Extended Discussion on Personal Views

D

DÛke

Guest
...

Back note: if the Rand you are speaking of is Ayn Rand, then yes...I am familiar with her - I do not like her because, for example, in her work "Anthem," she basically stole what existentialist philosophers before her, like Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Jaspers have hinted at over and over again. Additionally, I do not like her "cult" status - any philosopher who wants followers, in my opinion, is not a philosopher, but a very bad actor who wanted fans through some mean, preferably through music or acting, but was inept, therefore choosing philosophy - this sounds like Rand to me. That you tell me she is important...I laugh at that! She is important! That creates a vague image of what you call "important." <laughs>

Americans, yes, consider Rand great - they read her, they love her...one of her books (I forgot which it is), is the second most important book to them next to the Bible even...but what does that tell us? That Americans, the weakest and most decadent, most inept, the great error of humanity, that these kind of people enjoy her - that is a poor sign of a poor philosophy.

To attract worms and all sorts of vicious, beastlike parasites as such...please! We ought to repel rather than attract!

And I noticed that you would just love to label me, to place a tag behind my back - no matter what it is - just for the sake of placing a "name" on me. "Punk Rocker"? - I do not care for the name that you place on me, but I find the act of trying to "classify" me very "normal" - the first thing you want to do is "confine" me between narrow words and shallow definitions. A second example of this we see here:
...or that you are scholar of philosophers...
Me - a "scholar of philosophers"? You realize that I am 20, first of all, and quite busy - the term "scholar" here is nice product derived from your imagination, and solely your imagination. That I know a good few names above and beyond what the average man does, does not make me a "scholar," it makes me...nothing. But you want me to be "something." You know why? So you can "prove" to me how I am not that "thing," and instead, how I might be "nothing" or less of the "something." But I never said I am a scholar, or that I am a professor, or anything. I am student, in fact, merely a sophomore student. Please, do not make me sound bigger than I am...but do not belittle me either. But am I simply being paranoid, perhaps? No! We finally confront what you wanted to feel:
That you are unfamiliar with Godel and Rand, well, has just for me created a perch.
Have fun in your perch.

For a different note...
Rakamir:

Atheists have the greatest faith of all, DUke. They BELIEVE in "nothing," which I find to be retarded, without proof.
Have you taken psychology? I would love to sit down and tell you how so-called "atheists," most the average atheists - or...an American atheists, for example - how they are sick. Professional "atheists," like Nietzsche, have their own stories - and that is why I am, in my first book, taking the time to shatter all professional atheism, especially that of Sartre and Nietzsche.
Rakamir:

Agnostics cannot be analyzed, DUke.
Would you like to retract these words, or at least, rephrase them so that you only include yourself as the victim of such an inability? No - maybe you cannot analyze agnostics; I, on the contrary, have. My biggest problem is that I do not know of any professional agnostics - I have my "unbelievers" in Nietzsche and Sartre, and my believers under Kierkegaard, Pascal, Descartes...and I am sure I can find more. I have Jung...and...Freud...to thank for giving me the gift of seeing through garbage, all I need, now is a professional agnostic. The average agnostic is easy to analyze, but, since he is average, he does not make a big proof. Imagine refuting a concept of Nietzsche or Sartre - how more profound it is...versus refuting what...for example, you say you believe.

The problem is...most people do not know what they believe - most people posses a "subconscious," most people are double and multi-minded - we cannot take their "beliefs" seriously - hence, they are victims of their own feelings, thoughts, and bodies...they are sick.

And again, every time I mention a majority or a "most people," I find myself running to the same wall: just who are the majority? Who are these "most people"? But O how pleasurable it will be, when the definitions of these living diseases become all the more clear...and believe me, I have taken the task to define who these ill-breds are...
 
P

phantmjokr

Guest
The biggest problems we have are thus...

You like to catagorize using the masses and so forth, Americans, athiest, so and so as a thief of ideas. You may try to say that you are not a catagorizer of things but that these are labels that these people give themselves...yet you do and have usee these ideas and concepts yet refuse to allow such to yourself. This can look nothing but hypocritical...You are also stuck here using english which certainly ties you to anyone else using it. You may be and indeed are unique. You are still stuck as a living breathing human and thus I, or even yourself must stick you in with the living breathing masses. What loathing this may force you to face...

Your ideas seem to be that you'd like an upwelling of some orginal approach to living free from that past. As before if you could've avoided growing up speaking a descendant of the kings english you might have something...but we've all seen children raised by wolves. Tarzan was but a fable....

The logical extention of your passion when extended to every man is anarchy. Nothing new there either...

Point of fact you are mired in a yin yang avoidence. The only way you can seperate and isolate yourself in your "superior" position, even if its one of imagination, is by knowing, and being influnced by the ugly masses you seem to detest. Without them you are nothing...your saving grace may be an application of the reverse of this idea....

I have a sneaking suspicion that a hermitage would not suit you...but as yet you are not alone. We are here to "comfort" you.

Gotta run now. I have actual things to do...

Will
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...Without the masses, I am nothing. Very much what Hegel suggested.

We can say the same about greatness, nobility, and my personal higher spiritedness. Can you define that which is "great" without, firstly, defining that which is the contradiction, the opposite, and the enemy of the great? Can you define master without defining that which he dominates - the slave? Can you define pleasure, without suggesting in one manner or another that it is an avoidance of pain of some sort? Do not let your head run, now, into the clutches of "opposites," of "good versus evil," of "happiness versus sorrow." I would describe to you, now, how happiness leads to sorrow and how sorrow leads to happiness – but I am afraid it would devour more time from beneath my hands; but for example, let me emphasize how they are not opposites, but mere degrees of graduation that have, at one point, either been established or realized, or, are still leading to and wanting of realization. What is painful soon defines, and becomes, that which is pleasurable, eventually, that which is desirable too. The same we can say about all "opposites," thus, they are not opposites, but degrees of graduation - they are inseparable, they do not belong on opposite ends, like the masses loves to believe. The moral principles of the masses is establishes on opposites that do not exist - on illusions. "I am happy," a little child exclaims, completely unaware that he is merely happy because he was, at point, unhappy, that in fact it is unhappiness that defines such a refreshing, such a profound moment called "I am happy." This infant of ours is the infant inside and behind the thoughts of the masses: it is the vangaurd of their ethical principles, it is behind the "good" and the "just" and the "liberal" and the "liberating" aspect of their "nature."

The masses define me, they define my I - that is a given. Without them, my I of today cannot exist - that is a given as well.
Your ideas seem to be that you'd like an upwelling of some orginal approach to living free from that past.
Wrong. My ideas are to overcome the subhuman past and grasp the human past - the inventive, the spirited, the great human past which is rarely spoken of, for it is overshadowed by another past, a past that proclaims as the "human history"! Forgive me!

"Human history"!

No!

"Subhuman history" - that is what it is.

And what is subhuman? Who is to define what is subhuman, what is a degenrate life form, what is an unbecoming?

Surely you see yourself as a "unique" and again, as an "individual." You would love to see yourself as "not of the masses," as a "free spirit," as a "free thinking" man who is able to "feel his own feelings" and "think his own thoughts," as if you did not belong to the O so precious history! Who of us here belongs to what? Who is the master, and who is the slave.

Every man is his own master, thus is believed today. And what an unmusical folly that sounds to me; what a profound, sheeply lie I hear.

The killers of life...want to see nothing new approach the horizon. They love to think that everything has been said, that everything has been done...and we ask ourselves, what could have happened to these degenerates in order to enable them such a hopeless and helpless desire? Moreover, am I surprised that such "people" cower easily to their "God," as we notice, not out of faith, not out of belief, not out of anything but the mere wanting of power, the mere wanting of hope, mere hoping of hope. They are the very rottenness of humanity - they are cowards not only in their actions, but, as I suggest, with their beliefs as well. Everything they do, behind it, we see a sign of a dying spirit that wants no spirit of its own, and more over, is angry enough to want no other to fly. As soon as they behold something lively, their first thought would be to bring it down, down towards the shackles and chains of living, and away from life, down to cages, and the bad smells of rotten, subhuman traditions.

Little do such people know that their fear and their cowardice stems from these cages, from these traditions, from these broken values. They are the dusks of spirit, and more than that, they demand a dusk from all, they demand the dusk to be the only dawn, to be the only light...

...they are...

...in a sense...

Religious.

Even though they might cry that they are not. They are religious by every sense of the word.

Hopelessness and cowardice, fear from this life and this earth, fear from nature...fear from newness, fear of change...

...that is the spirit of religions, that is the dusk of spirits, the very profound and hidden pinnacle of subhumanity which plagues and entraps even the most precious and the most cautious flies. Maybe, however, that such flies are not precious after all! Maybe they deserve to fall, they deserve their "hope" - they deserve their sickness.
The logical extention of your passion when extended to every man is anarchy. Nothing new there either.
As if I demand a political change! No!. By this time, by this age, we have learned enough that those whom are subhuman are, well, hopeless. They are cowards, they are will-less, they are I-less. They are mere figures and numbers - they are our statistics and our counterparts. They are our definitions.

What has ruled earth insofar? Politics: liars, actors, and...subhumans.

Who must rule? The higher spirited.

Anarchy, you say? And I laugh! How confined! I leave anarchy to others to deal with. What is needed is a strong government led by the higher spirited, the human, over everything degenerate.

But must I even concern myself with constructing governments? No - I leave rulership to others. Who is great, who is a true philosopher-king, yet still wants to rule! That is perhaps Plato's short sight. Greatness does not want to rule.

What is left, therefore, to do?

To exploit and use the masses as means to our ends. To harass for entertainment, to offend as a good taste, in short, as the masses would put it, to go astray. Rise to the heights with, not a political passion, with a mere passion that wants to exploit everything standing on the way, to reveal it and its falseness, to abuse its existence by every sense of the word - that MUST become the great man of the future.

To use their "science," to abuse their "morals" and their "justice," to play between the lines, but, also, to be plotting against all such habits. Play by the rules, against the rules.

Play with the people, using the people as mere means to our ends. Kant, yes, would disagree.

What, you say this sounds like a "principle of pleasure" of its own type? Perhaps it is! But what a wise pleasure it is!

1. Exploitation is wise.

2. Fanaticism is: a one who has principles at all.

3. Dogma: any truth, any certainty, any science.

4. The religious man's God is a mere principle of pleasure - he has no use for his God after he attains his immorality and ever happiness. The religious man exploits God. Pascal and Descartes, people so proclaims, are exploiters.

5. The higher principle for any society: having no principles - choose 1: society or yourself; the masses or your individuality; the collective word "freedom" or the personal existence of freedom.

6. Subhuman are the masses: they are against dishonesty. They proclaims dishonesty as leaders.

7. The subhuman normally exploits art, philosophy, and science too: he does not know anything more or less about such matters more than he needs for his immediate use.

8. How to fight these dangerous subhuman, who exploit everything in their way? Exploit them in return. But is this not what they will call "evil"? Yes! Evil, to them, is anything that exploits them. And Good is that which exploites with them.

9. God, too, exploits - hence, he has gone out of his way to construct a profound purgatory, a Hell in which someone or something shall be burned. Are the holiest religious men willing to call God's Hell, "evil"?

10. That which is greater than one's self in spirit, in artistry, in understanding, even if in faith - in short, that which is misunderstood: "evil."

11. That which delays, denies, or altogether thwarts the exploitation of the masses: "evil."

12. People are patriots of their nations: merely because their nations offers them a place where they can reside lazily, with sheer mental irresponsibility. Thus you see Americans fighting for their America – some do not realize what, exactly, they are fighting for or with. This is what rests underneath the small head of the nationalistic attitude: “What has enabled me to obtain my sad existence, to sustain my subhumanity, a state of existence that demands idleness of the mind – I must fight for it!” To fight for the idleness of the mind and the dusks of spirit - is that not a war against everything that is the activity of the mind and all spirit? Is that not a war of the subhuman!

13. Supposing that Bush wanted to liberated the Iraqi masses, supposing that it was his purely good will that forced him to do such a good deed – Bush, too, went against the masses, against the world’s voice, against many great, perhaps even greater voices. He strove through opposition with such a…heroic…defiance. Suppose this is the act, as we said, of a good will and no subconscious intentions – now what? It appears that goodness, too, is fanatical as such – that it strives forward with all force and intimidation it has, with all power, merely to achieve this high good which it deems of itself! Good, too, is fanatical – it forms a dogma as soon as it pronounces itself as “good.” Our problem is not goodness, is it? Our problem is which good will is allowed to prevail! Who is the one to become this fanatical good! It is, like stated by others, all a matter of taste. Life, is, a matter of taste. What is our good today? – and let us be superconscious and suspicious of our own answers, lest we forget that, today, we are all seeking something more, something different, something, perhaps, new, something untried hitherto!

I can go forever...

In the end, you are right: hermitage would not suit me. I do not like to be alone. I need fools to entertain me, I need fools to exploit, to use and abuse; I need minds to shatter. I need those who fallen victims to their own "nameless" disease...why? Because from them I obtain my definition. But we can say this about every single human being today. Even the "hermits" cannot be called "hermits" if there wasn’t a state called "society" or "social existence."

This, and I must underline once against what I have said before: I am no philosopher. Ok, maybe I am an artist...but "philosophy" does not belong to me. I will exploit philosophy, and then go against it.

The books I am working on, mostly, Dusks of Spirit and The Evil onto Light are not books that construct a theory; they are not books that teach you anything new. They are books that offend and exploit the reader - that's right: those who read them become my victims, and not just so, they will have paid for it too. The only glimmers of a "system" appear in The Evil onto Light, and it is not really a system, it is a psychological...and...um...a philosophical...prediction of the future. It is merely intelligent speculation. Not once will I have uttered "the inversion of all values" in that book. I even decided to remove that subtitle. The entire book will give very quietly whisper the necessity of an inversion of all values - I will say nothing of that sort. You will receive the full picture, however. Perhaps I will be the first on to say that rape, murder, crimes of all sorts, including the very feared “terrorism,” are acts not only natural, but demanded. If nothing at all, I am not trying to complicate mankind again…no…I am the simplifier, but to these subhumans, consequently, I will appear as a “complicater.” What a natural evil onto light! I am not a philosopher. I am an artist of a sort. You cannot tell me that art, too, all has been done.

Let all that is Evil proclaim itself, and prevail.

Am I trying to find an "original" approach? No. I am an original approach. And what is philosophy, art, what is life if it is not lived originally? Show me a single philosopher who did anything new? No one! All have simply found "original" approaches to everything that is old. The same with artists and inventors of all types. The difference between some and others: few live their difference, others merely speak of it, not out of experience, but out, as in, free of experience - they speak of lives that they did not lead. Others are more honest: they are not unqiue, not original, and not individuals - they are subhuman, they are slaves. That is cleaner, at least more honest, than beholding the ugliness of a subman who stands dishonesty and multi-mindedly masquerading as greatness. Subhumans are willing to be commanded, as they are slaves and at least are aware of it; others, and most, are unaware, are blind to it...and thus they think they can lead...and we see them becoming "presidents" and "outspoken sages" as well. Yes, that is the deep level of untruth which is allowed, which has always been allowed, and by whom? By the religious, by the subhuman, by the slaves; by the God-wanting, by the dusks of spirit...
 
P

phantmjokr

Guest
Well, now in your outpouring and use of exploitation I am reminded of DeSade although it is perhaps that his work was a bit more "personal" in nature than that which you are seeming to strive...yet I can't help but make the connection and thus here is your post modern fate as I predicted...

And there is even another idea parallel to yours. That there is a secretive group of ubermen who rule the masses from a position of secrecy, their goals either being personal gain (pure power), guidence for the masses (New World Order), or both.

Your focus on religion seems narrow, i.e. it is connected with the masses almost strictly, and as such it suffers a breaking point whereby it discounts the idea perhaps too much. One personal experience is thus. The sheer concept of divinity is non negotiable, yet it must be recognized by a being, a self. It is thus transferred through the self and thus contained by the self. One only needs to awaken to it. ONE. The devine therefore has never been dead in the eyes of a living man.

This certainly isn't to say that religions haven't been corrupted and thus lost their meaning...but that its a slippery topic to attempt to pidgeonhole at any point and saying "God is Dead" for the more specific looks generally to be a point of histrionics.

One focus of this world, which has deep connections to the religious, and which you have seemingly come to is what I call "the affirmation through negation". Jesus denying the Devil alone in the desert. Buddah alone under the Bohdi tree again saying "no" to temptations of power. One rebels. You obviously rebel against all that you consider subhuman. You say "no" to that ideal.

Camus dealt with this topic at length. For man there is always a point at which he will rebel, say no, and either live or lay down his life in defiance.

Sisyphus sticks with his rock.

You and I, we keep breathing...for a while.

Will
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...

Falling into temptation!

What a wonderful trickery on the holy man's part! - as if falling towards religion is not a temptation of its own! As if God was not a tempter and a seducer of his own! As if the Divine, Heaven, another life, as if those are not temptation which trip the awkward walk of many, until they fall into the abyss of "belief."

The masses are victims of temptations. Everything, even now, even what I am saying right here I consider to be a temptation - I have tempted others to think a little. But what right have I to enable the awakening of idlers - have I not lead them astray from their decay? - and moreover, can they understand and learn from that which influences or teaches them? They do not learn - they listen, and they nod to one thing and turn away from another...they cannot be taught. They carefully choose that which "belongs" to them from the full wise words of others...they divide wholiness and eat its most delicate parts, little do they know, that wholiness contains unhappiness, displeasure, and pain as well! But no!

They are lead by liars as Mill and Kant!

You learn from experience - supposing that the experience of some is lacking, that it is not much of experience. Now what? Suppose that it is having been pained through life, having struggled...suppose such things ennoble - what of this? But what is the definition of struggle, and a struggle with what? - this must be defined before a subman thinks financial struggle and worldly struggles is where I am headed with this...

...but why must I even define these struggles! Why should I be a tempter?

The right thing, for me, is to turn away from these fools - point back and laugh at them with my sharpest weapon: higher spiritedness. I will, with all deliberation, destroy all their ideals and exploit all their lives, and I will not construct anything new for them. I will nod to nothing. I will let them know, by the "facts" they love so much, that they are falling, that they will fall, that they are unbecoming, and most of all, that they are filthy and subhuman. And I will laugh like thunder. I desire to lead them astray from their "right" and plunge them towards nothingness - I want them to feel empty and valueless, and that is, I want them to feel their true natures, that indeed, they are worthless fellows who siphon and exploit life, and that, in an ideal world, they cannot exist.

I am pained by their existence - that alone is a temptation for me to kneel before a God, to escape my pain, the very pain which helped me become who I am! What a treachery! But yes, the common man is treacherous as such - he is quite silly and laughable when he says he is "saved." Saved from what? Saved to where? As soon as he begins to answer such questions, you immediately grasp his secret principle of pleasure and his holy exploitation.

Treachery, and hatred too - those are pronounced holy amongst them. I have Christian friends who complain to me about life and existence, hence, they are Christians - do you see the plague? I have known many Muslims, and they too are Christians, they too are treacherous and haters - they too are...subhuman. And what is the root of this masquerade? - the filthy Jews. I want to exploit the Jews - that is my greatest lust, but Nietzsche, I am afraid, exploited them way before me. I am envious.

The unlearned will be unlearned - what we try to teach them is a mere hope, we hope that they learn that which they have not experienced: that is, we dream that they ennoble themselves through the words of the truly noble - but that, too, is a thievery...it is an immediate nobility acquired, but not lived. He is noble who does not come to nobility from tradition, but from experience. This very little I can say, and I have set before humanity my greatest reason for denouncing all religions, philosophies, and anything that "teaches" wisdom. Wisdom is lost as soon as it is taught. Wisdom does not teach - it hints, it whispers, and it longs to be heard, but it does not teach because it fears being misshapen, or at least, it should fear being misshapen. Behold! It is misshapen.

Supposing Christ was a wise man. Has he been understood? What have they - the subhuman - understood of him? Only that which they wanted to understand and nothing more; only that which satisfies them, and nothing less. They are exploiters, these holy peasants, these rodents! Notice how each of them claims to be "saved" - how I wish there to be a God! - how I wish to hold a moment where I laugh out loud at them, as they are confronted with lightning and thunder: "No, you are not saved; you are condemned"!

The "liberation of the masses." Is that what the noble men tried to do? Can the masses be liberated? Should they be liberated? What have they given to life? How easy we can say how much they have taken!

They give us their children and their parasites, and they still complain! They give us nothing but take all. They add nothing, but subtract from life all its joy. They hate the individual with every profound desire they posses: their goal is the mass and the opposition is...nature and life; because they like divisions - they like physical divisions: body and soul; they like mental divisions: conscious and subconscious; they like moral divisions: good and evil; they want one to be many - they want one to be divided amongst them - they want no one but five, four and three. They are sick with their divisions, and today he is isolated who is not sick like them, he who is clean and is profound is lonely by nature. They are individuals? They are sick subindividuals. And they demand divisions and subdivisions amongst all of life, only thus can they grasp their existence, for they are sick, and they only understand sickness, thus they sicken life only to understand it.

They are divisions, these slaves and peasants; they are fools, these clowns. And only when you are a slave and a peasant, only when you are fool...can you say..."I am a wise man amongst other men." Only when you are sick can you say..."I am with a community" or "with a group," or "with a class." They have stolen life. They have sickened even love. Their ideas of love are sick and sickening - only the sick fall to love today, for the only subject one can love is a sickened type of love which demands not love, but division and pollution, it demands attention and strictness, it demands not love, but hatred towards life. Love, to them, is an escape too. What God was to them is what "love" has become - a sanctuary where the lacking and inept, where the "unconsious" leads themselves. Their friendships, too, have been corrupted. What have they not touched!

Even language is dirty! Philosopher's struggle to define their terms before using them...why? Because otherwise, they might be confused for...a disease.

Even music is filthy!

And their arts are ugly.

Ugly!

Ugly!

Profound ugliness...that is what they call "beauty."

They are divisions, these liars. And I despise them.

They complicate themselves. When they are sick and unknowing, when they are stupid, they claim that it is "natural" - hence we see accepted divisions as good and evil, body and soul, conscious and subconscious. How many more divisions will these complicaters bestow into man! How many more cruses and sicknesses will they inflict!

I am the simplifier. And all sicknesses will be known here. There are no divisions - good is evil and evil is good; pleasure is pain and pain is pleasure; moral is immoral and immoral is moral; soul is body and body is soul; unconsciousness is the result of the secret and the dishonesty, the repression and the thievery, the guiltiness that they feel after having raped life with all their diseases...a healthy man has no hidden desires, no multi-mindedness, no levels of consciousness: he is awoken. But they are sick, and they believe that their sickness is "natural"!

They are divisions, these holy degenerates. And I despise them wholly.

But I laugh with them. I admit. I laugh at them.
 
R

Rakamir

Guest
DUke, take it easy, chum. You are the simplifier? Then simplify this:

Rather than break people up into Religious, Agnostic, and Atheist, try doing it this way:

The Faithful (Religious, Atheist ... they buh-LEEVE!!) and
The Agnostic (The Faithless, those requiring proof).

I'm agnostic, and readily admit it, following the religiousity of my early youth, and the atheism of my later youth. If you think I'm happy being a Doubting Thomas Christian, a life-long wonderer, I'm not, but I'm not going to commit hari-kari over it, either.

And to a certain degree, a brother and sister have to have SOME degree of faith. For example, I'm never been to the Semi-Autonomous Region of White Supremeist Northern Idaho, but I have faith it exists. Misplaced faith? Perhaps, but I don't think so.
And I feel no need to prove it, either. I'd never hang with those jerks, anyway. Heck I wish they didn't exist ... THEY are the "subhuman" among us, DUke. Please don't take the worst of us and extrapolate to all.

You see? You don't have to be from Missouri to be a "show me" kind of guy. :)

And take it easy on the wine, my friend, because seriously, in spite of your wonderful writing style, you seem to go on with yourself like my mother did when he had a few too many. Just a tip. :)

Through conciseness: communication,
Sincerely,
Rakamir of Gondor,
Being the late JarJaromir's younger brother

"Scusa mee, Kinga Strider sir, but meesa no seea how we canna protecta Gondor from Mordor! Thema Nazgul waya too strong!"
... JarJaromir, before being beheaded by an orc, to the cheers of millions ....
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...

Have you ever felt a nameless feeling that showers the mind with images and thoughts like lightning, faster than lightning, to an extent that between thought and word there seems to exist a millennia! As if one is swimming across the sea of existence in its wholeness, from its very origins, to its modern days, and too to its end and finality! That is my "wine," Rakamir, it is that strange and nameless feeling which gives you much and leaves you exhausted and worried too - how will you ever begin to explain it, this namelessness! What shall you name it! Should it be given a name? And our greater worry and greatest headache becomes if such a feeling, and all the doors it opens, all the question marks it sings, all the Yes’s and No’s it thinks, can they ever be communicated and sung before an audience? What audience is worthy enough! Distaste is language and words; meaningless - they communicate nothing but abstractions of a thing more real: of a thing that exists, or at least, a thing that is felt – a thing experienced.

As for me "breaking" people apart - I do not do that. On a very shallow, very low, very human level, I seem to categorize people. Indeed. But look at it from a different perspective: my only categorization is the subman versus the man; or the average man versus the higher spirited - I prefer the term "sub," however, so as to indicate an insult, a distaste, and an offense towards all degenerate life forms. I will be the first to admit: their pain is my pleasure; that which offends them constitutes my entertainment, given that all which offends them is merely an illusion, a big fat zero and nothing: can you believe it, can you grasp the ridiculousness of a man who is offended at the sight of the burning of a "Holy" Bible? Is it not amusing to see an outcry against the burning of a flag? Is it not sad that people use words at all, and furthermore, allow words to hurt them? Really, the world is troubled by a big nothing - its "pain" amounts to an act of willful self-victimization which, with all passion, tries to make life an ugly place only to go again and invent many Gods, faiths, "beliefs," "truths," and dogmas of all colors. Or one falters with a severe case of nausea: “man is a useless passion” (which is what Sartre finally said). At the end, there is nothing to be saved from except one's own hatred to one's self: I assure you, the masses despise themselves, hence, their many divisions not only amongst each other, but the divisions in themselves as I have described in my earlier post.

Save them from themselves – this is perhaps the most delicate and subtle truth I can utter with proud certainty; save them from their illusions and happy suicide; save them from their fears and self-hate; save them from their leap to nothigness and infinity; by all means! My God! Save them from eternity and the eternal!

No such subindividuals deserve a Heaven. Let us pray, today, that there is a Hell in which we are all condemned for inventing ourselves "good" and "moral," because with that, we have murdered the “truth”: we are not good, not moral, and that there is no thing as good and moral – in us there exists only a nameless type of existence that demands both "opposites." The strive for the good, the "age of liberation" in which we live today, is nothing more than the "untruth" and the lie of the masses coming into light and reaching the pinnacle of self-deception...which, as they see it, is the pinnacle of their “good.”

...liberation from?

...liberation to?

I can tell you with ease all the hithers and withers of their liberation…

From human-nature, from life, from the namelessness of existence, from the challenge of existence; liberation to a single dogma, to definition and certainty, to "science," to human-subnature, or - a man-made nature - in short, liberation to antiman, liberation of, from, and to the profundity of the subman: the stabilizing and finally pronouncing of the subman's dogma as the way, the truth, the eternity. I see such an event lurking around our horizons – it is called “world peace.”

And I am against that world peace. A peace with others, yes, but a peace with one’s self? Never! Not in such a world. Not in a world where sicknesses are treated, instead of investigated. Perhaps it is they who fear embarking on an epic investigation of the modern man’s symptom. What? You say you do not know of the modern man symptom? Or…symptoms? Why! – it is a nameless symptom! It is a dried, ugly, concealed disease which does not know of itself, but knows that it is there – I point my gloved finger at them (fearing infection): do they not all cry today? Underneath their smiles, are they not all wailing for something? A thing, what thing? Who knows! They want “it,” they want to be “free.” They cry with different pitches and at different times – some cry because of this, some because of that…at the end, they are all crying with dissatisfaction, hence, they are always wanting of more. More of what? Anything! As long as it is more. Some take their revenge with this “more” in science and pride themselves as inventors; others are genius capitalists whose greatest thirst lusts for more capital; some claim that they are thirsty for “knowledge,” others…for “truth”; some of these “mores” we see trapped within the "faithful" lusts of many believers too: they believer in God because they want more. They want eternity, immortality – they want it all and they want it more and more and more and more. Are we surprised, then, when we see these sick folks striving for love and lovers today? – love is their savior. A savior who finally saves them from…themselves. “No man is an island” – how true! How true…for the subman.

Liberation. Deliberation.

THEY are the "subhuman" among us, DUke. Please don't take the worst of us and extrapolate to all.
But I ask you a question - show me a single man willing to confess this subhumanity, this inner and secret wanting of more, this lust that calls it self "faith," the principle of pleasure that calls itself "morality," all his incapacity for life. Each of us thinks himself worthy and valuable, "individual," and, if possible, a priority over others - is this not true? Who of us is willing to concede that he is a...mere slave - a slave that has lived and is living under the constructions of culture, society, and the subhuman civilization?

I like your "THEY are the 'subhuman' among us..." - but let us ask them, now. Do they deem themselves subhuman in any form?

Your finger happily points away from you and towards your closest object and examples. Your words joyfully sail from your mouth in search of a victim, a target which to call "THEY," or more sincerely, "They and not I."

I am subhuman. My willingness to confess my subexistence, my lacking, enables me to will something higher - something over and beyond, something clean. You only can smell the scent of cleanness after having been filthy; evermore, you can only know of cleanness after you have experienced what filth is.

But who is filthy today? It seems each claims his cleanness as soon as he can utter the term "clean," covering himself with beautiful words, dressing himself with the masks of noble and wise slogans, at the end, forgetting that he is still unclean. Who is clean?

And this is precisely what the believers do with their God. God as a mask, as cleanness, but is not cleanness.

This is precisely what the unbelievers do as well. They derive their cleanness from their "lack of belief," which they believe to be superior. Their uncertainty is a certainty in uncertainty - it is a dogma of its own. This one, though, does not more of God…it wants more in life – it wants more in the sciences, in ethics, in philosophy, in all sects of life.

All these constitute the subman. The leap to more, the leap to infinity and nothingness – this is the goal of the subman.

There is one dogma: the dogma of challenge between man and the universe. This is the only uncertainty that I am…certain of.

...

Oh, and I am not originally from Missouri - I have not really conformed to the "Show Me" status, although I am a citizen of the United States. A legal citizen, might I add. :) I was born in Iraq, and came to the U.S. in 1994.
 
R

Rakamir

Guest
So what is your heritage? Englishmen were born in Iraq. I had a dear friend once from Iran. His name was Kambiz, but we never discussed the Middle East or Religion. He just cracked a joke a minute, and was a joy to be around. Lovely wife, too. I recently studied the Assyrians, Babylonians, other Mesopotamian cultures. Fascinating place.
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...

My heritage? I am not sure what exactly you mean...but here: I am born a Muslim, and my mom's side of the family, in fact, is a direct descend of Mohammad, the initiator of Islam and the, I guess, so-called author of the Qur'an. You could say my "blood line" is..."noble." In the Arab world, there is a name for us special descendants - my mother was talking to me about it, but I forgot what it is. I guess, then, we really are very rooted to the land; my ancestors are "from there" originally. Whatever "originally" can mean...

There is no Englishman's blood in me.
Rakamir

...but we never discussed the Middle East or Religion.
I find that discussing the Middle East or its Religion really puts off many people, as it creates a very opposing attitude towards the West. It's funny you mention that he makes plenty of jokes: that's what they do, usually, when they have a lot to say but cannot say it, so they conceal themselves and their agony behind a very dark mask of "jokes" and "happy thoughts." I did that too, for a while, and then just broke loose and found a flaming honesty that cuts right through the skin. No more did I care about people's "feelings," and their "sensitivity." I am happier than I ever was.
 
A

Almindhra

Guest
Originally posted by DÛke

I think of the pathetic Almindhra of this board, a little girl both lost and confused, with so many conflicting desires that she is all but garbage if one sees her beneath the skin
I didn't see this before...

You think you know so much about me Duke, and you don't...Don't think you know my desires and don't say that I am garbage...I didn't post anything before your little post there and my name just comes up out of nowhere?...

You get a big oink you....
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...
Almindhra:

You think you know so much about me Duke, and you don't...Don't think you know my desires and don't say that I am garbage...I didn't post anything before your little post there and my name just comes up out of nowhere?...
Of course your name comes "out of nowhere." Many names came "out of nowhere." Get over it.

I don't think I know much about you. Just like, what I have shown you of myself thus far, is mere garbage to you...let me have, at least, the honesty to tell you that, whatever you have said, whatever you have done, insofar, constitues the greatest massacre of garbage and garbaged minds...to me. Don't take it personally; just like I don't take you personally.
Almindhra:

You get a big oink you....
What's new? <grin> I'm surprised you still decide to direct anything towards me! All this is old. When I, um, mentioned your name, it was by an accidental whim, almost an impersonal, indirect use and abuse, merely as an example, a mean to my end - a thing I could point at when I feel the need to recall of...garbage. Don't go wasting your time here. We "got over" direct "oink yous" a long, long time ago.
 
T

train

Guest
*Steps in protectively...*

"Watch it Duke - or I'll get Theorgg on you... and whatever's in his loin cloth..."

"Now there's another name out of nowhere..."
 
R

Rakamir

Guest
I see no reason for people to get personal on this or any list whatsoever, but whatever, yet another chink in the human armor, alas.

Your response Duke, based on your family's pride of being desended from The Prophet, leads me to believe that your family is Shi'i, or Shi'ite, or Shi'a, or however it's spelled, rather than Sunni or Kurd. Correct? If so, let me express my great regret that you and yours suffered in the kiliing fields at the hands of the Ba'ath party. So sad.

In any event, do you plan to return to Iraq after your studies and help rebuild the place? I hope so. I'm looking forward to a Team Iraq playing at Worlds someday. :D :D :D
 

Ferret

Moderator
Staff member
Originally posted by Rakamir
Your response Duke, based on your family's pride of being desended from The Prophet, leads me to believe that your family is Shi'i, or Shi'ite, or Shi'a, or however it's spelled, rather than Sunni or Kurd. Correct? If so, let me express my great regret that you and yours suffered in the kiliing fields at the hands of the Ba'ath party. So sad.
I'm sorry, but I won't share your sympathy for DUke just because of his ancestry. He's an individual. Not all of those people that were oppressed...

If you're going to waste all of your time just handing out sympathy why not tell all of our Jewish members that you feel bad that the holocaust happened - or hand out a few Hallmark Apology Cards to those of us of Irish herritage because our people have been raked over the coals for centuries...I could go on, but hopefully you get the picture.

I feel no pitty for DUke because he doesn't deserve it. I say that not as a bad thing, but as a fact. He is his own person. He regrets nothing he ever says or done. I offer pitty to those that don't show that kind of raw courage...

-Ferret

"...but not too much :)"
 
R

Rakamir

Guest
I express my deepest regret to those Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, mentally retarded, handicapped, Catholic Clergy, Russians, English, Americans, most of the French, and people of every land killed by Hitler and his thugs during World War II. The current number is what ... 45 million? And the displaced and injured as well.

I express deep regret to the Irish who have been raked over the coals for centuries. Let's have a drink and discuss it sometime. For you and you alone are the purest remaining of the Celtic tribes, once called Barbarians by the "civilized" Egyptians and Mesopotamians when Europe was for all intents and purposes "Celtica," until the "civilized" world pushed you north and west and off-continent ... for some reason. Nice job on killing the remnants of the Spanish Armada, btw. High five. No high five for the IRA, however. Killing civilians intentionally is Terrorism, and only makes people hate you and your "cause" more. Unless you're showing The Japanese Empire that unless they surrender, we'll nuke Tokyo. There's always exceptions, alas.

I express deep regret to the 1 million Armenians killed by the Turks, to the 9 million Ukranians starved to death by Stalin, to the 10 million Manchurians killed by the previously mentioned Japanese Empire, STILL the 20th century's worst holocaust, and to the 23 million dead Central Americans intentionally killed via smallpox corpses by the Spanish in the 1500's, still History's greatest holocaust.

Why don't I just say: Deepest regrets to the survivors and victims of anyone ever killed anytime anywhere for any reason, period, with the exception of those responsible for killing, themselves. That should cover the bases.

Is that better, Ferret? Your Hallmark card is on the way.
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...

Thanks Ferret; that was actually a good compliment. :) You said exactly what I would have said: I need no sympathy, and not just so - the world, as a whole, needs no sympathy. We get ourselves into problems, responsibilities of the "modern world," we entangle ourselves willfully, no matter how "unconscious" or unthinking we are as we make our choices. What happened to my "ancestry" is, firstly, a thing of the past which has not affected me. Not that I "don't care," but - I am here and now, and my sight is towards the future, and not nostalgia and regret over the past.

Ferret - now, if you can only learn to show no sympathy to even those who want and need it, you would truly become a...better person. In my point of view anyway. Why? To what end must we offer sympathy? To whom must we offer sympathy?

So you want to pity the poor? You want to pity this and that group? Each group wants exclusive sympathy; their eyes are fixed on the man who pities, and as soon as his heart softens to pity another group, they become beasts: they want to be the only victims, the only "poor souls" to be pitied. This is too easy for me! - I point out to their so-called "God," a God that, to them, is their own and sole sympathizer: "Bless Me." The Jews have their own God, the Christians, the Muslims...an etcetera of Gods! Sects within sects, like insects of Gods. Let their Gods offer them pity!

You want to pity the entire world, then, so as to be “fair”? Would it not be better to work to further and cleanse the world instead? Would it not be more useful to the world than to sit down and offer sympathy to any decadent and self-victimizer and self-hater?

Sympathy is the invention of the poor-souled, of the soiled-minds, and all "sensitive" feelings towards them is...subhuman. Pity? Rather, why not better the world instead! Frankly, however, this has been said all too many times that it fails to ring that certain tone of excitement, that certain fervor one gets when hearing something motivational – still, yet, it is always new, and will perhaps always remain new...because not many have learned to not pity, to not be driven by "beautiful," effeminate feelings to "lend a hand," to not be driven by drivel.

The only hand to be lent ought to be a hand that strives, inspirits, and wills...and this is to say, not to those who are overtaken by past regrets, by the past in general, by nostalgia, self-sacrifice, selfless existence; the helping hand belongs to everything new, and not to everything “would have been,” “should have been,” and “was.” The helping hands belongs to the “this will be!”

You move forward with every moment. You learn from the past, and you discard it as a guide - the future, then, becomes the guide.

...

As for Hitler...I, with all honesty and innocence, fail to see this man as "evil." Yes, he ended the lives of good and many. He had a plan!

Let us look to Bush, today, as an example of a man who is great, who is willful - this man had a goal in mind, and made his today the mere overture to tommorow, at any price, at any lie and any life: the goal will be reached. Hitler's goal, perhaps, is more ambitious, more universal. The psychology under the two men, however, is similar: they had an idea, and they strove with all their might and talent to reach that idea as reality, and not as a mere idea. No one was able to stop them: no one dared to place himself as an obstacle to Bush's fanatical over-reach and his liberating front; the same can be said about Hitler to an extent. The only thing you can call "evil" is their psyche, which is, at the end, the same: the same fanaticism, the same dogma, the same..."truth." That they are fanatical as such only proves how much they believe in themselves.

...

The world's greatest problem: who should be allowed to believe in himself? Who should be allowed to love and will himself onto others? Self-love, egotistical feelings, independence - those are great, as long as they are manifested within the right spirit. Some people must be forbidden self-love and indepednence.
 

Ferret

Moderator
Staff member
Originally posted by DÛke
...

Thanks Ferret; that was actually a good compliment. :) You said exactly what I would have said: I need no sympathy, and not just so - the world, as a whole, needs no sympathy. We get ourselves into problems, responsibilities of the "modern world," we entangle ourselves willfully, no matter how "unconscious" or unthinking we are as we make our choices. What happened to my "ancestry" is, firstly, a thing of the past which has not affected me. Not that I "don't care," but - I am here and now, and my sight is towards the future, and not nostalgia and regret over the past.
You're welcome :) I usually don't hand out sympathy. Sympathy, like regret, is a wasted emotion. You can't change the past. you can only strive to make your future better.

Your analogy between Hitler and Bush reminds me of the First Rule of Programming:

Use every resource at your disposal to obtain your goals. Is this truly such a bad thing if your goal is the greater good of mankind? At least they have the Vision to look ahead and are not held back by a bunch of whiny people each w/ their own personal agendae. I know what I'm saying isn't politicaly correct. It makes me feel damned good to say it though. It's almost liberating (Do I get to keep my oil now? :D )

-Ferret

"Some sympathies for me couldn't hurt though. My ferret, Nietzche died this morning...:( "
 
Top