzsche parts the branches to pathways that many people simply should not trod down. Is Nietzsche wrong? Speaking Nietzscheanly, yes; for N it is not a matter of right and wrong, it’s a matter of beauty and ugliness, nobility and baseness: the question for him would be, “Nietzsche’s ghost, if your philosophical experiment turns out to be itself ‘unhealthy’ for ‘life’ should we toss it in the garbage can?” “… Uh, no shit you should toss it in the garbage can.”

    “Social constructivist epistemology should be shunned for the sake of what, exactly?”

    The Antiversity is in the midst of determining the answer to that. All we know for certain is that you guys are wrong. We don’t have a precise idea of what should go in its place but we know that the relativization of so-called social constructs is a communion with chaos. For one, and let’s wax transhumanist (Mike’s wrong to be against this speculation): if we figure out how to grow babies without wombs and without natural sperm, social roles are going to change very drastically. Progs operate on the assumption that that brave new world is already here. If it were it would be a different story, but it is not. The present state of things demands that women are baby-machines first of all. Without that role I have no idea what we could expect from them. We’d definitely need to weed out the ignorant pecking-hens among their ranks for eugenic purposes; but I’ve met a small handful of brilliant women and if we could make their genes universal feminism could be possible. The social construct approach neglects to take this into consideration: that many women (and nigs, white-trash, etc.) are not going to be “saved” by education. We are skin and bones and blood and muscle. Unless you go in there with a scalpel and an IQ- or virtue-chip there i s n o c h a n g i n g t h e m.

    “Are you versed in the myriad nuances of correspondence or coherence theories of knowledge?”

    Epistemology has always been the most boring branch of philosophy to me but if you ask a more specific question I might be able to answer it.

    “And what is there to be saved of Nietzsche once you take away his perspectivism?”

    Good Q but I have to prepare for a hike up a giant mountain tomorrow I’ve failed to get to the top of two times so I’ll answer that in a couple days.

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Erik, did you have some bad fermented shark and the resultant biliousness turned you sclerotic?

    I believed my reply to have substance and Wagner’s quality reply has affirmed this for me against you, has it not?

    I don’t understand, why did you remonstrate me? What was the cause of your complaint?

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:


    You’re rejecting Nietzsche over fear he could be dangerously misconstrued or dangerously construed?

    So what, stoicism; theology; God; metaphysical realism for the idiots?

    If so, the ‘Antiversity’ better re-evaluate its core syllabus.

    It’s funny you find epistemology the most boring. I find axiology, and its avalanche of normativism, the most boring.

    Eager to hear your reply. Enjoy your hike. I’ll be here upon your triumphal return.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Most people understand only sex, money, power. As lame as ‘Return of Kings’ may sound, it’s happening.

    80% of females are procreating only with 20% of males, which means mostly the high testosterone males are having offspring. Is this roughly accurate?

    Which means a return of that cohort of males. Also, darker races increase their percentage daily, as was “prophesied.”

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:


    If they don’t take ‘local stands’, of one sort or another, they lose right wing, neoreactive web-cred. As it is, they’re probably ‘social justice warriors’, as they’re called, anyway, lol!

    Didn’t Nietzsche say: “Only when you have turned against me, will I return to you.”
    So Big W (Wagner), has a precedent there, as do we all.

    I think Mr. Eriksson is entitled to his stylistic moods, there is thinking behind them. He’s made huge, high quality contributions to this blog, mostly without ideological crassness.

    I don’t agree with Collen’s views at all, but he’s not a troll. He ‘wears his heart on his sleeve’, so to speak, and shouldn’t really be banned. I haven’t seen him be personally abusive to anyone else, he says what he thinks. I may not like what he thinks, but is my or anyone else’s dislike a licence to censor his expressions? No, I don’t think so. It would be ironic, perhaps, on a Neoreactive blog protesting against political correctness censorship, were that to happen. It wouldn’t necessarily be contradictory, though, if it expressed our host’s ‘local preference’.
    Collen is like an All-Trite, Hunter S. Thompson, lol. Not that I’ve read any of his, Hunter S. Thompson’s, stuff, but that’s my impression.


    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Mr. Knaphni,

    Thank you for your points. As always, wonderful input.

    As I’ve tried to say in an earlier post, the ‘truth’ is beautiful.

    A single true description of a completely independent reality (foundationalism) IS the classical standard of Beauty – IS aesthetics – and is connected to all the affective registers associated with sublimity.

    Yes. Wagner is not really worried about hyperbolic, heavy-handed morons misinterpreting Nietzsche. He
    is worried about what perspectivism does for representationalism; what its implications are for historiography; how it undermines his own ‘local preferences’.

    I would love to see him argue his way out of it but, alas, he finds epistemology boring.

    “All-Trite, Hunter S. Thompson” LOL. That’s funny. And Julius Evola is the fascist Ron L. Hubbard.

    As regards the censorship, we completely agree. I would add Land should realize the one that needs fumigation is himself and he should self-censor. If he were writing here like he does on Jacobite and regularly interacting with the commenters, it would be a much better forum.

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Mr. Knaphni,

    I would also like to ask that since Land is an eliminative materialist, are we to view his neoreaction as in exercise in pragmatism?

    If so, that’s a completely different orientation from the beliefs many hold that frequent this blog! If they follow his political philosophy but not his ontology, then they follow his political philosophy for other reasons, do they not? So why should he be surprised with disharmony?

    Wagner Reply:

    We decided to postpone the climb to fine-tune our plan; the first time we tried to scale it we had to turn around halfway up and the last quarter of the way down we had to use our phones as flashlights. Ey Mikey, if I tell you the date and time will you fly your plane over the mountain and drop a blackest nigger black baby in a little parachute onto the peak for us for a sacr–…?

    ♫ I am the edgeman,
    they are the edgemen,
    I am Cornwallis,
    joo joo g’JOO ♫

    Anyway, I would prefer not to participate in the emerging right’s low-impulse-control disavowal of NTZSCH–rather I see N as a David with too bushy a mustache so to speak and I try to chisel off the excesses that he could not have avoided, being a finite person in a specific time and place. The no-gods-no-masters buffoons of the “right” ridicule N at their own peril:

    “Truly, Zarathustra is a strong wind to everyone low: and he gives this advice to his foes and to everything that spits and spews: take care not to spit into the wind!”

    The go-to quote shared by Artxell above is nietzschean, all too nietzschean. One must, as Badiou suggests, know how to look Nietzsche in the eye and lose him. One cannot lose him if one nods one’s head at Zarathustra commanding “Lose me!” Only a clean break will avoid the “eternal return” of the follies of the sadistic and lonely Zarathustra. Now, with these disclaimers in mind,

    I was originally recommended to read Land by a Laruellian Marxist – *early* Land, he stressed (lulz even lil Arty can stomach the non-philosophy of gnon-philosophy) – He once asked me the natural question, how is it even possible to be a Nietzschean? It’s been a few years but I think my simple answer is still about right: it is possible to be a Nietzschean *in spirit*. What I find eternally salvageable in N is his AMBITION to revaluate all values hitherto and to split the globe in two–“War (but without powder!)” (He was Rousseauvian in his bloodlust for Grosse Politik). Even if he didn’t succeed at what he sought it is difficult for one not to admire him for *attempting* such a feat (versuch und versuchung, live dangerously, etc.)

    Land once quoted Bataille saying “Perceived under the perspective of action, Nietzsche’s work is an abortion…” N foresaw the telos of Socrates and the subsequent Platonism for the mob (mobS if one counts Islam [’s inflection by the crypto-platonic priestcraft of Al-ghazali]) unraveling into the hegemony of the Last Man, or in the ideolingo of the first among equals of last men, Kojeve, “the universal homogeneous state”:

    “In order to be “satisfied” by their authentic “recognition,” [statesmen like Napoleon] will tend to “liberate” the slaves, to “emancipate” women, to reduce the authority of families over their children by making the latter “adults” as rapidly as possible, by diminishing the number of criminals and of the “disequilibrated” of all sorts, by raising to the maximum the “cultural” level (which obviously depends on the economic level) of all social classes.” – Alexandre Kojève, “Tyranny and Wisdom” – (I can imagine Rohme and Artxell meeting each other’s gaze with passionate longing at the sound of this ideal LOOL you guys gonna kiss?)

    “Not flinching from (((Strauss’))) description of the final state [full communism] as the state of Nietzsche’s “last man,” (((Kojève))) went on to describe its philosophers as administrators who educated the post-historical “Automatons.” He was not here celebrating the joys of the Endstate, or “the realm of freedom;” instead, he was describing a process he saw being actualized in history. And he saw no way out.” – Michael Roth, “Natural Right and the End of History”

    Proto-poststructuralist Kojeve’s prophecy doesn’t necessarily NOT conflict with Nietzsche’s ‘physio-psychological premonitions” (read Klossowski on Nietzschean theo-aristocracism if you’re interested in knowing more about this – I’m a bit reticent myself to not beat around the bush on this topic specifically but maybe if you bought me a few drinks). The slapstick deconstructionists can stand Nietzsche on his head ad infinitum and I admit not without a certain freespirited grace on occasion but it is deeply suspicious how little they stand the standing of him on his head on its head. N’s pessimistic expectance that his (pre-2000 AD) readers would absolutely mangle his teaching, his core teaching, was right on: WHERE HE HIMSELF STANDS is in the camp of antiquarian CASTE-MINDEDNESS. For N, the Great Chain of Being is *not* a ladder, is not a social construct to be kicked down, it is a permanent, immanently metaphysical reality. The only thing that prevents readers of Thus Spoke Zarathustra from recognizing the genocidal misanthropy allegorically hinted at in the satyr-play that is Book Four is the plucked-eyed Christian warmth (Pussies ahoy!) they’ve inherited from centuries of liblical, I mean biblical-programming (again, this is what N expected…)

    It was, ironically, a man by the name of Dionysius who coined the word “hierarchy” – it is derived from the celestial hierarchy of the Angels. Nietzsche, if one watches closely, subtly appeals to a “Higher Order” in various places; in the following for instance he comes close to postulating/presupposing a ding-an-sich:

    “lofty spirituality is precisely the spiritualising of justice, and the beneficent severity which knows that it is authorized to maintain GRADATIONS OF RANK in the world, even among things – and not only among men.”

    ^ To my mind, this is the fundamental doctrine and ethos of Rightism. Anybody gotta beef wit dat? “Forget Nietschke, find yourself, mannn” – so says the lazy coward that seeks to dress N as well as himself up like frilly little dolls for display behind glass in the Museum of Christendom. Of course you could expect the effete French of all peoples to detonate the dynamite of Dionysian “fluidity” rather than try to ignite the cold, hard, generations-long task of recycling the rubble of the West into new, post-Christian Cathedrals, so geometrically and fractally majestic 60D may show His gratitude for us for the gratitude we’ve shown Him. Certainly now the prog-ids will whisper and prog-superegos will holler “Ni dieu ni maître!” into the prog-egos’ ears. *perking up, inhaling* “”God” being spoken of *nasally sneer* UNIRONICALLY, OMG TFW WTF. Anthropomorphism of the highest being, SMH.” Well, you can quibble about the merits of anthropomorphism if you want but without an *unironical highest being* social-constructionism has no Ground. Tell me, What was It that constructed social-constructionism? (If there is one question I would appreciate a direct answer to from this longpost it is this). Is the Creator/Unmoved-Mover/what-have-you a Social-Construct of His own making? The notion that everything cultural (and seemingly every freakin thing natural too) is a social construct begs the question what social constructs are “constructed” *from*. And I repeat, if social-constructionism is itself a social-construct, you are, to quote the living icon of leveling Neil DeGrass Tyson, talking shit out of your mouth. Plato appealed to Forms to ground his claims; Nietzsche appealed to the will to power to ground the will to power–the relativism of the latter is self-detonating as all trve Dionysianism: the chaos inherent in Dionysus suicides or “bootstraps” itself, that is, the god’s own chaos sets after itself; this is how Dionysus is ‘reborn’ into Apollo. (Notice it’s the Apollo 13 and not the Dionysus 13, ye voidhumpers?)

    So, what is worth saving in Neetch you ask if the doctrine of the will to power steadies its sights on the doctrine of the will to power itself and is prone to fire? This very act is important as a means to an end. I personally expect the soc-construct nietzschoid-left to self-destruct–indeed, as Mariani noted in the Maobot thread, people are already scratching their heads about the “local gods” of Equality and Ressentiment–it’s eery, I’ve recurrently remarked, that the alt-right and NRx ARE this self-destruction itself. We are at the same time King Pentheus and the fanged maenads rending him asunder; we share with french void-worship the active nihilism of the lion – it is the autodeconstruction of our own decadence that is preparing the New Beginning of the child.

    France couldn’t help but see Philosophy through a glass Marxly. After all, most of its best blood was spilt in the name of the fixed ideas of the coming Marx, what can one expect except “peasant cunning” from “philosophical laborers” as N phrased it?

    “One could even suspect that [Foucault] has a hidden agenda of domination lurking under the rhetoric of liberation. […] Edifying hermeneutics is the exoteric doctrine of the will to power, an instrument of the cunning of reason, a stage in the dialectical self-destruction of bourgeois civilization. In political terms, edifying hermeneutics (and perhaps even unedifying hermeneutics) is an expression of middle-class fear of the violent and repressive nature of truth.” – Stanley Rosen, Hermeneutics as Politics

    The Cathedral is a slave-led slave-revolt. For N there are two options. Pre-accelerationist Nietzsche (1879) proposes that:

    “The only remedy against Socialism that still lies in your power is to avoid provoking Socialism—in other words, to live in moderation and contentment, to prevent as far as possible all lavish display, and to aid the State as far as possible in its taxing of all superfluities and luxuries.”

    Whereas in 1888 he says:

    “Whispered to the conservatives. — What was not known formerly, what is known, or might be known, today: a reversion, a return in any sense or degree is simply not possible. We physiologists know that. Yet all priests and moralists have believed the opposite — they wanted to take mankind back, to screw it back, to a former measure of virtue. Morality was always a bed of Procrustes. Even the politicians have aped the preachers of virtue at this point: today too there are still parties whose dream it is that all things might walk backwards like crabs. But no one is free to be a crab. Nothing avails: one must go forward — step by step further into decadence (that is my definition of modern “progress”). One can check this development and thus dam up degeneration, gather it and make it more vehement and sudden: one can do no more.”

    This very long shitpost of mine is a step further into decadence. To flip one’s enemy one must play the enemy’s game:

    “Between every point of a social body, between a man and a woman, between members of a family, between a master and a pupil, between everyone who knows and everyone who does not, there exist relations of power which are not purely and simply a projection of the sovereign’s great power over the individual, they are rather the concrete, changing soil in which the sovereign’s power is grounded, the conditions which make it possible for it to function.” – Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge

    “For “sovereign” can be substituted the polymorphously perverse power relation that is the “Nietzsche” who provided Foucault with the tools to analyze the incorporation of power relations.” – Geoff Waite, Nietzsche’s Corps/e – (you gotta admit this is an elegant takedown, and by a card-carrion marxist no less–whose book I can’t recommend enough.)

    As Erikson noted previously, Evola in the 30s warned that the line between Goy and Jew is not “clean”cut: we have appropriated Jewish calculativeness in our very criticism against said calculativeness. This is a slave-revolt within a slave-revolt. As N said in 1888, we must not forget that we are a reaction WITHIN a reaction. What also is not cleancut is the origin of Jewish calculativeness; for N, “modern ideas” developed in England and were exacerbated in France. I think it’s safe to say that Jews appropriated this goy phenomenon and went above and beyond anyone’s expectations….

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Quite a fucking Tractatus we have here Wagner.

    I will do my best to reply to you as I assume you did your best while descending back down that mountain, granola bar in one hand, iPhone in the other.

    And wouldn’t that be something, if you and Mike turned out to live nearby, maybe even in the same hamlet?

    “I was originally recommended to read Land by a Laruellian Marxist”

    A Laruellean Marxist is an oxymoron. I’m not doubting this person does exist, however.

    “For N, the Great Chain of Being is *not* a ladder, is not a social construct to be kicked down, it is a permanent, immanently metaphysical reality.”

    Skin-graft metaphysics. He’d hate the words: permanent, metaphysical, reality.

    “lofty spirituality is precisely the spiritualising of justice, and the beneficent severity which knows that it is authorized to maintain GRADATIONS OF RANK in the world, even among things – and not only among men.”

    The rank is the rank of value a will wills in the willing-experience of a being. It’s epiphenomenal.

    Power constitutes a procedure of quantifying wills (X many wills with the value P)

    Value is regulative. It creates relations by differentiating the wills through distinct values.

    Power holds a dominant value – which is a mere quantity – but value is primary since it enables the expression of power through qualitatively differing wills.

    Nietzsche was thoroughly naturalist-functionalist. His revaluation of values is a heuristic model to behold.

    “To my mind, this is the fundamental doctrine and ethos of Rightism. Anybody gotta beef wit dat?”

    No. No beef at all. Not even soy protein.

    “Well, you can quibble about the merits of anthropomorphism if you want but without an *unironical highest being* social-constructionism has no Ground. Tell me, What was It that constructed social-constructionism?”


    C.P.R held knowledge as an inner construction.

    We can only conceive what we perceive.

    We cannot perceive objective reality therefore we cannot conceive of objective reality.

    If our concept of truth relies on the extra-perceptual, then our concept of truth is incoherent.

    So truth or falsity rests not on the metaphysical state of any real world that transcends experience but instead on the perceptions or perceptual capacities of humanity – is this controversial??

    Constructivist knowledge does not go beyond itself to posit a metaphysical foundation.

    Constructivism isn’t exclusive to French postmodernist, voidhumping, deconstructionist humanities circles, you have Wittgenstein, Sellars, Quine, Kripke, Putnam, Rorty who are all constructivist.

    It doesn’t mean, “There is no reality apart from the social world.”

    I should keep it short.

    Wagner Reply:

    “A Laruellean Marxist is an oxymoron. I’m not doubting this person does exist, however.”

    Yeah he was shamed off the social media platform I met him on by an orthodox Marxist, and an enemy of my enemy is my friend. Deleuze was right that Laruelle has spotted some interesting shores (I’m going to have to study philosophy for a few more years before I can hope to understand him) but from what I’ve read his subversiveness appears to be subservient to the leftist order. It’s a shame that so many high IQs are squandered on the project of making subhumans humans instead of humans posthumans. I suppose that, as you confessed a while back, euros are predisposed to an uncircumventable GUILT. But my whole thing is that this can be sublimated into guilt felt at the non-existence of the ubermensch. If I were Earth Stalin I would brainwash the masses to feel like filthy sinners for wanting to waste energy and resources on the experiment of spiritualizing the BODY-CASTE of society. (N himself ranks this matter as of superlative importance in The Antichrist – “socialist chandalas! corrupting the instincts of the rabble” – and he’s even edgier in the early and symptomatically forgotten “Greek State”).

    Now to contradict myself in the next breath in the way of my master, the hot brown lady Nandita Biswas Mellamphy (there, I admitted it) has translated fragments of Laruelle’s subversion of Heidegger’s Nietzsche and unfortunately it’s shaping up to be a subversion in the service of shitlibbization. Google it, it’s extremely interesting, it’s just so…. conformist. A right-wing subversion of Heidegger’s Nietzsche is what the world needs, NOT MORE POZ. *********, this subject boils my blood.

    “If our concept of truth relies on the extra-perceptual, then our concept of truth is incoherent.”

    I think you are operating with a dichotomy that N endeavored to do away with. I said “immanently metaphysical” to imply a dialectical composite rather than a misleading polarization toward either otherworldliness or thisworldliness. I’ve tried to get into this with eliminative materialists like Erebus and “cog science” grads but we just talk past each other. I’m just as blind to physis as they are to qualia, probably, but my stance is that this very debate of physics vs. feltness occurs in the arenas of both. The process of *thinking*, specifically in this case the process of thinking about eliminative materialism itself is to a crucial degree feels-based. If the belief that “love conquers all”, e.g, can be reduced to (dismissed as) the firing of synapses why can’t the *philosophy* of eliminative materialism? They just smile at me like I don’t get it???? No, it’s that the death of God is in a stage of maturity such that our ontological faculties have browned and are crumbling into the wind–the garbage-disposal-program-West is losing the ability to intuit truths transcendent of the vulgarisms “immanent to immanentism”. Nietzsche was immoderate in his immanentism – no one can blame him though as he’s just a robotic reaction to the immoderation of supernaturalism, the eminence of anti-immanence.

    Under the covers with the Churchlands:

    Paul: “Love” you ;), sweetie, g’night.
    Patricia: “Love” you too ;), honey bear.

    What a way to live! When they fuck do they scream “dopamine!” instead of “oh my god!”? That would be a sign of a chemical imbalance in my opinion. The reality is that they don’t stop loving, they just love the tenets of their ungrounded theosophy like so many other pre-scientific naked apes of yore.

    R. Scott Bakker has a fantasy series that he claims is an attempt to demonstrate the fantastical nature of continental philosophy. Okay, anyone without an agenda of degeneracy who’s read Judith Butler can wholeheartedly agree with that. But buddy, (wait maybe that’s a poor phrase to employ after mentioning Butler) how the hell can you expect it not to be inferred, *deduced therefrom* that eliminative materialism itself belongs to the genre of fantasy? My impression is that the brain chemicals of eliminative materialists make them apt to forget that Science is only consistent *based on its own premises*. “Science does not think” Heidegger succinctly puts it. Scientific method is eternally undergirded by philosophical chaos, and philosophical chaos is, if not reducible to, complicit with the passional near-irrationalities of the human animal.

    “What was It that constructed social-constructionism?”

    “Kant. C.P.R held knowledge as an inner construction. We can only conceive what we perceive. We cannot perceive objective reality therefore we cannot conceive of objective reality. If our concept of truth relies on the extra-perceptual, then our concept of truth is incoherent. So truth or falsity rests not on the metaphysical state of any real world that transcends experience but instead on the perceptions or perceptual capacities of humanity – is this controversial?? Constructivist knowledge does not go beyond itself to posit a metaphysical foundation.”

    Interesting connection re: Kant but Kant was a racist, yo. He said we should expect browns to be stupid. So how do you square that? lol. Sticking more with philosophical abstractions though, it seems like you’re trying to say that Kant would have agreed with Blank-Slatism? (Funnily, the Cathedral believes that it has Grasped the Noumenon with this theory). Bakker has this sweet essay on alien philosophy wherein he quotes Kant saying that we don’t know if aliens have a different “inner construction” from us and that at present we don’t have an alternative to compare our own inner construction to. I mean, the races are all kind of like aliens to each other, right? Do pygmies have the same inner construction as us? Well then why is it impossible for many of them to learn math? They can perceive space and time but so can meerkats. Kant in a letter to Herder I believe went as far as to denigrate Eastern philosophy (and implicitly I gather, gooks at large) and I heard that he never really deigned to read Eastern texts in any depth (unlike say Leibniz) so I wonder if he just *assumed* that various euros have a certain quote universal unquote inner construction and that those of the panoply of savages are beneath considering? Because if you talk to legitimate scholars of Eastern philosophy from the philosophies’ own country of origin (i.e. not One Love, traveled-to-India stinkhippies) IME they think Westerners and Easterners have very, very different inner constructions. Westerners (baizuos) are squeamish about probing these differences (hierarchical differences anyway–you know, the differences that matter [looking at you Deleuze]) but I’ve met some unashamedly coarse Chinamen who have no reluctance in castigating both Easterners and Westerners. Maybe it was just them but they said some things that would make a high-class elderly woman exclaim “I’m appalled!”

    “He’d hate the words: permanent, metaphysical, reality.”

    He hated those words specifically–well, Nietzsche-scholarship has painted it that way anyway, heh, NB–but that didn’t stop him from substituting them for “timelier” transcendental signifiers. Derrida said he was unable to stabilize the Nietzschean corpus and therefore unable to deconstruct it; step aside Jackie, lemme take a hwack at it: keep an eye out for when N uses the words “nature,” “life,” and “the world” – he uses them like a pastor! What is the world to me? Will to power and nothing besides. If it’s nothing besides the will to power how is one able to speak intelligibly about “the world”? If everything is will to power there is no world. No one stops to wonder about the metaphysical status of the word “life” either, we just use the word mindlessly, same with nature. (Scheerlinck’s essay on BGE is a GR8 resource for this.) Nietsch lampoons the Stoics for projecting themselves into nature then he does the same thing; ergo let’s lampoon him. But as I emphasized in the previous post: “No one invites parody as much as Nietzsche.” (Klossowski) His own understanding of nature and life entails the parodying of “nature” and “life”, so when we think we’re overcoming him we’re just expressing the implications of his philosophy–a tragicomic state of affairs if there ever was one. (Reminds me of a few of us termite trolls’ relation to Xenosystems.)

    Yeah I’ll cut this short too so I don’t piss off the Landlord. I started poasting here cuz I didn’t think many commenters were saying much of anything interesting and dead God knows IRL is unspeakably more dystopic. Where does one find friends that don’t lobotomize one by their presence?

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:


    I will read Klossowski. He’s piqued my interest.

    ——————I think you are operating with a dichotomy that N endeavored to do away with.

    How? It’s realist-fallibilist and completely within the bounds of his perspectivism.

    ——– “The process of *thinking*, specifically in this case the process of thinking about eliminative materialism itself is to a crucial degree feels-based. If the belief that “love conquers all”, e.g, can be reduced to (dismissed as) the firing of synapses why can’t the *philosophy* of eliminative materialism?”—————-

    Fucking spot on.

    Empirical description is STILL description. It is NOT the material in material-ism.

    If you say the ego is an illusion and self-conscious introspections are illusory, then how are these ‘illusions’ true?

    That would make ‘illusion’ the condition for the possibility of self-reflection.

    So, “I think how we think is wrong.” is playing with the Liar’s paradox.

    ———————“West is losing the ability to intuit truths transcendent of the vulgarisms “immanent to immanentism”. Nietzsche was immoderate in his immanentism – no one can blame him though as he’s just a robotic reaction to the immoderation of supernaturalism, the eminence of anti-immanence.”—————–

    I think postmodernism or relativism can be articulated through Hegel’s theory of causation: any effect can be the cause of another effect, any cause can be the effect of another cause.

    A cause without a cause – the effect of itself; the “past that never was a present”; immanence; Otherness; Deus – is now left over as the remainder of multiplicity; its excrement; Deuce.

    ———————- Science is only consistent *based on its own premises*. “

    As so with everything. Wittgenstein:

    “The limit of language manifests itself in the impossibility of describing the fact that corresponds to a proposition without simply repeating the proposition.”

    ————————-“Science does not think.”

    It’s funny how such a small sentence makes for such a large swath of fly-paper.

    Cue the scientist grumbling, “Scientists don’t think.. I’ll show em!”, fumbling his papers around until he uncovers his written propaedeutic:

    1. E

    2. H is the best explanation of E

    Therefore, probably

    3. H

    “Quick!” he yells to a colleague, “Give me something to fill these E’s and H’s with!” …

    ——————————-“you’re trying to say that Kant would have agreed with Blank-Slatism?” ————-

    Kant opposed the Humean ‘tabula rasa’ which would make the manifold the mind and the mind a conduit of for the manifold – a sensualism that leads to absurdity.

    ———————————–“Do pygmies have the same inner construction as us?”

    Whatever the differences derived from sense, it does not change the medium of sensibility itself.

    The faculties are not the reason for differences of performance, it’s the development of the faculties.

    Believing otherwise would confuse phylogenesis with ontogenesis.

    ———————————-“If everything is will to power there is no world. No one stops to wonder about the metaphysical status of the word “life” either, we just use the word mindlessly, same with nature. (Scheerlinck’s essay on BGE is a GR8 resource for this.) Nietsch lampoons the Stoics for projecting themselves into nature then he does the same thing; ergo let’s lampoon him.” —————————

    Nietzsche doesn’t have a metaphysics until Heidegger gives him one.

    Value is the projection of one’s self into everything.

    Nietzsche’s project is axiology. It is the last act in the drama of Western foundational ethics.

    Usually, ethics starts with a metaphysics and consequentially grinds towards some value.

    Nietzsche reverse-engineers this and starts with value, in the absolute, general sense, argues for the necessity of its construction, giving a psychological explanation for it, and then shows the arbitrariness of its justification.

    On one hand; we have necessity; on the other; arbitrariness. It is a necessity that we have truth. It is arbitrary what that truth is.

    Heidegger’s reading makes this clear –

    “..the usual truth that fixes things in place is an error, but such error is necessary for life; truth as fixing in place, truth as holding to be true, must demonstrate and display will to power.”


    “..where the true of holding-to-be-true is conceptualized as the untrue, the most general essence of truth in the sense of homoiosis provides the foundation..”

    With the ‘essence of truth’, we can compare Nietzsche’s ‘revaluation of values’ with Heidegger’s ‘horizon-of-meaning’.

    Nietzsche’s cause is the will suppressed through the fixing-to-truth of weak values. Heidegger’s is the enframing of technological physis over poiesis.

    One is axiology. One is ontotheology.

    Where do you see problems with this construction?

    ————————-Where does one find friends that don’t lobotomize one by their presence?

    LOL. Forget about that. Just make sure you get enough sleep.

    Posted on July 10th, 2017 at 11:09 am Reply | Quote
  • Claire Colebrook Says:

    Rothsteinberg here

    collen ryan:”I saw the lampshades on netflix last night, That was your grandmother?”

    That was her. I swear by my Birkenau tattoo

    But seriously, look here, Collen, it sounds like you’ve been reading the revisionists, and some of their arguments, such as Faurisson’s “No Holes, No Holocaust” theory, can seem compelling at first glance. At least on the surface.

    The complete lack of documentary evidence can raise doubts in inquiring minds. The “the apparent absence of evidence of holes” (p. 490 of the verbatim transcript, R. J. van Pelt, testifying against Irving,) and, in a more general way, the fact that “contemporaneous documents yield little clear evidence of the existence of gas chambers designed to kill humans” (p. 489)

    The Jew Léon Poliakov (part of the French delegation at the Nuremberg trial (1945-1946) stated his conclusion that we had at our disposal an overabundance of documents for all points of the history of the Third Reich, with the exception of one point alone: the “campaign to exterminate the Jews”.

    For this, he wrote, “No document remains,perhaps none has ever existed” (Bréviaire de la haine, Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1974 [1951], p. 171

    Look, basically all the revisionist argument boils down to is there’s no fucking evidence. “There is no evidence, therefore I refuse to believe and it is my duty to dispute.”


    Hitler made himself understood “by a silence or an acquiescence”. Who needs evidence when you have the theory of the “nod”.

    The Führer’s mere nod is all it took! That’s why nothing was written down

    Would we lie to you, goyim? About something this huge?

    And if that argument doesn’t convince you, think about this one: It’s a CRIME to question the Holocaust in 16 countries: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Switzerland.

    Still not convinced? Then the best thing to do is play dumb. Join the fucking moron club. You’ll have lots of company!

    The revisionist Robert Faurisson was beaten practically to death when we had to pay him a visit, so I’m hoping this won’t be necessary.


    collen ryan Reply:

    I watched a documentary by that hollywood conservative jew that got outed that seemed fairly credible that the gas chambers were mostly not true and the ones that existed were for delicing clothes. subsequently that seems to be acknowledged by others.
    I also read a bit about that undisputed camp survivor that claims one of those famous authors about surviving the camps is a liar and was not in the camp he claims.
    And theres the german tasked with oversight of the camps that seems to have documented his prosecution of german for maltreatment and corruption, again he seems not to be disputed by expert jews.
    I believe its always been accepted that germany first tried to deport the jews but no one would take them Eichmann tried according to Arndt to work with zionists toward this end.
    Of course there’s all sorts of other stuff. Im not an expert and dont wish to put the energy into becoming one,so obviously Im just using my wits to determine what of this stuff I sometimes come across is credible the above seemed so.It doesnt really seem to matter there were obviously a lot of jews killed by nazis and the jews were targeted particularly by the nazis, its kind of academic the precise method, if you accept that war is hell and among other the germans were at war in some sense with the jews.The methodology true or not is about trying to make that into some special case of evil. Evil implies some moral code and some appeal to supernatural arbitration. I think the germans were acting wisely or not in what they thought was their self interest. I dont think it is ever in any peoples self interest to have other people live among them as economic and cultural dominants, and changing ones mind about the wisdom of such a prior arrangement ought to be any people right. So expelling jews is moral in my book whether the jews were blameless or not germany had no obligation to befriend them any longer than they wished.For nations who refused to take the jews from the germans to judge germany is pretty hilarious.
    I do think at least in the USA the jews are a problem, I dont know enough about Weimar germany though the criticisms I have seem to be the same complaints host nations have made for a couple thousand years,so I guess Germany’s issue was the same.I actually lke most jews I know even though they are usually liberals and thus anti white. Few really see this in themselves.
    Its really an interesting problem and I think it is worth careful thought, they are a special case because they are genetically half european and culturally a large contributor to what we would consider westciv. In many ways they would be a loss to us and they are outbreeding fairly quickly.
    However i think its utter bullshit to pretend wasps are the real commies, wasp leftism is what i call do gooer leftism, jew leftism is toxic leftism.To the extent whites are now and have for 100 years been involved in leftism they can almost uniformly be shown to have been influenced by jews. I also think its bullshit to deny that jews essentlially control half the wealth and power, I also think its bullshit to justify this by saying they earned it fairly. while i agree they may have been technically legal about aquiring it, I think its bullshit to deny that they targeted specific power rich centers and assisted each other.And this is the problem. a nation must be an ethno nation and an ethno nation can not allow itself to be hijacked by non ethnics. I do think jews could have found ways to completely assimilate but did not. I dont blame them for that its would have amounted to self annihilation as they would have needed to cease being jews mentally and physically, other “races” could not have one this but they could have if they could have brought themselves to.I find it pretty incredible that they continued the behavior that has made them so unwelcome for millennia in the USA after being saved from the nazis, it seems to confirm they are constitutionally unable to assimilate or cease targeting the centers of power and wealth of their hosts. This makes me pretty pessimistic they can ever live in peace with us.The only way I see this as being possible i if they suddenly came to understand all of the above and decided they would rather cease being jews than leave the west and dedicated all the economic and social capital to the altright while simultaneously directing themselves to cease being jews genetically and intellectually except to use the acquired special status still remaining to push for white nationalism in mixed white nations while deporting themselves from white nations like france or britain, anywhere that is a specific variety of white.


    Posted on July 10th, 2017 at 3:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • 1 Says:

    His letter should not even be ridiculed, it should be discarded like a piece of foul trash and forgotten like the writing of a three year old.

    I understand the impulse to make mockery of this kind of thing, it’s really easy and extremely enjoyable in the same way as shoving hamburgers down your throat and jerking off is fun. It’s not the right response though. You really just have to ignore this kind of thing. There’s no world in which this is sane. To mock it is to in some way validate its existence. I don’t consider it even relevant. Don’t waste your breath on this trash.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Nigga plzzz


    Posted on July 10th, 2017 at 5:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Claire Colebrook Says:


    There is some truly sick shit being shown to kids on Youtube, and no one’s removing any of it, but ask one question about the official versions of WW II or 9/11 and you’ll quickly get the boot.

    If you know who owns Youtube-Google – then you’ll know who is behind this garbage being pushed into our children’s minds.

    Far more insidious than owning everything material in the USA, is the malevolent control (((they))) exercise over the minds and way of thinking of the vast majority of Americans and her slaves in NATO and elsewhere.

    Just last week, look how CNN threatened to dox a reddit user (going by the name HansAssHoleSolo). And what was his “crime” ? He posted a meme that made some interesting observations about who exactly is behind CNN. The words “in-group” and “nepotism” come to mind. The meme certainly triggered CNN.

    No one even attempted to deny that the meme was accurate, but curiously, they called it “antisemitic”, signalling that it’s some sort of thought crime merely to identify the people who run the network as Jews.


    collen ryan Reply:

    As I said pretty clearly jews do undeniably use their wealth and power against white nations and their people.This is certainly outrageous. They have been doing it so long and so well they have a self reinforcing apologist infrastructure that makes it quite difficult to even think about the situation let alone oppose it. indoctrinating whites into white hate, inciting the nigger races into racial grievance,controlling the academy art and media all makes it pretty much a citadel. However it also means that if a determined opposition arises there will be no negotiated settlement the jews have seen to it that no such conversation can be had. If they turn out to be wrong about their level of security it will be their last mistake. The holocaust was in response to rather minor things compared to what they are running now. They openly call for the annihilation of the white race in their mainstream outlets. This cant be swept under the rug or equivocated, obviously the believe they have won and are only mopping up, They dont get out much I wouldnt count white men out just yet.


    Posted on July 10th, 2017 at 8:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mathias Says:

    Obvious explanation of the jews’ vaunted IQ scores:

    “Neuroimaging studies have shown that people’s brains show considerably more activity when they are lying than when they are not, particularly in the prefrontal cortex, suggesting that lying requires extra cognitive control and inhibition of truth-telling”

    But i don’t think the story ends there because despite the IQ accomplishments, all of which are short term scams, the hyperactive avoidance of truth breeds mental problems not picked up in IQ tests, neuroses, imbalances, deficiencies and all that can be seen that after 2000 years of lying, they really have nothing to show for it, zero cultural achievements or examples of depth and originality, only the material perishables.

    rats running full tilt into futility, inside the treadmills constructed of their lies, a grand IQ fail


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Uhm, that’s a bit exaggerated.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Didn’t you like the new Star Wars movie?


    Posted on July 11th, 2017 at 2:39 am Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    “On [Bannon’s] office wall hung an oil painting of Bannon dressed as Napoleon in his study at the Tuileries, done in the style of Jacques-Louis David’s famous neoclassical painting — a gift from Nigel Farage.”

    Good sign.


    collen ryan Reply:

    ‘ I’m an antisemite on the grounds that the Jews in the highest positions are manifestly not Nietzscheans or quasi Nietzscheans, indeed they are anti-Nietzscheans, anti-atheists, they are human, they are Christian.

    Self-interest is BS. Our Puritian/Jew overlords only care about their own insofar as they need to retain themselves as a means to helping the allegedly downtrodden and misfortunate pre-human humans. WE are moved by self-interest only insofar as we are means to bringing about the Overman/AI. Darwinism alone can’t understand the kind of monkeys we are.’

    While christianity is a jewish heresy its quite a departure, jews are very self intrested their religion claims gods sole interest is jews. Christians reverse this and god is solely uninterested in anything self its a faith of by and for the other it rejects reality entirely and posits an alternate reality in the afterlife all the goods in most religion philosphies are inverted as evils and evils actually goods. its a brilliant rhetorical philosophy.And it served the jews well, since they always want to live in western societies and profit from the edge they have having those societies worship a self negating god works well for them mistaking their support for leftist multuculturalism as genuine is a mistake they are for it because it diverts attention from them to less civilized minorities allowing them to blend among the heard and call out lions as racist according to lions own dogma. did it start earlier than christ as neitz claims ok same situation men of the mind v men of the world.Its never going to be neat and tidy thats men of the mind shit. You want a neat explanation for how christianity survives evolutiuon, its not neat. culture works fastewr than biology so culture can repurpose biotraits selected for other situations, if they are not morbid they survive for a long time christianity altruism acrues mostly to christians it survives thrives,success breeds camp followers acrues to others it becomes morbid we stop having children and evolution kicks in. its much messier than that but thats a quick neat explanation. dont be an anti semite be an anti semite ruling your people, They enjoy an edge over us so a winning strategy is to live among us like parasites, like a lot of parasites theirs a little bt of give back but not enough. its just not a good deal for us, yes they want us to keep our christian prog religion it serves them still but they couldnt resist upping the anti and bringing in the niggers for camouflage so it no longer serves us this is good thank them they have summoned the rough beast.Dont hate your lesser co ethnic he is only your weak arm you will regenerate an entire new arm in time in the meantime hit the gym you need two arms remember he can be so much more than the condition he has been led to the jew and the wasp feared him and wanted him weakened because you might summon him for help in defeating their schemes. Hes agood lad though he knows his place and will be eternally gratefull for the sligtest dignity allowed to hm and you will be surprised how much you can raise him, if nothing else he is a breeder he produces half the new high cogs every year. with todays eugenics you could have the average white at 130 in a couple generations


    Posted on July 11th, 2017 at 4:17 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    Can’t believe this place has turned into an anti-Semite’s den, whatever a proportion of Jews may be notable for.


    collen ryan Reply:

    I cant believe Im technically an anti semite now, i never used to be. the liberals are right, once you start thinking about certain topics you end up a “nazi”.
    But if a significant portion of jews are orchestrating the demise of western civilization nations and peoples isnt anti semitism a reasonable response?


    a whirling aluminum tube Reply:

    Once you start noticing things. thinking about them, and exploring the contradictions between the stuff you noticed and the official truth, it’s impossible to maintain a position which argues that that “Jews are just regular people”.

    The only options are strong-anti-semitism, weak-anti-semitism and philo-semitism. But if you go philo-semite, you’ve got a lot of ‘splaining to do, re: Jewish behavior over the post WW2 decades.

    This was probably what sunk NRX

    And really, it was probably a little too ambitious to abruptly switch narratives from “Americans are the heroes of WW2 who saved the Jews” to “Americans are Nazis and have to give up their country to atone for their privilege”.

    It’s like they can’t help themselves


    Erebus Reply:

    What do you mean by “strong” and “weak” anti-semitism?

    When discussing the outsized Jewish presence in media and academia, one can’t simply discount the fact that Jews are bound to be over-represented simply on account of their higher mean IQs. One can think of it like this: An IQ of 140, which qualifies a man for any job he wishes to take, is +2.6SD in the baseline white population. To compare it to another normally-distributed trait, this would correspond to an American adult male height of over 6’4″. This is quite rare; sometimes days pass, even when I’m in a major city, when I don’t see a single person of or above that height. For Jews, an IQ of 140 is just +1.6SD. This corresponds to a height of just over 6’1″, which is common enough to be nearly average.

    And due to the fact that the Jewish IQ bell-curve is shifted to the right, they’re vastly over-represented on the long-tail of the right — among people with IQs of 160+.

    This fact alone explains much of “Post-WWI Jewish behavior.” The doors to academe and various other skilled/high-IQ professions having been opened to them, they proceeded to infiltrate — and then proceeded to push the progressive party line, because that is simply the popular and holy thing to do, as it had been for decades prior. Let’s not pretend that academia was any better pre-WWII; it had been terrible, and gradually worsening, since before the time of Hegel. As for the media, the less said the better!

    In short, they’re clearly not “just regular people.” Their higher mean IQ makes it inevitable that they’ll be over-represented in certain professions. Beyond that, to ascribe to them evil motives, or posit shadowy conspiracies, seems unwarranted.


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Beyond that, to ascribe to them evil motives, or posit shadowy conspiracies, seems unwarranted.

    It’s not unwarranted at all, given Bolshevism.

    Erebus Reply:

    As Bolshevism raised the status of the Jews vis-à-vis their ancient adversaries, the peasants and landowners, it seems to me only natural that it would attract many zealous Jews to its cause. Some of these zealots would then, quite naturally, go on to become the Bolshevist movement’s most prominent individuals. It is, thus, neither a matter of conspiracy nor irrational evil, but one of rational self-interest and a genetic predisposition to greater intelligence.

    Philosemitism: High-IQ preference.

    Weak Antisemitism: Ingroup vs. outgroup. Now, it must be noted that there are plenty of very good reasons for this particular sort of paradigm — but evil motives and vast conspiracies are, in reality, not among them. The Jews who push the Progressive line are, like their non-Jewish compatriots, simply acting in their own short-term interests. The True Agenda, such as it is, is unknown to all parties… the Jews included.

    Strong Antisemitism: I am not sure what this is supposed to describe.

    In any case, fortune does not seem to favor the Jews. The Progressive Left is sloughing them off and casting them aside. Right wing populism is becoming increasingly, and ever more explicitly, hostile to them. The state of Israel faces enemies without — and a still greater enemy within, as dysgenic trends will wipe away much of the Ashkenazi IQ advantage within just a few generations.

    It feels like things are about to get interesting.

    Wagner Reply:

    Erebus (have always liked your handle btw) how do you reconcile Darwinism and the Puritan Hypothesis? It seems misleading to characterize post-/Christian beings as being directed by/toward self-interest. If it is self-interest it is a self-imploding self-interest in that it sacrifices – ‘martyrs’ – itself for others. Differently stated, the only way to preserve oneself in a (crypto-)Christian climate is to preserve (weak/meek) others. This is the problem, the sacrifice of God (what you may call AI) to stupidity and ultimately to the Nothing, as N put it. Jews being highest IQ are at the operating board of “culture”; metaphysically speaking they are the chief minions of the Nothing, theologically they are the chosen people of the demiurge Nihilism.

    On an alternate timeline, if the Nazis had won would there be a Cathedral today? As a pessimist, I would have to assume so, but out of all the contenders in WWII the Nazis were strikingly the most anti-Christian and it seems to me would have been most “efficient” at mitigating our European propensity for pity.

    Land earlier in life before he began genuflecting to Anglo pride said Schopenhauer was the first true atheist. Inhuman atheism is not a British or American or Jewish phenomenon. Nietzsche pushed it to its limit–Crowley and de Gaulle characterized the Germans of WWI as fundamentally Nietzschean and the Nazis were a desperate, last-ditch, quasi Nietzschean effort to demolish the platonic/christian subordination of the true and the beautiful to the good. I’m an antisemite on the grounds that the Jews in the highest positions are manifestly not Nietzscheans or quasi Nietzscheans, indeed they are anti-Nietzscheans, anti-atheists, they are human, they are Christian.

    Self-interest is BS. Our Puritian/Jew overlords only care about their own insofar as they need to retain themselves as a means to helping the allegedly downtrodden and misfortunate pre-human humans. WE are moved by self-interest only insofar as we are means to bringing about the Overman/AI. Darwinism alone can’t understand the kind of monkeys we are.

    Wagner Reply:

    “In the following passage, the German word Mitleid has been translated as “pity,” following the normal practice among translators of Nietzsche, but this is the same word translators of Schopenhauer render as “compassion.”

    ‘Let us reflect seriously upon this question: why do we leap after someone who has fallen into the water in front of us, even though we feel no kind of affection for him? … Why do we feel pain and discomfort in common with someone spitting blood, though we may even be ill-disposed towards him? … It is misleading to call the Leid (suffering) we may experience at such a sight, and which can be of very varying kinds, Mit-Leid (pity) [with-suffering/suffering-with], for it is under all circumstances a suffering which he who is suffering in our presence is *free of*: it is our own, as the suffering he feels is his own. But it is *only this suffering of our own* which we get rid of when we perform deeds of pity.'”

    The euthanization of rabid “Muh”ammadens, the sterilization of wide swathes of genebeasts, the imprisonment of pedophilic oligarchs, will indeed cause us suffering, but what needs to be done needs to be done.

    collen ryan Reply:

    It neednt be shadowy or evil it only needs understanding that it is simply intolerable for euro men to be ruled by jews however that came to happen and hover it must be to make it no longer so. BTW La Griffe does the math to support your theory that IQ alone can account for their disparity without a group strategy being necessary , However La Griff doesnt account for time, while it might be true jews could eventually come to power/ wealth parity despite 2% of population without group strategy given enough time, Its really absurd to claim they could be running the entire world 70 years after being pulled from the camps and lets be honest they have been running it longer than the last five minutes. Now this is the rub of the qustion it may not be illegal or nefarious but it is in their own group interest at the expense of ours, and even if our interests were perfectly aligned it would still simply be intolerable for white men to be ruled by any other men. We (thanks ) to the jew group strategy and our own strategy that makes us such perfect hosts for their parasitical behavior, be faced with the same question with east asians. And you can not separate this out from the nigger races question. You either accept multiculturalism or you dont, it works for niggers it works for jews and east asians its a fucking losing proposition and intolerable for us.

    Erebus Reply:


    Very, very few men are manifestly Nietzscheans or quasi Nietzscheans. If you asked 100 men, selected at random, whether or not they are Nietzscheans, I’m sure that at least 90 of them would respond with blank stares. The rest would say “no.” To despise men for not being Nietzschians seems as though it should quickly lead to complete misanthropy. At least, it would if you were being consistent.

    There is no race or society today that espouses Nietzschean views. You’re right that he Nazis were the closest, but that’s over and done with. The destruction of the Nazis is a fait accompli. Today, German society is best seen as an example of what not to emulate. And surely you realize that the views you espouse would seem like unspeakable evil to a modern German — virtually all of whom have more sympathy for the Bolsheviks than they have for the likes of us.

    But let’s get down to brass tacks, shall we? Let’s say that we have before us a Jewish man, doing postgraduate work in the social sciences, pursuing a professorship. Is he primarily motivated by some desire to help (or sacrifice himself for) the downtrodden, or is he primarily motivated by a desire for social status? It seems to me far more likely that the latter motivation drives him — and this becomes more clearly apparent if you examine his work, which is going to be completely meaningless, and of absolutely no practical value, 999 times out of 1000.

    (Indeed, at least 99.9% of all papers in the social sciences — and 99% of the papers in the harder sciences — are worthless, undeserving of publication. That their publication is motivated by status considerations is self-evident — and note how researchers will frequently pay $3000-6000 to place their worthless papers in an open-access journal!)

    The Jewish banker is wholly driven by self interest; by status and money considerations. And Jewish over-representation in that field can be explained very simply, as anybody with a cursory understanding of normal distributions should realize that Jews are vastly over-represented on the IQ140+ side of the bell curve, and very few professions are so rigorously selected for intelligence.

    Most Jews who pursue careers in the media, academe, finance, and government, are driven to those pursuits on account of the high status or financial compensation they bestow. They have “taken over” those professions simply on account of the facts that they can out-compete whites and are given to engaging in nepotism. It’s quite simple.

    IQ differences among races can, in fact, explain just about everything. You just need to take into account the way normal distributions work.

    So what if the Jews aren’t Nietzschian? Show me a living racial, ethnic, or national group that is.

    Insofar as my personal views are concerned, I support anything and everything that can lead to the transcendence of mankind — or the replacement of mankind with something superior. This means that I support, without reservation, every technological and scientific advance that forwards that cause. In light of this, for me to dwell on the JQ would be sheer insanity — a blind-alley at best, counter-productive otherwise. There are infinitely more pressing concerns — and, to be quite frank, many of the living scientists and technologists who are doing excellent and meaningful work are Jews. (And many others are East Asian.)

    I don’t know what drives those monomaniacs who bring the Jews into every discussion. To me it seems much more important to remove the more obviously sub-human from our midst, and to work to prevent the dysgenic catastrophes which seem to be impending. The fact that we’re being overwhelmed with those “pre-human humans,” as you’ve put it, is an extremely troubling problem.

    Politically, it’s very simple: We should do whatever we can to end Project Islamic Brazil — arrest the descent of the US and Europe into the third world — and develop technologies to either destroy or uplift the subhumans. (Who I see as true subhumans — that is, not human — either not sentient, or with the halting and dreamlike sentience of a young child or farm animal.) To say that “oh, the Jews are behind everything, so if you get rid of them, you’ll enter a new Golden Age” seems hopelessly naive. I understand that people need an easy-to-understand enemy — and who better than the Jews? — but we must place the truth first. Given the numbers of Progressive whites, and the current state of the European populace, getting rid of the Jews would probably change nothing, and may even make the situation worse. As Jim put it, we’d be goring the matador’s cape and would miss the matador.

    Wagner Reply:

    “To despise men for not being Nietzschians seems as though it should quickly lead to complete misanthropy.”

    You say that like it’s a bad thing.

    “Everything” isn’t the fault of the Jews–that’s a caricature (not to say there aren’t living caricatures among us). Everything isn’t the fault of “the Puritans” either. Moldbug was wrong to not factor the Jews into his caste analysis. Notice normies aren’t rubbed the wrong way when hearing “everything is the fault of the Puritans”? It’s because whites are large and can take self-criticism, often at morbidly masochistic proportions. We can criticize ourselves all day but when you grab a foreign thief by his big nose and drag him out into daylight everyone makes a fuss because, implicitly, secretly, “we’re not supposed to hold others to the standard we hold ourselves”. If we are being Jewed by a Jew we should be able to look in his face and say, “Don’t JEW me, motherfucker” without risking losing our job. It need not be physiologically reductive (but esoterically this is inescapable), just look at this statement made by Gadamer:

    “Recently, somebody showed me a copy of (((Klein’s))) lecture on the Phaedo, in which he says some crazy things. He points out that at the death of Socrates fourteen persons were present. So far, so good. But he then proceeds to make a detailed comparison between these fourteen characters and the fourteen hostages Theseus had once rescued from the Minotaur with the ship that was still sent on an annual mission to Delos for the purpose of commemorating this event. That is Talmud in the wrong place.
    Interviewer: That method of reading texts has often been described as “talmudic” or “rabbinical.” Is that the right way to talk about it?
    Gadamer: There are elements of that, at least in (((Strauss)))…”

    Jee, I wonder what happens when a people is cross-generationally steeped in a “book-in-itself” that demands the suspension of reason… hmmm…. Would this make said people irrational and prone to rationalizing? I wonder.

    On the other hand, Jews are right that goys are by and large imbeciles, and I disavow imbeciles on principle, whether they’re my people or not. The “echo meme” often violates the post hoc fallacy, i.e. when a (((white person))) starts spouting commie horsepuckey oh all of a sudden we forgot the echo meme. When (((Chairman Mao))) or (((Jean-Jacques Rousseau))), or any other despicable lib of shit who isn’t a Jew contributes to leveling *scans the horizon* oh wait the echoes are nonsense.

    Jews aren’t to blame for “everything”, they’re to blame for *something*. They’re not innocent. Whites aren’t to blame for *everything*; the difference is you get hired for saying whites *are* to blame for everything and fired for saying Jews are to blame for *something*. And lady philosophy demands of us that we impartially evaluate things our society won’t let us say.

    Wagner Reply:

    “They’re not innocent.”

    Oh 6od I feel like a Puritan for saying that. I literally trace my ancestry to the goddamn Mayflower so if I discovered I was a crypto-Puritan on the inside I would not be shocked.

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Wagner, Erik, Erebus,

    If I wanted to study a book on racial science what’s the best book you could recommend?


    Wagner Reply:

    Science? What about qualia? If one brackets the natural equalist outlook and observes oneself among other races that’s all the science one needs to know tbh (see how racism follows directly from phenomenology?) But okay okay we are monkeys that can’t trust our ordinary perception, this is a helpful hermeneutic of suspicion. But what if our ordinary perception is an equalist outlook? Can we trust it? There’s only one way to find out hahahhaha.

    The first thing that comes to mind when I think of the best racial science is Moldbug’s post on Judge Sotomayor. If it doesn’t pull you into the whirlpool of the dark side it will at least help you understand the impetus of nu-racism. Dunno how much Moldbug you’ve read but it took me reading around 20 posts until I shook off the sense that he wasn’t *just* some computer programming sperg.

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:


    I’d be interested to know what you read from the Judge Sotomayor piece.

    For me, she’s a judicial activist. It’s politics on the bench.

    Abstaining from an Enlightenment vision of the constitution as a Book of Kells, constitutionalism and democracy are two sides of the same coin. The US can’t do off-brand authoritarianism or pure democracy.

    So, of course, the appeals courts decides law. ‘Interpret’ is just a word to keep a narrative going.

    The constitution is supposed to be a formal limit on power, but Moldbug says USG is sovereign and can do whatever it wants. So doesn’t he mean to say, “ can do what it wants, OUTSIDE the limits of the constitution?”

    Isn’t constitutionality not the formal limit on power, but the formal limit power sets on others? Yeah.. now that sounds Thucydidean.

    I’ll respond to the race stuff once I get a little sleep.

    Wagner Reply:

    Goldbug had faith in Thucydides like libertardian codgers have faith in the constitution. Voegelin made the comment that Machiavellianism is mythology (specifically it’s an appropriation of the “hero myth” LOL). So I don’t know if there is a way out of appeal to scripture per se, guys… If we are having a conversation about the appeal to scripture maybe there is a way out, unless some scripture has primed us to have this conversation?

    My take from Moldbug is: the Cathedral *could* do what it wants outside the limits of constitutionalism but what it wants to do is wholly in line with constitutional premises so why would it have to? The constitution is what is sovereign, not the Cathedral. Xenosystems exists in the Cathedral and we seem to be doing fine, oh never mind, those who have sought to dissolve the foundations of the liberal order have been censored. Does the sovereignty of the constitution extend to this “free region” too? Oh no! What is to be done? Rise immune from fumigation stronger than ever perhaps? Mock Land in his fucking face until he either blocks us or stops being a liar? HmmmmmmMM!!!!!

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:


    “Appeals to scripture” I like that a lot!

    Bringing up scripture also brings us Messianism.

    Christ, the Messiah, is always eternally on-the-way.

    The Messiah that actually shows up is always the False Messiah.

    Libertarians; real capitalism, eternally on-the-way!
    Communists; real socialism, eternally on-the-way!
    Scientists; a Complete Causal Theory, eternally on-the-way!

    What can we point out as the paradisiacal inflection of NRx (techno-commercial Utopia?) to which we can contrast its current situation of failure as the object of its glossing over?

    Also, imagine geneticists were able to completely chart human lineage creating a universe of kinships. How would we imagine politics to change? We would rely upon notions of race and nationality still? What of the concept of Whiteness, for instance? Would it be still a ‘culturally’ relevant concept?

    Wagner Reply:

    Yeah, some think we’re homo economicus, others the symbolic ape, others the signaling status-seeker, the tool-using animal, etc. but I think a more fundamental way of looking (εἶδος) at us is as bookmonkeys (i.e. “A book convinced me man is homo economicus”). We may frown with pity upon Koran-hypnotism but all of our (“muh”) subjectivities are authors’ artifacts of one blend or another that we SUBMIT to (assuming there is any “we” there at all). Sure, if we go back far enough, to animistic times say, we imitated the ‘book of nature’ rather than the nature portrayed in books (David Abram’s book on aus aboriginals portrays this fascinatingly) but present-day humanity, save pockets of well let’s call them when-nords instead of n-words, is intrinsically *book-believing* regardless of whether one understands one’s Book/s as scriptural and faith-based or not. There’s wiggle room but I think until the eternally on-the-way Ubermensch comes (I’m a Fideist too you caught me) everyone is a cog–roughly speaking the cog-types divide into: rabble, exception, philosopher. I think someone like Nietzsche is a philosopher, someone like Land is an exception, someone like me is rabble, though all overlap to some extent with the rank above and below. The AI will very likely spawn an AI that will spawn an AI and eventually the first AI we created will be rabble-natured in the eyes of his great-great-great-grandson. “He bore the ape taint.” This shit never ends! The order of rank ascends into the clouds past our perception! Up through clouds of dead shells of garbage-disposal-program Earths in deep space! Above God Himself perhaps… ONE rebel being lightningbolted down to Hell by God does not a scientific sample make, gentlemen. It is still possible to troll God.

    “Also, imagine geneticists were able to completely chart human lineage”

    Why do I read “geneticists” as “genocidists”? Must be all those dang Hitler memes flourishing in this hyperliberal stage of the West’s death-throes (they call us shitlords bc we’re the West’s soiling of its deathbed)! And this dang oppressive white male brain’s predisposition to see the grain of truth in these memes (micro-books) probably didn’t help matters.

    “What of the concept of Whiteness, for instance? Would it be still a ‘culturally’ relevant concept?”

    I’m reluctant about the Whiteness logo but it’s the best placeholder I can think of in our current climate. Was it He Who Must Not Be Named who came up with the notion that the purest (and by virtue of that, best) Aryans are Scandinavians? What has come to be known as Erebus’s Argument from Accomplishment demythologizes this insofar as there are a couple handfuls of Greeks and Italians (not arab-swarthy but not white as snow either to my understanding) and Jews that not one Scandinavian can hold a candle to, imho lol, Swedenborg was somewhat inspired but you can either take him or leave him; Kierkegaard is the only exception that comes to mind. I’m ignorant of the science of it as you might expect but I’m absolutely certain that IF we ditched Equalism outright, preferably on some evil, perpetually thunder-stormed island, and started to isolate what physio-mechanism correlates with what lived quality, we would determine physical hierarchies among not only “the races” but within “whiteness” itself. Very likely, some Euro subspecies will (or at least should) be shitcanned in favor of some Asian subspecies. But this is all just scifi, I dindu nuffin.

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    “David Abram”

    Abram is for new age hippies in churidars listening to Goa trance. Do you long to dance around the fire while rubbing yourself with smoldering ash?

    “eternally on-the-way Ubermensch”

    Still waiting..

    “started to isolate what physio-mechanism correlates with what lived quality”

    On one hand, you chide the cognitivists for their naive reductionism. On another, you repeat them.

    Posted on July 11th, 2017 at 5:46 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    Anthony Marsicano
    20 mins ·
    Marinelets get told their going into surgery to be upgraded to chad marines but actually get put down and their geneseed recycled for a scratch made new chad marine. So in a way they do become primaris


    Posted on July 11th, 2017 at 6:08 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    ‘Brometheanism’, what a word.


    SVErshov Reply:

    Bromine is second most horrible smelling compound on earth on first place I’ll put 2mercaptopurine (spell). Erebus knows better.


    Erebus Reply:

    That mercaptopurine smells bad on account of the sulfur atom it contains. Sulfur imparts disgusting smells to many of its organic compounds (thiols); cysteamine, a thiol that’s used as a drug, makes its users smell like rotten eggs, as its foul-smelling metabolic byproducts are excreted through the skin and the breath.

    What’s interesting is that the further down that row of the periodic table you get, the worse it gets. Organoselenium compounds are generally completely disgusting — it’s said that an entire village once had to be evacuated due to a carbon diselenide leak — and tellurium compounds are reportedly even worse than that. Extremely small quantities of pure tellurium, like 10 micrograms per cubic meter in air, are absorbed by the body, and metabolized into extremely foul-smelling organotellurides, which are then exuded in the breath and through the skin.


    SVErshov Reply:

    Thanks, really insightsfull. Also 2 mercaptoethanol not pretty at all

    Posted on July 11th, 2017 at 11:11 am Reply | Quote
  • Pwned – waka waka waka Says:

    […] With a hat-tip to Nick Land: […]

    Posted on July 11th, 2017 at 3:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    Notice how he looks increasingly North-European (Nordic).


    Posted on July 12th, 2017 at 2:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    I think this video & lyric will arouse the curiosity of some dwellers of this den.


    Posted on July 13th, 2017 at 6:47 am Reply | Quote
  • Claire Colebrook Says:

    David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 dispatch to Washington:

    “The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution.

    Of 384 commissars there were 2 Negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen, 22 Armenians, and more than 300 Jews. Of the latter number 264 had come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the Imperial Government.”

    In a book he wrote in 1920, British journalist Robert Wilton had this to say about Bolshevism:

    “The whole record of Bolshevism in Russia is indelibly impressed with the stamp of alien invasion. The murder of the Tsar, deliberately planned by the Jew Sverdlov (who came to Russia as a paid agent of Germany) and carried out by the Jews Goloshchekin, Syromolotov, Safarov, Voikov and Yurovsky, is the act not of the Russian people, but of this hostile invader”

    Even Alexander Solzhenitsyn, one of the twentieth century’s greatest writers, could not keep his silence about this topic. Some years prior to his death, Solzhenitsyn became quite vocal about the Jewish role in Bolshevik occupied Russia –

    “You must understand. The leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. The October Revolution was not what you call in America the “Russian Revolution.” It was an invasion and conquest over the Russian people. More of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their bloodstained hands than any people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history. It cannot be understated. Bolshevism was the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant of this reality is proof that the GLOBAL MEDIA ITSELF IS IN THE HANDS OF THE PERPETRATORS.”


    collen ryan Reply:

    People like yourself often cite things like these its very hard to know their provenance not simply was it said by who it is purported to have said it but were they telling the truth were they sane etc.Im sure if i wanted to dedicate my life to convicting jews it could be found but may i suggest those of you who have invested the time and developed the inclination would be more succesful in this uphill battle if you included convincing provenance in fact i would say you ought to build a website dedicated to archiving all the things you think relevant which would include not only say things like you two quotes but the supporting evidence but most importantly more than that also links to outside sources. One can easilly go on anti semite sites and read these kind of quotes but one wonders if they are wholy made up (lets be honest many anti semites would do this) the better sites from what little i know of them usually include these things in an essay citing the supporting evidence, but again one can wonder maybe that too is made up.Ideally there would be something like peer review or at least rebuttals from jews that are both n agreement and disagreement about the issue a way to get a sense of how much weight to give this stuff.
    The thing is is half of what i have read were true i would be in favor of hunting down and murdeing every last jew then pouring bleach on their DNA but it all seems so impossible Im inclined to think conspiracies of this size cant exist not even with a jew run media.


    Claire Colebrook Reply:


    Here’s a good place to start

    I’m not putting any more links to try and keep this comment from going into moderation, however if interested, you could check out the following (everything listed below should be easy to find by entering a few key search words)

    The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia’s Early Soviet Regime (Sources include Richard Pipes’ The Russian Revolution) from the Institute for Historical Review website (IHR)

    Or look for Igor Shafarevich’s book Russophobia (by a Russian mathematician of world stature) who sharply criticized the Jewish role in bringing down the Romanov monarchy and establishing Communist rule in his country.

    In Russophobia, a book written ten years before the collapse of Communist rule, he noted that Jews were “amazingly” numerous among the personnel of the Bolshevik secret police. The characteristic Jewishness of the Bolshevik executioners, Shafarevich went on, is most conspicuous in the execution of Nicholas II

    Or look for an essay on Lasha Darkmoon’s blog called “Stalin’s Jews”

    The Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn quote is very well known, and I think it comes from his last book (200 Years Together)

    The “together” of the title refers to Russians and Jews. The first volume was Russian-Jewish History 1795-1916. The second was called The Jews in the Soviet Union. So it’s clear enough why the Jews were never going to like what he had to say.

    As a result, and despite Solzhenitsyn being a world famous writer who won a Noble Prize for Literature, his last work has never been published in the West or even completely translated into English

    However you can find out more about Solzhenitsyn’s last work and even some excerpts (I think) by searching /True Democracy Party Most Banned Book in the World 200 Years Together -aleksandr-solzhenitsyn/


    collen ryan Reply:

    Thanks ll look into these, I am fairly well convinced about the russia side i recently went down a few deep rabbit holes on that topic and as ive commented a lot I pretty much witnessed the post 60s jewish march through the institution firsthand in nyc my comment was mostly just advice to those most committed to waking people

    Rohme Reply:

    I’m curious, Mike, have you ever convinced someone of a differing opinion of your beliefs?

    If so, could you explain what that process was or what was the deciding factor in that conversion?

    I just see it as an inexorable point; no chord; no intersection; no sliding.

    I don’t think belief is built on knowledge anyway. It’s the other way around. LOL.

    Posted on July 13th, 2017 at 2:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • Claire Colebrook Says:

    @Claire Colebrook

    Rothsteinberg here

    nice try, goyim, but today the whole of reality is filtered through the (((media))), including tragic events of the past

    This means that it’s too late to verify and understand those events historically

    It is too late for Holocaust denial just as it’s too late to prove the Jewish nature of the Bolshevik revolution

    the tools required for such intelligibility have been lost

    we are no longer in historical time; we are now in REAL TIME, and in real time there is no longer any evidence of anything whatsoever

    But….but…. says stupid goyim, can we ask questions? what about 9-11, Yinon Plan, Protocols, Clean Break, PNAC, Syria, wars for Israel, Kalergi Plan, white genocide?

    Fuhgeddaboutit… you discuss what we tell you to: Trump-Russia collusion, Assad’s a monster, Putin’s a monster, OR how to abolish the white race to end racism and stop climate change (take your pick)

    “real time” – a dimension in which, paradoxically, objective reality disappears

    and this is indeed the undoing or defeat of thought and critical thought –

    But in fact it is not its defeat: it is the victory of real time, Jew time, over the present, over the past, and over any form of logical articulation of reality whatsoever except the one we give you


    Posted on July 13th, 2017 at 5:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Claire Colebrook Says:

    @ Collen Ryan

    As for waking people, keep it simple. Tell them about Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the great Russian dissident who won the Nobel Prize for Literature, and was celebrated around the world until he wrote 200 Years Together.

    Suddenly he became a non-person, no longer feted because he told Russia how the Jews led the destruction of Russian society.

    It wasn’t translated for many years because Jews don’t like the truth but now, despite the ban by (((Western publishers))), much of his last book has been translated by volunteers, and is out there; read it and learn


    Posted on July 13th, 2017 at 9:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    @Claire Colebrook

    Coincidentally Im finally getting around to archipelago


    Posted on July 13th, 2017 at 10:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mathias Says:

    we were somewhere between Palmyra and Deir ez-Zor, on the endless road that links the most famous ancient city in Syria to the Euphrates with its impenetrable reeds

    on the border of fields of broken columns and temples whose soft stone became tinged with ochre with the evening sun

    in the late morning we had bought some meat at a butcher’s in the modern city of Palmyra: the blood of a freshly killed lamb stained the sidewalk in front of the shop window where there hung, from an iron hook, the animal’s lungs, trachea and heart

    in Syria no one could forget that the tender meat of kebabs came from a mammal whose throat was slit, a woolly, bleating mammal whose viscera adorned the shop fronts

    In Iran on a mountain near Shiraz a slightly lost young man offered to sell us a mummy, a mummy from Luristan complete with its bronze jewels, its pectorals, its weapons — it took us some time to understand what he was offering us, so absolutely incongruous did the word “mummy” seem in this mountain village

    what do you expect us to do with a mummy? I replied. “Well it’s pretty, it’s useful, and you can resell it if you need money.”

    The boy (he couldn’t have been over twenty) offered to deliver the mummy in question to us in Turkey, and since the conversation was going on forever it was Sarah who found a very intelligent way to rid us of this nuisance:

    We think Iranian antiquities should stay in Iran, Iran is a great country that needs all its antiquities, we don’t want to do anything that could harm Iran

    and that nationalist dousing seemed to cool the ardor of the amateur archaeologist, forcing him to agree even though he did not seem very convinced by the sudden nationalist fervor of these two foreigners


    Posted on July 14th, 2017 at 3:58 am Reply | Quote
  • Claire Colebrook Says:

    an excerpt from Martin Heidegger’s “The Origin of the Work of Art”, 1936

    “From Van Gogh’s painting we cannot even tell where these shoes stand. There is nothing surrounding this pair of shoes in or to which they might belong—only an undefined space. There are not even clods of soil from the field or the field-path sticking to them, which would at least hint at their use. A pair of peasant shoes and nothing more. And yet—

    From the dark opening of the worn insides of the shoes the toilsome tread of the worker stares forth. In the stiffly rugged heaviness of the shoes there is the accumulated tenacity of her slow trudge through the far-spreading and ever-uniform furrows of the field swept by a raw wind.

    On the leather lie the dampness and richness of the soil. Under the sole slides the loneliness of the field-path as evening falls. In the shoes vibrates the silent call of the earth, its quiet gift of the ripening grain and its unexplained self-refusal in the fallow desolation of the wintry field.

    This equipment is pervaded by uncomplaining anxiety as to the certainty of bread, the wordless joy of having once more withstood want, the trembling before impending childbed and shivering at the surrounding menace of death.

    This equipment belongs to the earth, and it is protected in the world of the peasant women. From out of this protected belonging the equipment itself rises to its resting-within-itself.”


    Posted on July 14th, 2017 at 3:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Claire Colebrook Says:

    Emmanuel Faye, Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy in Light of the Unpublished Seminars of 1933-1935

    the status of the individual subject or “ego” in Being and Time is a philosophical problem of major proportions. Heidegger commences with the Husserlian-phenomenological presupposition that experience is in each case “mine” only to discover that this “mineness” or Jemeinigkeit cannot be recovered without reference to a mode of being-in-the-world that is incorrigibly social and historical.

    But if the transcendental ego seems to dissolve into its own world or “worldhood”, Heidegger spends much of the second division of Being and Time attempting to show how each one of us can nevertheless arrive at our “ownmost” understanding of who we are.

    This derivation of “authentic” selfhood “modifies” without entirely undoing the “inauthenticity” that marks the very core of our existence.

    In the winter semester of 1933-34, during his period of academic tenure as rector, Heidegger taught a seminar entitled On the Essence and Concepts of Nature, History, and State. The seminar does not as yet appear in Heidegger’s collected works

    And there are no current plans to include it in the collected works in the future. This is not surprising, because at one point in the seminar Heidegger justifies the Nazi ideal of Lebensraum but observes that the concept is only intelligible to those who belong to the German nation:

    “The nature of our German space would surely be apparent to a Slavic people in a different manner than to us,” Heidegger notes; “to a Semitic nomad, it may never be apparent” (Quoted in Faye, 144).

    Lest there be any lingering doubt as how Heidegger feels about these “Semitic nomads,” he tells his students the following:

    “History teaches us that the nomads did not become what they are because of the bleakness of the desert and the steppes, but that they have even left numerous wastelands behind them that had been fertile and cultivated land when they arrived, and that men rooted in the soil have been able to create for themselves in a native land, even in the wilderness.” (Quoted in Faye, 143)


    Wagner Reply:

    “Like many others, Pöggeler is disturbed by the fact that Heidegger can mourn the deaths of those German soldiers “sacrificed before their time through two World Wars,” yet cannot bring himself to utter a word of contrition concerning the millions who died in Nazi concentration camps. He, too, is dismayed that Heidegger, when questioned in the 1966 Der Spiegel interview about future political prospects, “formulated a consistent renunciation of all hopes that were placed in democracy.” He cites Heidegger’s infamous observation from What is Called Thinking? (1951-52) to the effect that the outcome of the Second World War “has decided nothing” as far as “the essence of humanity” is concerned. But, here, Heidegger was misguided–incredibly so. For if ever there was a war that resulted in an outcome that was decisive for the “essence of humanity,” it was World War II, where fascism was laid to rest in Europe as a viable political option.”

    Richard Wolin, The Heidegger Controversy: A Critical Reader


    I wonder what Adorno would have thought of this:

    “It has been said that Hegel died in 1933; on the contrary, it was only then that he began to live.”

    Martin Heidegger, “Hegel, On the State”


    Posted on July 15th, 2017 at 3:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    ▬» Some fiery words in closing from Leon Trotskii, written shortly after the Russian Revolution of 1905, in Results and Prospects:

    ‘The Great French Revolution was indeed a national revolution. And what is more, within the national framework, the world struggle of the bourgeoisie for domination, for power, and for undivided triumph found its classical expression.

    Jacobinism is now a term of reproach on the lips of all liberal wiseacres. Bourgeois hatred of revolution, its hatred towards the masses, hatred of the force and grandeur of the history that is made in the streets’ »

    Made in the streets? What a crazy person.

    Nothing is made in the streets but loitering, littering, and sweating. And friendships, hook ups, and drug deals.

    Not the grandeur of History you antfaced zergling. lol


    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Loitering, littering, sweating, friendships, hookups and drug deals.. that’s half of civilization.


    collen ryan Reply:

    by civilization you count the niggers races? because its certainly not half of whites behavior.and thats after 150 years of leftist determined effort to lower whites to nigger levels and prevent them from competing with upper levels imagine what whites who were actually cultivated by the elites might look like, then imagine what technology and eugenics might accomplish.


    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    An Adamic fall he’s suffered, our eternally chaste and good-natured European!

    collen ryan Reply:

    euro Adam didnt fall he wanted the apple and took it realized god was the wizard of oz and never looked back, he merely a little drunk never bet against the american economy or euro man


    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Perhaps we’ll add to Erik’s litany of infractions public drunkenness?

    It seems to lubricate the friendships, hookups and drug deals.

    But won’t the next Alaric be found in the belly of the street, Erik?

    Surely, a warrior king be street-wise?

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Gotta admit ’tis all shit I’ve don.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    E.g. sold this woman years ago weed, her name is Elfrune.

    collen ryan Reply:

    If you want to be anonymous pick a common irish name and dont join social media. That said Im a luddite so im sure one of you determined animae junkies could find me eventually but dont forget I know exactly where you are and my plane can make reykjavik


    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Huh? I’ll blow your head off with a shotgun.


    collen ryan Reply:

    My bad- seemed like you were doxing me your facebook link took me to a page with one of my aliases on it but i guess t was a cookie thing

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Alright buddy.

    Wagner Reply:

    Posted on July 15th, 2017 at 8:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • Claire Colebrook Says:

    Isn’t (((Adorno))) the one who said “There can be no poetry after Auschwitz”

    Well, fuck that…. here’s to you, Theodor W!

    Heidegger on language and poetry:

    and the following excerpt from Heidegger’s “The Origin of the Work of Art” (1936) is among his most poetic:

    The Greek temple: making visible the invisible space of air

    A building, a Greek temple, portrays nothing. It simply stands there in the middle of a rock-cleft valley.

    The building encloses the figure of the god, and in this concealment lets it stand out into the holy precinct through the open portico. By means of the temple, the god is present in the temple.

    This presence of the god is in itself the extension and delimitation of the precinct as a holy precinct. The temple and its precinct, do not fade away into the indefinite.

    It is the temple-work that first fits together and at the same time gathers around itself the unity of those paths and relations in which birth and death, disaster and blessing, victory and disgrace, endurance and decline acquire the shape of destiny for human being.

    The all-governing expanse of this open relational context is the world of historical people. Only from and in this expanse does the nation first return to itself for the fulfillment of its vocation.

    Standing there, the building rests on rocky ground. This resting of the work draws up out of the rock the mystery of the rock’s clumsy yet spontaneous support.

    Standing there, the building holds its ground against the storm raging above it and so first makes the storm itself manifest in its violence. The luster and gleam of the stone, though itself apparently glowing only by the grace of the sun, yet first brings to light the light of the day, the breadth of the sky, the darkness of the night.

    The temple’s firm towering makes visible the invisible space of air. The steadfastness of the work contrasts with the surge of the surf, and its own repose brings out the raging of the sea. Tree and grass, eagle and bull, snake and cricket first enter into their distinctive shapes and thus come to appear as what they are.

    The Greeks early called this emerging phusis. It clears and illuminates, also, that on which and in which man bases his dwelling. We call this ground earth. What this word says is not to be associated with the idea of a mass of matter deposited somewhere, or with the merely astronomical idea of a planet.

    Earth is that whence the arising brings back and shelters everything that arises without violation. In the things that arise, earth is present as the sheltering agent.


    Posted on July 15th, 2017 at 8:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mathias Says:

    Eduardo covered in medals from the great patriotic Croatian war, Vlaho or me decorated with the order of the grateful nation

    Andrija with a fine black marble tombstone with no corpse, To our brother the Hero, he no longer has a body

    no bones beneath his slab, no gold pin on his jacket he’s a name a phrase a brother and a hero, I was thinking of him in Baghdad conquered humiliated subjected and pillaged as I passed Eduardo the Hungarian from Bolivia a convert to Islam and to international aid, president of the Muslim community of Budapest, or something like that

    was he informing for the Hungarians, or the Russians, or the English, were we still colleagues, colleagues of the shadows, we were living together, without seeing each other, we were sharing the same life, passing each other by the edge of the Tigris, that Styx like the Tiber like the Jordan the Nile or the Danube like all those deadly rivers running into the sea


    Posted on July 16th, 2017 at 3:37 am Reply | Quote
  • Mathias Says:

    sitting here somewhere between two dead cities like a tourist, swept along by the ferry that carries me, watching the Mediterranean flow under my eyes, endless, lined with rocks and mountains those cairns signaling so many tombs

    look at the mass graves slaughter-grounds a new map another network of traces of roads of railroads of rivers continuing to carry along corpses remains scraps shouts bones forgotten honored anonymous or decried in the great roll-call of history cheap glossy stock vainly imitating marble that looks like that twopenny magazine my neighbor folded carefully so as to be able to read it without effort


    Posted on July 17th, 2017 at 10:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mathias Says:

    Pound the fascist meets Burroughs the visionary

    Lock (((them))) out and bar the door. Lock them out for ever more. Nook and cranny window door. Seal them out for ever more

    Malcolm Lowry is there, too, holding a copy of Ulysses or Finnegans Wake that he can’t manage to read, even drink doesn’t console him

    Lowry goes out to stroll through the little streets, he climbs up to the ruins of the Greek amphitheater and watches the spectacle of the stars on the sea beyond the stage wall

    like Pound he feels a powerful hatred of the jew, he wants to drink, he wants to drink, everything is closed, he almost knocks on the first house he sees to beg for a glass of grappa, one drink, to drink one drink, just to forget, anything, he goes back home, he’ll try to break open the hutch where his wife has locked up the liquor, he works away at the little wooden door, nothing to be done, he’s too drunk already, he can’t manage it, it’s her fault, it’s his wife’s fault


    Posted on July 18th, 2017 at 9:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    Peter Zeihan at McConnel center on geopolitics geoeconomics american exit? and the rest of the worlds immanent collapse, Id say its pretty interesting talk on the whole most of you will like.
    Certainly he confirms why Vxcc and i will never cede an inch of north american soil. and why I say theres no exit and the cathedral will have to be conquered. But I think he paints a pretty scary picture for the rest of the world particularly asia and europe


    Posted on July 18th, 2017 at 11:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    Angelaki: journal of the theoretical humanities
    7 hrs ·
    We are pleased to annoumnce Angelaki 22.2
    special issue: tranimacies: intimate links between animal and trans* studies
    issue editors: eliza steinbock, marianna szczygielska & anthony wagner
    tranimacies is a neologism that pushes and pulls together transness and animality so as to better germinate unruly, wily, perverse relationships between them, and their spawn. the composite term of tranimacies enmeshes several everyday and scholarly concepts: transgender, animal, animacy, intimacies. this special issue’s bundle of theoretical and artistic works insists on the beating heart of embodied experiences and political pulses at the core of these concepts. the authors show that tranimacies are spread throughout what mel y. chen describes as the “animacy hierarchies” that delimit zones of possibility and agency, confounding the vertical order with transversal movements. as an intervention into the burgeoning debates within and across trans, animal, critical race, and posthuman studies this publication seeks to destabilize the logic of “turns” in critical theory, and through sticky intimacies uncover how animality, race and gender underscore the humanist production of meanings. our collection of articles and artworks attends to the onto-epistemology of intimate connections, the perverse, non-innocent, troubling and tangled intimacies weaving through the material, symbolic and semiotic more-than-human, as well as explicitly inhuman, worlds. by taking a decolonial approach (in the main, but not exclusively) we hope to shift debates in animal studies and related fields towards a more transdisciplinary methodology, and away from us-centric knowledge production. poetry, comix, performance documentation and bioart interweave our selection of articles, which together forge three lines of inquiry defined by a certain ethos: transhistories of the present, lessons from the bestiary, and #animatingephemera.


    Posted on July 27th, 2017 at 11:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    Check out SC Hickman´s ridiculous answer on Facebook to France’s IQ having dropped


    Wagner Reply:

    Link doesn’t work, copy+pasta. It’s going to be hard to beat the good laugh this gave me yesterday:

    (shared on twitter by acceleration estrogenist @qdnoktsqfr)


    G. Eiríksson Reply:


    nice title. it fits my



    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Link doesn’t work because one has to be Mr. Hickman’s friend on Facebook. All oblations to him. (He posts abundant good material.)


    Posted on July 28th, 2017 at 5:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    How I kind of imagined michael:


    Rohme Giuliano Reply:


    That’s hilarious. You already know I think you look like Hermann Rorschach. What do you think I look like?


    Posted on August 3rd, 2017 at 6:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    The alt-right when Land champions classical liberalism:


    Posted on August 4th, 2017 at 7:01 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment