Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Greetings

Expand Messages
  • Trevor Williams
    Hi Ollie, I recently read your latest topic on the ILP forum. Very fascinating idea that I certainly never thought about it. I m going to go through it later
    Message 1 of 14 , Sep 22, 2009
    • 1 Attachment
    • 865 KB
    Hi Ollie,
    I recently read your latest topic on the ILP forum. Very fascinating idea that I certainly never thought about it. I'm going to go through it later when I get out of class.
    BTW, My trip to Britain was great. I wrote on article on it. I think you might be interested. It is under the pseudonym, "Ryan Lanier."

  • Sauwelios
    Hi, Trevor, Do you mean the latest topic I ve started? About infinity and nothingness? I ve read your article. It was pleasant to read. I noticed your mention
    Message 2 of 14 , Sep 22, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, Trevor,

      Do you mean the latest topic I've started? About infinity and nothingness?

      I've read your article. It was pleasant to read. I noticed your mention of Geert Wilders' Freedom Party, which is the leading anti-immigration party in my country. I did not vote for it in the European elections, however. In fact, I voted for the most pro-European party. I am, like Nietzsche, for European unification---and as for the immigration problem, I have been having dangerous thoughts about that lately. I suspect I should, from a philosophical point of view, prefer Sharia law over Wilders as Prime Minister. Do you know of Wilders' strong connections with Israel, by the way? Not that that is my reason for rejecting him. My reason for rejecting him is that he is (or presents himself) as the champion of native Dutch culture, or of native Western culture in Holland, which culture he says is the result of an intense 'discussion' between two traditions, the Jewish-Christian tradition and the Humanistic tradition. The Nietzschean outlook, however, is of course anti-Christian (if not anti-Semitic) and supra-Humanistic. I discern the following development in the history of native Western culture:

      1. Peoples with *natural* values (including the *Jewish* people before its military defeat) versus a people with *unnatural* values (the Jewish people *after* its military defeat);
      2. Judaism versus Christianity;
      3. Catholicism versus Protestantism;
      4. Protestantism versus Humanism;
      5. Uniculturalism versus Multiculturalism.

      Now Wilders' position is Uniculturalism. The culture he seeks to preserve, however, is our current liberal-democratic culture (Wilders 'deserted' from his earlier party, the liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy). This he seeks to protect from the "totalitarian ideology" of Islam. However totalitarian Islam may be, however, it does not, like Wilders, advocate a 'motality', to use a word Moody Lawless once coined. The eminent Nietzsche interpreter *Laurence Lampert* formulated this as follows:

      "[T]he Medieval enlightenment was an event in Islamic and Jewish history; it was *not* an event in Christian history. Christianity's stance toward philosophy was essentially different from that of Islam or Judaism, because Christianity understood itself not to be fundamentally law, but to be fundamentally faith. As such, it understood itself to be the true philosophy, the philosophy revealed by revelation. Christianity therefore stood to philosophy in a friendly if condescending position: philosophy as the exercise of mere reason required the supplement of Christian truth to complete its endeavor; philosophy could begin on its own, proceed a modest distance on its own, but never end successfully on its own with possession of the full truth. Christianity therefore could and did co-opt philosophy as Islam and Judaism never could. Christianity represented a danger to philosophy very different from the mere prohibition that was the ultimate threat of Islam or Judaism: Christianity could parade itself as the true philosophy, the indispensable extension of the best efforts of ancient pagans to grasp the mystery of things with unaided reason. To tyrannize philosophy as the True Philosophy is far more dangerous than banishment[.]"
      [Lampert, 'Leo Strauss and Nietzsche', page 139-40.]

      In Islam and Judaism, philosophy could just go esoteric; whereas in Christianity, it had to serve as the handmaid of religion. Wilders' position, however, is post-Christian and with that, still Christian, all too Christian. Humanism as a life stance has become the secular successor of Christianity. Instead of revelation from a transcendental source, the Humanist believes in revelation from an *immanent* source: he believes his herd morality is revealed as the supreme and ultimate morality in (human) nature and (human) history.

      Wilders as Prime Minister would thus be a greater threat to the rule of philosophy than Sharia law. Under Sharia law, philosophers can at least rule esoterically, behind the screens so to say; whereas under Christianity or Humanism, it is reduced to a handmaid.

      Back to the development I discern in Western history. This is the antithesis (no pun intended) to a Hegelian dialectic, for we could render it as follows:

      1. natural cultures vs. an unnatural culture;
      2. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. Christianity};
      3. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. {Catholicism vs. Protestantism}};
      4. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. {Catholicism vs. {Protestantism vs. Humanism}}};
      5. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. {Catholicism vs. {Protestantism vs. {Uniculturalism vs. Multiculturalism}}}}.

      I'm sorry if this is hard to read with your dyslexia. But as you will see, the latest offshoot in each case continues as an old branch *and* shoots off into a new branch. It may not be completely accurate with regard to the history of Protestantism and Humanism, but there's still something in it, I think. Contrary to Catholicism, in Protestantism the 'layman' no longer needed a priestly intermediary between himself and God, or between himself and the Bible; whereas in Humanism, contrary to Protestantism, one no longer needs a God (or a Bible) between oneself and the Idea of the Good. (In Christianity, God is supposed to be dependent on the Idea of the Good, which he "in acting looks to as an exemplar, or which he aims at as a definite goal", to speak with Spinoza. In Humanism, on the other hand, man is supposed to be able to discover the Good by means of his own faculties, most notably Reason, in (human) nature and (human) history.)

      This development is a succession of liberalisations:

      1. The Jewish people is 'liberated' from its warrior caste (which the Assyrians extinguish);
      2. Early Christianity emancipates itself from the exclusivity of Judaism (in order to be a 'Judaist' one must be ethnically Jewish);
      3. Protestantism emancipates itself from the ecclesiastical hierarchy (the layman's need of priestly mediation);
      4. Humanism emancipates itself from the belief in a Supreme Being (in order to attain the Good one needs Jesus);
      5. Multiculturalism (as cultural relativism) emancipates itself from the belief in the *one* Idea of the Good.

      Muslims believe it is good if woman is in a subordinate position; Uniculturalists like Wilders believe it is good if woman is in a position of equality. It's obvious which view is more Nietzschean.

      One might say Uniculturalism ultimately harks back to natural cultures; but it does so in the same way Judaism still harks back to Israel's days of military prowess. We Nietzscheans should say about Wilders and his culture what Nietzsche said about the Jews and their God:

      "They should have let him go."
      [The Antichrist, section 25.]


      --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, Trevor Williams <visionsofglory14@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Ollie,
      > I recently read your latest topic on the ILP forum. Very fascinating idea that I certainly never thought about it. I'm going to go through it later when I get out of class.
      > BTW, My trip to Britain was great. I wrote on article on it. I think you might be interested. It is under the pseudonym, "Ryan Lanier."
      >
    • Jeff
      Why do you say I have dyslexia?
      Message 3 of 14 , Sep 25, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Why do you say I have dyslexia?

        --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi, Trevor,
        >
        > Do you mean the latest topic I've started? About infinity and nothingness?
        >
        > I've read your article. It was pleasant to read. I noticed your mention of Geert Wilders' Freedom Party, which is the leading anti-immigration party in my country. I did not vote for it in the European elections, however. In fact, I voted for the most pro-European party. I am, like Nietzsche, for European unification---and as for the immigration problem, I have been having dangerous thoughts about that lately. I suspect I should, from a philosophical point of view, prefer Sharia law over Wilders as Prime Minister. Do you know of Wilders' strong connections with Israel, by the way? Not that that is my reason for rejecting him. My reason for rejecting him is that he is (or presents himself) as the champion of native Dutch culture, or of native Western culture in Holland, which culture he says is the result of an intense 'discussion' between two traditions, the Jewish-Christian tradition and the Humanistic tradition. The Nietzschean outlook, however, is of course anti-Christian (if not anti-Semitic) and supra-Humanistic. I discern the following development in the history of native Western culture:
        >
        > 1. Peoples with *natural* values (including the *Jewish* people before its military defeat) versus a people with *unnatural* values (the Jewish people *after* its military defeat);
        > 2. Judaism versus Christianity;
        > 3. Catholicism versus Protestantism;
        > 4. Protestantism versus Humanism;
        > 5. Uniculturalism versus Multiculturalism.
        >
        > Now Wilders' position is Uniculturalism. The culture he seeks to preserve, however, is our current liberal-democratic culture (Wilders 'deserted' from his earlier party, the liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy). This he seeks to protect from the "totalitarian ideology" of Islam. However totalitarian Islam may be, however, it does not, like Wilders, advocate a 'motality', to use a word Moody Lawless once coined. The eminent Nietzsche interpreter *Laurence Lampert* formulated this as follows:
        >
        > "[T]he Medieval enlightenment was an event in Islamic and Jewish history; it was *not* an event in Christian history. Christianity's stance toward philosophy was essentially different from that of Islam or Judaism, because Christianity understood itself not to be fundamentally law, but to be fundamentally faith. As such, it understood itself to be the true philosophy, the philosophy revealed by revelation. Christianity therefore stood to philosophy in a friendly if condescending position: philosophy as the exercise of mere reason required the supplement of Christian truth to complete its endeavor; philosophy could begin on its own, proceed a modest distance on its own, but never end successfully on its own with possession of the full truth. Christianity therefore could and did co-opt philosophy as Islam and Judaism never could. Christianity represented a danger to philosophy very different from the mere prohibition that was the ultimate threat of Islam or Judaism: Christianity could parade itself as the true philosophy, the indispensable extension of the best efforts of ancient pagans to grasp the mystery of things with unaided reason. To tyrannize philosophy as the True Philosophy is far more dangerous than banishment[.]"
        > [Lampert, 'Leo Strauss and Nietzsche', page 139-40.]
        >
        > In Islam and Judaism, philosophy could just go esoteric; whereas in Christianity, it had to serve as the handmaid of religion. Wilders' position, however, is post-Christian and with that, still Christian, all too Christian. Humanism as a life stance has become the secular successor of Christianity. Instead of revelation from a transcendental source, the Humanist believes in revelation from an *immanent* source: he believes his herd morality is revealed as the supreme and ultimate morality in (human) nature and (human) history.
        >
        > Wilders as Prime Minister would thus be a greater threat to the rule of philosophy than Sharia law. Under Sharia law, philosophers can at least rule esoterically, behind the screens so to say; whereas under Christianity or Humanism, it is reduced to a handmaid.
        >
        > Back to the development I discern in Western history. This is the antithesis (no pun intended) to a Hegelian dialectic, for we could render it as follows:
        >
        > 1. natural cultures vs. an unnatural culture;
        > 2. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. Christianity};
        > 3. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. {Catholicism vs. Protestantism}};
        > 4. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. {Catholicism vs. {Protestantism vs. Humanism}}};
        > 5. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. {Catholicism vs. {Protestantism vs. {Uniculturalism vs. Multiculturalism}}}}.
        >
        > I'm sorry if this is hard to read with your dyslexia. But as you will see, the latest offshoot in each case continues as an old branch *and* shoots off into a new branch. It may not be completely accurate with regard to the history of Protestantism and Humanism, but there's still something in it, I think. Contrary to Catholicism, in Protestantism the 'layman' no longer needed a priestly intermediary between himself and God, or between himself and the Bible; whereas in Humanism, contrary to Protestantism, one no longer needs a God (or a Bible) between oneself and the Idea of the Good. (In Christianity, God is supposed to be dependent on the Idea of the Good, which he "in acting looks to as an exemplar, or which he aims at as a definite goal", to speak with Spinoza. In Humanism, on the other hand, man is supposed to be able to discover the Good by means of his own faculties, most notably Reason, in (human) nature and (human) history.)
        >
        > This development is a succession of liberalisations:
        >
        > 1. The Jewish people is 'liberated' from its warrior caste (which the Assyrians extinguish);
        > 2. Early Christianity emancipates itself from the exclusivity of Judaism (in order to be a 'Judaist' one must be ethnically Jewish);
        > 3. Protestantism emancipates itself from the ecclesiastical hierarchy (the layman's need of priestly mediation);
        > 4. Humanism emancipates itself from the belief in a Supreme Being (in order to attain the Good one needs Jesus);
        > 5. Multiculturalism (as cultural relativism) emancipates itself from the belief in the *one* Idea of the Good.
        >
        > Muslims believe it is good if woman is in a subordinate position; Uniculturalists like Wilders believe it is good if woman is in a position of equality. It's obvious which view is more Nietzschean.
        >
        > One might say Uniculturalism ultimately harks back to natural cultures; but it does so in the same way Judaism still harks back to Israel's days of military prowess. We Nietzscheans should say about Wilders and his culture what Nietzsche said about the Jews and their God:
        >
        > "They should have let him go."
        > [The Antichrist, section 25.]
        >
        >
        > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, Trevor Williams <visionsofglory14@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Hi Ollie,
        > > I recently read your latest topic on the ILP forum. Very fascinating idea that I certainly never thought about it. I'm going to go through it later when I get out of class.
        > > BTW, My trip to Britain was great. I wrote on article on it. I think you might be interested. It is under the pseudonym, "Ryan Lanier."
        > >
        >
      • Sauwelios
        I said *Trevor* had dyslexia; I don t know who Jeff is. I m quite sure Trevor once told me (on ILP) that he had a reading disability of some sort. Why did I
        Message 4 of 14 , Sep 25, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          I said *Trevor* had dyslexia; I don't know who 'Jeff' is.

          I'm quite sure Trevor once told me (on ILP) that he had a reading disability of some sort. Why did I share that with my readers?---It was a "small revenge", to speak with Zarathustra,---for a slight indiscretion.


          --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff" <visionsofglory14@...> wrote:
          >
          > Why do you say I have dyslexia?
          >
          > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Hi, Trevor,
          > >
          > > Do you mean the latest topic I've started? About infinity and nothingness?
          > >
          > > I've read your article. It was pleasant to read. I noticed your mention of Geert Wilders' Freedom Party, which is the leading anti-immigration party in my country. I did not vote for it in the European elections, however. In fact, I voted for the most pro-European party. I am, like Nietzsche, for European unification---and as for the immigration problem, I have been having dangerous thoughts about that lately. I suspect I should, from a philosophical point of view, prefer Sharia law over Wilders as Prime Minister. Do you know of Wilders' strong connections with Israel, by the way? Not that that is my reason for rejecting him. My reason for rejecting him is that he is (or presents himself) as the champion of native Dutch culture, or of native Western culture in Holland, which culture he says is the result of an intense 'discussion' between two traditions, the Jewish-Christian tradition and the Humanistic tradition. The Nietzschean outlook, however, is of course anti-Christian (if not anti-Semitic) and supra-Humanistic. I discern the following development in the history of native Western culture:
          > >
          > > 1. Peoples with *natural* values (including the *Jewish* people before its military defeat) versus a people with *unnatural* values (the Jewish people *after* its military defeat);
          > > 2. Judaism versus Christianity;
          > > 3. Catholicism versus Protestantism;
          > > 4. Protestantism versus Humanism;
          > > 5. Uniculturalism versus Multiculturalism.
          > >
          > > Now Wilders' position is Uniculturalism. The culture he seeks to preserve, however, is our current liberal-democratic culture (Wilders 'deserted' from his earlier party, the liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy). This he seeks to protect from the "totalitarian ideology" of Islam. However totalitarian Islam may be, however, it does not, like Wilders, advocate a 'motality', to use a word Moody Lawless once coined. The eminent Nietzsche interpreter *Laurence Lampert* formulated this as follows:
          > >
          > > "[T]he Medieval enlightenment was an event in Islamic and Jewish history; it was *not* an event in Christian history. Christianity's stance toward philosophy was essentially different from that of Islam or Judaism, because Christianity understood itself not to be fundamentally law, but to be fundamentally faith. As such, it understood itself to be the true philosophy, the philosophy revealed by revelation. Christianity therefore stood to philosophy in a friendly if condescending position: philosophy as the exercise of mere reason required the supplement of Christian truth to complete its endeavor; philosophy could begin on its own, proceed a modest distance on its own, but never end successfully on its own with possession of the full truth. Christianity therefore could and did co-opt philosophy as Islam and Judaism never could. Christianity represented a danger to philosophy very different from the mere prohibition that was the ultimate threat of Islam or Judaism: Christianity could parade itself as the true philosophy, the indispensable extension of the best efforts of ancient pagans to grasp the mystery of things with unaided reason. To tyrannize philosophy as the True Philosophy is far more dangerous than banishment[.]"
          > > [Lampert, 'Leo Strauss and Nietzsche', page 139-40.]
          > >
          > > In Islam and Judaism, philosophy could just go esoteric; whereas in Christianity, it had to serve as the handmaid of religion. Wilders' position, however, is post-Christian and with that, still Christian, all too Christian. Humanism as a life stance has become the secular successor of Christianity. Instead of revelation from a transcendental source, the Humanist believes in revelation from an *immanent* source: he believes his herd morality is revealed as the supreme and ultimate morality in (human) nature and (human) history.
          > >
          > > Wilders as Prime Minister would thus be a greater threat to the rule of philosophy than Sharia law. Under Sharia law, philosophers can at least rule esoterically, behind the screens so to say; whereas under Christianity or Humanism, it is reduced to a handmaid.
          > >
          > > Back to the development I discern in Western history. This is the antithesis (no pun intended) to a Hegelian dialectic, for we could render it as follows:
          > >
          > > 1. natural cultures vs. an unnatural culture;
          > > 2. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. Christianity};
          > > 3. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. {Catholicism vs. Protestantism}};
          > > 4. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. {Catholicism vs. {Protestantism vs. Humanism}}};
          > > 5. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. {Catholicism vs. {Protestantism vs. {Uniculturalism vs. Multiculturalism}}}}.
          > >
          > > I'm sorry if this is hard to read with your dyslexia. But as you will see, the latest offshoot in each case continues as an old branch *and* shoots off into a new branch. It may not be completely accurate with regard to the history of Protestantism and Humanism, but there's still something in it, I think. Contrary to Catholicism, in Protestantism the 'layman' no longer needed a priestly intermediary between himself and God, or between himself and the Bible; whereas in Humanism, contrary to Protestantism, one no longer needs a God (or a Bible) between oneself and the Idea of the Good. (In Christianity, God is supposed to be dependent on the Idea of the Good, which he "in acting looks to as an exemplar, or which he aims at as a definite goal", to speak with Spinoza. In Humanism, on the other hand, man is supposed to be able to discover the Good by means of his own faculties, most notably Reason, in (human) nature and (human) history.)
          > >
          > > This development is a succession of liberalisations:
          > >
          > > 1. The Jewish people is 'liberated' from its warrior caste (which the Assyrians extinguish);
          > > 2. Early Christianity emancipates itself from the exclusivity of Judaism (in order to be a 'Judaist' one must be ethnically Jewish);
          > > 3. Protestantism emancipates itself from the ecclesiastical hierarchy (the layman's need of priestly mediation);
          > > 4. Humanism emancipates itself from the belief in a Supreme Being (in order to attain the Good one needs Jesus);
          > > 5. Multiculturalism (as cultural relativism) emancipates itself from the belief in the *one* Idea of the Good.
          > >
          > > Muslims believe it is good if woman is in a subordinate position; Uniculturalists like Wilders believe it is good if woman is in a position of equality. It's obvious which view is more Nietzschean.
          > >
          > > One might say Uniculturalism ultimately harks back to natural cultures; but it does so in the same way Judaism still harks back to Israel's days of military prowess. We Nietzscheans should say about Wilders and his culture what Nietzsche said about the Jews and their God:
          > >
          > > "They should have let him go."
          > > [The Antichrist, section 25.]
          > >
          > >
          > > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, Trevor Williams <visionsofglory14@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > > Hi Ollie,
          > > > I recently read your latest topic on the ILP forum. Very fascinating idea that I certainly never thought about it. I'm going to go through it later when I get out of class.
          > > > BTW, My trip to Britain was great. I wrote on article on it. I think you might be interested. It is under the pseudonym, "Ryan Lanier."
          > > >
          > >
          >
        • Jeff
          Ahaha. This is Trevor. I think I may have told you something of the sort in the past but I think it was just an exaggeration on my part. I have nothing of the
          Message 5 of 14 , Sep 25, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Ahaha. This is Trevor. I think I may have told you something of the sort in the past but I think it was just an exaggeration on my part. I have nothing of the sort.
            Surprised that you'd remember something like that. Ha.


            --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote:
            >
            > I said *Trevor* had dyslexia; I don't know who 'Jeff' is.
            >
            > I'm quite sure Trevor once told me (on ILP) that he had a reading disability of some sort. Why did I share that with my readers?---It was a "small revenge", to speak with Zarathustra,---for a slight indiscretion.
            >
            >
            > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff" <visionsofglory14@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Why do you say I have dyslexia?
            > >
            > > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > Hi, Trevor,
            > > >
            > > > Do you mean the latest topic I've started? About infinity and nothingness?
            > > >
            > > > I've read your article. It was pleasant to read. I noticed your mention of Geert Wilders' Freedom Party, which is the leading anti-immigration party in my country. I did not vote for it in the European elections, however. In fact, I voted for the most pro-European party. I am, like Nietzsche, for European unification---and as for the immigration problem, I have been having dangerous thoughts about that lately. I suspect I should, from a philosophical point of view, prefer Sharia law over Wilders as Prime Minister. Do you know of Wilders' strong connections with Israel, by the way? Not that that is my reason for rejecting him. My reason for rejecting him is that he is (or presents himself) as the champion of native Dutch culture, or of native Western culture in Holland, which culture he says is the result of an intense 'discussion' between two traditions, the Jewish-Christian tradition and the Humanistic tradition. The Nietzschean outlook, however, is of course anti-Christian (if not anti-Semitic) and supra-Humanistic. I discern the following development in the history of native Western culture:
            > > >
            > > > 1. Peoples with *natural* values (including the *Jewish* people before its military defeat) versus a people with *unnatural* values (the Jewish people *after* its military defeat);
            > > > 2. Judaism versus Christianity;
            > > > 3. Catholicism versus Protestantism;
            > > > 4. Protestantism versus Humanism;
            > > > 5. Uniculturalism versus Multiculturalism.
            > > >
            > > > Now Wilders' position is Uniculturalism. The culture he seeks to preserve, however, is our current liberal-democratic culture (Wilders 'deserted' from his earlier party, the liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy). This he seeks to protect from the "totalitarian ideology" of Islam. However totalitarian Islam may be, however, it does not, like Wilders, advocate a 'motality', to use a word Moody Lawless once coined. The eminent Nietzsche interpreter *Laurence Lampert* formulated this as follows:
            > > >
            > > > "[T]he Medieval enlightenment was an event in Islamic and Jewish history; it was *not* an event in Christian history. Christianity's stance toward philosophy was essentially different from that of Islam or Judaism, because Christianity understood itself not to be fundamentally law, but to be fundamentally faith. As such, it understood itself to be the true philosophy, the philosophy revealed by revelation. Christianity therefore stood to philosophy in a friendly if condescending position: philosophy as the exercise of mere reason required the supplement of Christian truth to complete its endeavor; philosophy could begin on its own, proceed a modest distance on its own, but never end successfully on its own with possession of the full truth. Christianity therefore could and did co-opt philosophy as Islam and Judaism never could. Christianity represented a danger to philosophy very different from the mere prohibition that was the ultimate threat of Islam or Judaism: Christianity could parade itself as the true philosophy, the indispensable extension of the best efforts of ancient pagans to grasp the mystery of things with unaided reason. To tyrannize philosophy as the True Philosophy is far more dangerous than banishment[.]"
            > > > [Lampert, 'Leo Strauss and Nietzsche', page 139-40.]
            > > >
            > > > In Islam and Judaism, philosophy could just go esoteric; whereas in Christianity, it had to serve as the handmaid of religion. Wilders' position, however, is post-Christian and with that, still Christian, all too Christian. Humanism as a life stance has become the secular successor of Christianity. Instead of revelation from a transcendental source, the Humanist believes in revelation from an *immanent* source: he believes his herd morality is revealed as the supreme and ultimate morality in (human) nature and (human) history.
            > > >
            > > > Wilders as Prime Minister would thus be a greater threat to the rule of philosophy than Sharia law. Under Sharia law, philosophers can at least rule esoterically, behind the screens so to say; whereas under Christianity or Humanism, it is reduced to a handmaid.
            > > >
            > > > Back to the development I discern in Western history. This is the antithesis (no pun intended) to a Hegelian dialectic, for we could render it as follows:
            > > >
            > > > 1. natural cultures vs. an unnatural culture;
            > > > 2. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. Christianity};
            > > > 3. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. {Catholicism vs. Protestantism}};
            > > > 4. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. {Catholicism vs. {Protestantism vs. Humanism}}};
            > > > 5. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. {Catholicism vs. {Protestantism vs. {Uniculturalism vs. Multiculturalism}}}}.
            > > >
            > > > I'm sorry if this is hard to read with your dyslexia. But as you will see, the latest offshoot in each case continues as an old branch *and* shoots off into a new branch. It may not be completely accurate with regard to the history of Protestantism and Humanism, but there's still something in it, I think. Contrary to Catholicism, in Protestantism the 'layman' no longer needed a priestly intermediary between himself and God, or between himself and the Bible; whereas in Humanism, contrary to Protestantism, one no longer needs a God (or a Bible) between oneself and the Idea of the Good. (In Christianity, God is supposed to be dependent on the Idea of the Good, which he "in acting looks to as an exemplar, or which he aims at as a definite goal", to speak with Spinoza. In Humanism, on the other hand, man is supposed to be able to discover the Good by means of his own faculties, most notably Reason, in (human) nature and (human) history.)
            > > >
            > > > This development is a succession of liberalisations:
            > > >
            > > > 1. The Jewish people is 'liberated' from its warrior caste (which the Assyrians extinguish);
            > > > 2. Early Christianity emancipates itself from the exclusivity of Judaism (in order to be a 'Judaist' one must be ethnically Jewish);
            > > > 3. Protestantism emancipates itself from the ecclesiastical hierarchy (the layman's need of priestly mediation);
            > > > 4. Humanism emancipates itself from the belief in a Supreme Being (in order to attain the Good one needs Jesus);
            > > > 5. Multiculturalism (as cultural relativism) emancipates itself from the belief in the *one* Idea of the Good.
            > > >
            > > > Muslims believe it is good if woman is in a subordinate position; Uniculturalists like Wilders believe it is good if woman is in a position of equality. It's obvious which view is more Nietzschean.
            > > >
            > > > One might say Uniculturalism ultimately harks back to natural cultures; but it does so in the same way Judaism still harks back to Israel's days of military prowess. We Nietzscheans should say about Wilders and his culture what Nietzsche said about the Jews and their God:
            > > >
            > > > "They should have let him go."
            > > > [The Antichrist, section 25.]
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, Trevor Williams <visionsofglory14@> wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > > Hi Ollie,
            > > > > I recently read your latest topic on the ILP forum. Very fascinating idea that I certainly never thought about it. I'm going to go through it later when I get out of class.
            > > > > BTW, My trip to Britain was great. I wrote on article on it. I think you might be interested. It is under the pseudonym, "Ryan Lanier."
            > > > >
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • Sauwelios
            I just noticed I wrote behind the screens instead of behind the scenes . Aside from that, I applaud cultural relativism *only* because it undermines itself.
            Message 6 of 14 , Oct 14, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              I just noticed I wrote "behind the screens" instead of "behind the scenes".

              Aside from that, I applaud cultural relativism *only* because it undermines itself. I myself am, like Nietzsche, a cultural monist and as such, a Uniculturalist. My Uniculturalism, however, unlike Wilders', does not seek to preserve, but to *create* a culture---a *natural* culture, i.e., a *people* with natural values. And this people shall be mankind:

              "A thousand goals have there been hitherto, for a thousand peoples have there been. Only the fetter for the thousand necks is still lacking; there is lacking the one goal. As yet humanity hath not a goal.
              But pray tell me, my brethren, if the goal of humanity be still lacking, is there not also still lacking---humanity itself?"
              [TSZ, Of the Thousand and One Goals.]

              Compare to this speech the following:

              "Creators were they who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life."
              [ibid., Of the New Idol.]

              *Nietzsche* is that creator for the people *mankind*; and he is not like Plato:

              "This second kind of philosopher [really the *only* kind of philosopher---the *actual* philosopher: see BGE 211] rarely prospers; and their situation and danger is indeed fearful. How often they have deliberately blindfolded themselves simply so as not to behold the narrow ledge that separates them from a plunge into the abyss; e.g., Plato, when he convinced himself that the "good" as *he* desired it was not the good of Plato but the "good in itself," the eternal treasure that some man, named Plato, had chanced to discover on his way!"
              [WtP 972; cf. BGE 211.]

              Nietzsche did not need to blindfold himself, for his good *was*---*most probably!*---the "good in itself"... What, have I become a dogmatist?---No: hence the "most probably". The will to power is not the---dogmatic---*truth*, but the---undogmatic---*highest probability* (the German word for "truth" is *Wahrheit*, "trueness", the word for "probability", *Wahrscheinlichkeit*, "trueseemingness"). The will to power is the most scientific *interpretation*, for "interpretation is itself a means of becoming master of something" (WtP 643)... All we know is *interpretation*, and the scientific method---Occam's Razor---demands that we try to understand everything we *don't* know in the light of what we know. Thus we arrive at the hypothesis that "this world is interpretation, and nothing besides". And the only sensible interpretation *of interpretation* is, in my view, as will to power.---

              The will to power, then, is the undogmatic truth; and the undogmatic *good in itself* follows from that:

              "What is good?---Everything that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man."
              [AC 2.]

              I'm deeply indebted to Laurence Lampert (and Leo Strauss) for these insights, and can only recommend the serious student of Nietzsche to *read Lampert!*---


              --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hi, Trevor,
              >
              > Do you mean the latest topic I've started? About infinity and nothingness?
              >
              > I've read your article. It was pleasant to read. I noticed your mention of Geert Wilders' Freedom Party, which is the leading anti-immigration party in my country. I did not vote for it in the European elections, however. In fact, I voted for the most pro-European party. I am, like Nietzsche, for European unification---and as for the immigration problem, I have been having dangerous thoughts about that lately. I suspect I should, from a philosophical point of view, prefer Sharia law over Wilders as Prime Minister. Do you know of Wilders' strong connections with Israel, by the way? Not that that is my reason for rejecting him. My reason for rejecting him is that he is (or presents himself) as the champion of native Dutch culture, or of native Western culture in Holland, which culture he says is the result of an intense 'discussion' between two traditions, the Jewish-Christian tradition and the Humanistic tradition. The Nietzschean outlook, however, is of course anti-Christian (if not anti-Semitic) and supra-Humanistic. I discern the following development in the history of native Western culture:
              >
              > 1. Peoples with *natural* values (including the *Jewish* people before its military defeat) versus a people with *unnatural* values (the Jewish people *after* its military defeat);
              > 2. Judaism versus Christianity;
              > 3. Catholicism versus Protestantism;
              > 4. Protestantism versus Humanism;
              > 5. Uniculturalism versus Multiculturalism.
              >
              > Now Wilders' position is Uniculturalism. The culture he seeks to preserve, however, is our current liberal-democratic culture (Wilders 'deserted' from his earlier party, the liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy). This he seeks to protect from the "totalitarian ideology" of Islam. However totalitarian Islam may be, however, it does not, like Wilders, advocate a 'motality', to use a word Moody Lawless once coined. The eminent Nietzsche interpreter *Laurence Lampert* formulated this as follows:
              >
              > "[T]he Medieval enlightenment was an event in Islamic and Jewish history; it was *not* an event in Christian history. Christianity's stance toward philosophy was essentially different from that of Islam or Judaism, because Christianity understood itself not to be fundamentally law, but to be fundamentally faith. As such, it understood itself to be the true philosophy, the philosophy revealed by revelation. Christianity therefore stood to philosophy in a friendly if condescending position: philosophy as the exercise of mere reason required the supplement of Christian truth to complete its endeavor; philosophy could begin on its own, proceed a modest distance on its own, but never end successfully on its own with possession of the full truth. Christianity therefore could and did co-opt philosophy as Islam and Judaism never could. Christianity represented a danger to philosophy very different from the mere prohibition that was the ultimate threat of Islam or Judaism: Christianity could parade itself as the true philosophy, the indispensable extension of the best efforts of ancient pagans to grasp the mystery of things with unaided reason. To tyrannize philosophy as the True Philosophy is far more dangerous than banishment[.]"
              > [Lampert, 'Leo Strauss and Nietzsche', page 139-40.]
              >
              > In Islam and Judaism, philosophy could just go esoteric; whereas in Christianity, it had to serve as the handmaid of religion. Wilders' position, however, is post-Christian and with that, still Christian, all too Christian. Humanism as a life stance has become the secular successor of Christianity. Instead of revelation from a transcendental source, the Humanist believes in revelation from an *immanent* source: he believes his herd morality is revealed as the supreme and ultimate morality in (human) nature and (human) history.
              >
              > Wilders as Prime Minister would thus be a greater threat to the rule of philosophy than Sharia law. Under Sharia law, philosophers can at least rule esoterically, behind the screens so to say; whereas under Christianity or Humanism, it is reduced to a handmaid.
              >
              > Back to the development I discern in Western history. This is the antithesis (no pun intended) to a Hegelian dialectic, for we could render it as follows:
              >
              > 1. natural cultures vs. an unnatural culture;
              > 2. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. Christianity};
              > 3. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. {Catholicism vs. Protestantism}};
              > 4. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. {Catholicism vs. {Protestantism vs. Humanism}}};
              > 5. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. {Catholicism vs. {Protestantism vs. {Uniculturalism vs. Multiculturalism}}}}.
              >
              > I'm sorry if this is hard to read with your dyslexia. But as you will see, the latest offshoot in each case continues as an old branch *and* shoots off into a new branch. It may not be completely accurate with regard to the history of Protestantism and Humanism, but there's still something in it, I think. Contrary to Catholicism, in Protestantism the 'layman' no longer needed a priestly intermediary between himself and God, or between himself and the Bible; whereas in Humanism, contrary to Protestantism, one no longer needs a God (or a Bible) between oneself and the Idea of the Good. (In Christianity, God is supposed to be dependent on the Idea of the Good, which he "in acting looks to as an exemplar, or which he aims at as a definite goal", to speak with Spinoza. In Humanism, on the other hand, man is supposed to be able to discover the Good by means of his own faculties, most notably Reason, in (human) nature and (human) history.)
              >
              > This development is a succession of liberalisations:
              >
              > 1. The Jewish people is 'liberated' from its warrior caste (which the Assyrians extinguish);
              > 2. Early Christianity emancipates itself from the exclusivity of Judaism (in order to be a 'Judaist' one must be ethnically Jewish);
              > 3. Protestantism emancipates itself from the ecclesiastical hierarchy (the layman's need of priestly mediation);
              > 4. Humanism emancipates itself from the belief in a Supreme Being (in order to attain the Good one needs Jesus);
              > 5. Multiculturalism (as cultural relativism) emancipates itself from the belief in the *one* Idea of the Good.
              >
              > Muslims believe it is good if woman is in a subordinate position; Uniculturalists like Wilders believe it is good if woman is in a position of equality. It's obvious which view is more Nietzschean.
              >
              > One might say Uniculturalism ultimately harks back to natural cultures; but it does so in the same way Judaism still harks back to Israel's days of military prowess. We Nietzscheans should say about Wilders and his culture what Nietzsche said about the Jews and their God:
              >
              > "They should have let him go."
              > [The Antichrist, section 25.]
              >
              >
              > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, Trevor Williams <visionsofglory14@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Hi Ollie,
              > > I recently read your latest topic on the ILP forum. Very fascinating idea that I certainly never thought about it. I'm going to go through it later when I get out of class.
              > > BTW, My trip to Britain was great. I wrote on article on it. I think you might be interested. It is under the pseudonym, "Ryan Lanier."
              > >
              >
            • perpetualburn52
              ... Is the best way to a natural order through cultural relativism and immigration(like in Europe and America)? Are you maybe indirectly saying that a
              Message 7 of 14 , Oct 15, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote:
                >
                > I just noticed I wrote "behind the screens" instead of "behind the scenes".
                >
                > Aside from that, I applaud cultural relativism *only* because it undermines itself. I myself am, like Nietzsche, a cultural monist and as such, a Uniculturalist. My Uniculturalism, however, unlike Wilders', does not seek to preserve, but to *create* a culture---a *natural* culture, i.e., a *people* with natural values. And this people shall be mankind:
                >
                Is the best way to a natural order through cultural relativism and immigration(like in Europe and America)? Are you maybe indirectly saying that a preserved white culture might become stagnant and unable to create a natural order(considering, however, that most white cultures now are culturally relative)?
              • Sauwelios
                ... The way I see cultural relativism, very simply put, is as the teaching that all cultures are equal (i.e., in value). In its un-self-reflective phase, this
                Message 8 of 14 , Oct 15, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "perpetualburn52" <perpetualburn52@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > I just noticed I wrote "behind the screens" instead of "behind the scenes".
                  > >
                  > > Aside from that, I applaud cultural relativism *only* because it undermines itself. I myself am, like Nietzsche, a cultural monist and as such, a Uniculturalist. My Uniculturalism, however, unlike Wilders', does not seek to preserve, but to *create* a culture---a *natural* culture, i.e., a *people* with natural values. And this people shall be mankind:
                  > >
                  > Is the best way to a natural order through cultural relativism and immigration(like in Europe and America)? Are you maybe indirectly saying that a preserved white culture might become stagnant and unable to create a natural order(considering, however, that most white cultures now are culturally relative)?
                  >

                  The way I see cultural relativism, very simply put, is as the teaching that all cultures are equal (i.e., in value). In its un-self-reflective phase, this teaching demands that all people deem all cultures equal. In its self-reflective phase, however, it understands that cultural relativism also relativises the cultural-relativistic culture *itself*. Its teaching means that a cultural-relativistic culture is no better than a cultural-monistic culture. This means said demand is not cultural-relativistic.

                  One may want to compare this with the problem of truthfulness in Christianity. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour", which is supposedly commanded by God, ultimately forces one to concede the lack of any evidence---indeed, the unlikeliness---of the *existence* of that God.

                  Most white cultures today are cultural-relativistic because they are (still) Christian, all too Christian. People like Wilders hold that all men are equal, but all cultures are not; cultures which consider all men equal are superior to cultures which don't. Such uniculturalism is evidently a step *back* from multiculturalism: for it depends on the very God against whose demand of truthfulness it must close its ears.

                  You seem to forget that said white cultures would not be in the predicament they are in today if it weren't for Christianity. This, however, is why Nietzsche's whole Revaluation of All Values is called *The Antichrist*.

                  As for my actual answers to your questions:

                  - The *only* way to a natural order is through crisis.

                  - *Wilders* for one does not (officially, at least) fight for the preservation of (a) *white* culture, but for the preservation of "the jewish-christian and humanistic tradition/culture" (Wilders, *Clear Wine*).
                • Sauwelios
                  ... My mind was not too clear due to a slight weariness I felt at this point. [O]ur Vision is obscure only because our Energy is deficient. [Crowley, *Little
                  Message 9 of 14 , Oct 16, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Most white cultures today are cultural-relativistic because they are (still) Christian, all too Christian. People like Wilders hold that all men are equal, but all cultures are not; cultures which consider all men equal are superior to cultures which don't. Such uniculturalism is evidently a step *back* from multiculturalism: for it depends on the very God against whose demand of truthfulness it must close its ears.
                    >

                    My mind was not too clear due to a slight weariness I felt at this point.

                    "[O]ur Vision is obscure only because our Energy is deficient."
                    [Crowley, *Little Essays*, Energy.]

                    Most white cultures today are cultural-relativistic (and struggling with their self-reflection!) because they are still Christian, all too Christian, even though they adhere to a separation of church and state. This 'Christianism' is called Humanism. It is the secular form of Christianity---the form Christianity has taken after the death of its God.

                    "Few humanists are relativists. Most humanists have an absolutist view of the truth, based on a respect for observation, experience and scientific method, and base their ethics on universal moral principles."
                    [from a Humanist web page that is no longer available.]

                    Universal moral principles: in other words, the Idea of the Good.

                    Now what people like Wilders promote is adherence to this Idea, which is shared by Judaeo-Christianity and Humanism alike. Thus they are opposed to cultural relativism, insofar as it holds that there are *multiple* Ideas of the Good (which are all equally valid). In other words, what they're really opposed to is *moral* relativism.

                    "Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth."
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

                    This means those Ideas of the Good are not Platonic Ideas at all (and I will therefore henceforth no longer capitalise them); they are simple *human* ideas, human views of what is good. With this we arrive at *historical* relativism, which views such views as conditioned by spatial-temporal conditions.

                    The paradox should be evident. *Nietzsche* has found the solution of this paradox, but the solution marks the self-overcoming of the prejudice underlying the whole development. The prejudice that there is a Godlike perspective becomes the judgment that *I* know of no evidence of the existence of such a thing.
                  • Sauwelios
                    I accidentally wrote simple instead of simply . Also, my presentation is perhaps too rigorous. Historical relativism (HR) views all views as conditioned by
                    Message 10 of 14 , Oct 16, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I accidentally wrote "simple" instead of "simply". Also, my presentation is perhaps too rigorous.

                      Historical relativism (HR) views all views as conditioned by spatial-temporal conditions---except HR itself. The Nietzschean position is in a sense the opposite of this, as the Nietzschean *departs* from the judgment that all he knows is his own view, which he understands as conditioned by spatial-temporal conditions. As this view is the only view he knows from the point of view of the viewer, his scientific methodicality demands that he suppose that *all* views are conditioned like that---i.e., that no perspective is 'Godlike' or, in other words, that all views of the world are *interpretations*.


                      --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Most white cultures today are cultural-relativistic because they are (still) Christian, all too Christian. People like Wilders hold that all men are equal, but all cultures are not; cultures which consider all men equal are superior to cultures which don't. Such uniculturalism is evidently a step *back* from multiculturalism: for it depends on the very God against whose demand of truthfulness it must close its ears.
                      > >
                      >
                      > My mind was not too clear due to a slight weariness I felt at this point.
                      >
                      > "[O]ur Vision is obscure only because our Energy is deficient."
                      > [Crowley, *Little Essays*, Energy.]
                      >
                      > Most white cultures today are cultural-relativistic (and struggling with their self-reflection!) because they are still Christian, all too Christian, even though they adhere to a separation of church and state. This 'Christianism' is called Humanism. It is the secular form of Christianity---the form Christianity has taken after the death of its God.
                      >
                      > "Few humanists are relativists. Most humanists have an absolutist view of the truth, based on a respect for observation, experience and scientific method, and base their ethics on universal moral principles."
                      > [from a Humanist web page that is no longer available.]
                      >
                      > Universal moral principles: in other words, the Idea of the Good.
                      >
                      > Now what people like Wilders promote is adherence to this Idea, which is shared by Judaeo-Christianity and Humanism alike. Thus they are opposed to cultural relativism, insofar as it holds that there are *multiple* Ideas of the Good (which are all equally valid). In other words, what they're really opposed to is *moral* relativism.
                      >
                      > "Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth."
                      > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
                      >
                      > This means those Ideas of the Good are not Platonic Ideas at all (and I will therefore henceforth no longer capitalise them); they are simple *human* ideas, human views of what is good. With this we arrive at *historical* relativism, which views such views as conditioned by spatial-temporal conditions.
                      >
                      > The paradox should be evident. *Nietzsche* has found the solution of this paradox, but the solution marks the self-overcoming of the prejudice underlying the whole development. The prejudice that there is a Godlike perspective becomes the judgment that *I* know of no evidence of the existence of such a thing.
                      >
                    • perpetualburn52
                      ... I find a lot of these pro white groups only increase tension and push a potential crisis to the foreground faster(which may very well be a good thing).
                      Message 11 of 14 , Oct 17, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "perpetualburn52" <perpetualburn52@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > I just noticed I wrote "behind the screens" instead of "behind the scenes".
                        > > >
                        > > > Aside from that, I applaud cultural relativism *only* because it undermines itself. I myself am, like Nietzsche, a cultural monist and as such, a Uniculturalist. My Uniculturalism, however, unlike Wilders', does not seek to preserve, but to *create* a culture---a *natural* culture, i.e., a *people* with natural values. And this people shall be mankind:
                        > > >
                        > > Is the best way to a natural order through cultural relativism and immigration(like in Europe and America)? Are you maybe indirectly saying that a preserved white culture might become stagnant and unable to create a natural order(considering, however, that most white cultures now are culturally relative)?
                        > >
                        >
                        > The way I see cultural relativism, very simply put, is as the teaching that all cultures are equal (i.e., in value). In its un-self-reflective phase, this teaching demands that all people deem all cultures equal. In its self-reflective phase, however, it understands that cultural relativism also relativises the cultural-relativistic culture *itself*. Its teaching means that a cultural-relativistic culture is no better than a cultural-monistic culture. This means said demand is not cultural-relativistic.
                        >
                        > One may want to compare this with the problem of truthfulness in Christianity. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour", which is supposedly commanded by God, ultimately forces one to concede the lack of any evidence---indeed, the unlikeliness---of the *existence* of that God.
                        >
                        > Most white cultures today are cultural-relativistic because they are (still) Christian, all too Christian. People like Wilders hold that all men are equal, but all cultures are not; cultures which consider all men equal are superior to cultures which don't. Such uniculturalism is evidently a step *back* from multiculturalism: for it depends on the very God against whose demand of truthfulness it must close its ears.
                        >
                        > You seem to forget that said white cultures would not be in the predicament they are in today if it weren't for Christianity. This, however, is why Nietzsche's whole Revaluation of All Values is called *The Antichrist*.
                        >
                        > As for my actual answers to your questions:
                        >
                        > - The *only* way to a natural order is through crisis.
                        >
                        > - *Wilders* for one does not (officially, at least) fight for the preservation of (a) *white* culture, but for the preservation of "the jewish-christian and humanistic tradition/culture" (Wilders, *Clear Wine*).
                        >

                        I find a lot of these "pro" white groups only increase tension and push a potential crisis to the foreground faster(which may very well be a good thing). I don't know if it's intentional or not(by this i mean how selective moderation is)...but stormfront, for example, in ostracizing Jews and especially homosexuals(oddly enough, white gay males tend to be the most racially picky, considering the white male to be the most beautiful), only hurts its chances for any real sort of white preservation.

                        Do you see a crisis coming about as a result of large waves of immigration(and thus immigration is desirable on a massive level)? In Europe I could see how this might be desirable, because Muslims bring with them a masculine religion. In the U.S, however, I think the exact opposite happens with immigration.

                        Nietzsche desires a mixed European race, but immigration as it is happening now is pushing forward a mixed world race. I remember Carl Yung saying something to the effect that Africans were far less conscious than Europeans. I realize this a very un-scientific thing to say, but in a way, a mixed world race brings down consciousness on the level of society. Although i suppose it makes the masses more malleable. The loss of a European race as it is now, marks the loss of beauty(not the whole white race but the exceptional few) does it not?...And with beauty, inspiration for the philosopher. Do you see a crisis happening before this happens?
                      • Sauwelios
                        ... I largely agree with the Dutch Nietzschean Menno ter Braak, who conceived National Socialism as a doctrine of rancor (or ressentiment). I think
                        Message 12 of 14 , Oct 18, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "perpetualburn52" <perpetualburn52@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "perpetualburn52" <perpetualburn52@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@> wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > I just noticed I wrote "behind the screens" instead of "behind the scenes".
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Aside from that, I applaud cultural relativism *only* because it undermines itself. I myself am, like Nietzsche, a cultural monist and as such, a Uniculturalist. My Uniculturalism, however, unlike Wilders', does not seek to preserve, but to *create* a culture---a *natural* culture, i.e., a *people* with natural values. And this people shall be mankind:
                          > > > >
                          > > > Is the best way to a natural order through cultural relativism and immigration(like in Europe and America)? Are you maybe indirectly saying that a preserved white culture might become stagnant and unable to create a natural order(considering, however, that most white cultures now are culturally relative)?
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > > The way I see cultural relativism, very simply put, is as the teaching that all cultures are equal (i.e., in value). In its un-self-reflective phase, this teaching demands that all people deem all cultures equal. In its self-reflective phase, however, it understands that cultural relativism also relativises the cultural-relativistic culture *itself*. Its teaching means that a cultural-relativistic culture is no better than a cultural-monistic culture. This means said demand is not cultural-relativistic.
                          > >
                          > > One may want to compare this with the problem of truthfulness in Christianity. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour", which is supposedly commanded by God, ultimately forces one to concede the lack of any evidence---indeed, the unlikeliness---of the *existence* of that God.
                          > >
                          > > Most white cultures today are cultural-relativistic because they are (still) Christian, all too Christian. People like Wilders hold that all men are equal, but all cultures are not; cultures which consider all men equal are superior to cultures which don't. Such uniculturalism is evidently a step *back* from multiculturalism: for it depends on the very God against whose demand of truthfulness it must close its ears.
                          > >
                          > > You seem to forget that said white cultures would not be in the predicament they are in today if it weren't for Christianity. This, however, is why Nietzsche's whole Revaluation of All Values is called *The Antichrist*.
                          > >
                          > > As for my actual answers to your questions:
                          > >
                          > > - The *only* way to a natural order is through crisis.
                          > >
                          > > - *Wilders* for one does not (officially, at least) fight for the preservation of (a) *white* culture, but for the preservation of "the jewish-christian and humanistic tradition/culture" (Wilders, *Clear Wine*).
                          > >
                          >
                          > I find a lot of these "pro" white groups only increase tension and push a potential crisis to the foreground faster(which may very well be a good thing). I don't know if it's intentional or not(by this i mean how selective moderation is)...but stormfront, for example, in ostracizing Jews and especially homosexuals(oddly enough, white gay males tend to be the most racially picky, considering the white male to be the most beautiful), only hurts its chances for any real sort of white preservation.
                          >

                          I largely agree with the Dutch Nietzschean Menno ter Braak, who conceived National Socialism as a doctrine of rancor (or ressentiment). I think ressentiment is indeed a major inspiration of such movements: consider Nietzsche's stance on anti-Semites.


                          > Do you see a crisis coming about as a result of large waves of immigration(and thus immigration is desirable on a massive level)? In Europe I could see how this might be desirable, because Muslims bring with them a masculine religion. In the U.S, however, I think the exact opposite happens with immigration.
                          >

                          Yes, those are very different migrations (mostly Mexicans in the U.S., I fancy).

                          As for your question:

                          > Nietzsche desires a mixed European race, but immigration as it is happening now is pushing forward a mixed world race. I remember Carl Yung saying something to the effect that Africans were far less conscious than Europeans. I realize this a very un-scientific thing to say, but in a way, a mixed world race brings down consciousness on the level of society. Although i suppose it makes the masses more malleable. The loss of a European race as it is now, marks the loss of beauty(not the whole white race but the exceptional few) does it not?...And with beauty, inspiration for the philosopher. Do you see a crisis happening before this happens?
                          >

                          Nietzsche envisioned "a new ruling caste for Europe" (BGE 251), breeding which he wanted to at least *experiment* with interbreeding Jews and Germans, for example. Thus he definitely did not preclude Jewish blood from that caste.

                          But there is indeed a difference between such a mixed *European* race or caste, and a mixed *world* race. Nietzsche did not foretell the current large-scale immigrations. He did not speak of experimenting with interbreeding, e.g., *Arabs* and Germans. You may want to consider what kind of jobs these immigrants (Muslims as well as Mexicans) usually have here (if any): cleaning, labour, etc. May they not form a new Sudra caste? One not created through, e.g., an *Aryan invasion*, but through a *non*-Aryan *immigration*?

                          As for beauty: I think its preservation depends mostly on instinct, and only a little on reason. Beauty is subjective: as Nietzsche says (*Twilight*, Skirmishes 19-20), what is beautiful to one is what suggests to one the ascension of one's type. A healthy organism will therefore instinctively choose a mate the offspring by whom will represent such an ascension; and if the organism is *not* healthy, isn't it right that it should devolve?

                          I recently read of an interesting outcome of a scientific experiment, by the way: less fit female birds of a certain species will sexually select about equally fit mates; not much fitter ones. This may confirm Nietzsche's thesis that an organism aims at the improvement or perfection of its type; not at the complete *alteration* thereof.

                          Nietzsche, however, suggests that reason should overrule instinct here: we should aim at actually *overcoming* the type, e.g., by *arranging* marriages instead of basing them on love. We cannot simply trust our instincts:

                          "A hundred times hitherto hath spirit as well as virtue flown away and blundered. Alas! in our body dwelleth still all this delusion and blundering: body and will hath it there become.
                          A hundred times hitherto hath spirit as well as virtue attempted and erred. Yea, an attempt hath man been. Alas, much ignorance and error hath become embodied in us!
                          Not only the rationality of millennia---also their madness, breaketh out in us. Dangerous is it to be an heir.
                          Still fight we step by step with the giant Chance, and over all mankind hath hitherto ruled nonsense, the lack-of-sense."
                          [TSZ, Of the Bestowing Virtue, 2.]

                          Some may consider it such an outbreak of madness on my part, that my fiancee is half Jewish. And indeed, I have myself theorised about self-arranged marriages with 'Aryan' women to complement this future love marriage. I have, among others, Jewish as well as Nazi sympathies, as well as antipathies. I am a fool, if not a criminal, in the eyes of all kinds of people! Fiat philosophia, et pereat mundus.

                          Finally: I foresee the following possibility. Suppose that Islam indeed comes to dominate Europe, as, e.g., *Wilders* fears: can we Europeans, with our enormous atavistic experience as Christians, not easily outdo our Muslim immigrants at being Muslims? Can we not be better Muslims than they? For example, more truthful ones? Can we not effect a self-overcoming of Islam in the same way we've effected the self-overcoming of Christianity? Can we not kill the Islamic God with the very truthfulness He commands? The question is in how far He does, in fact, command it. How essential is the virtue of truthfulness to Islam? To me that seems a cardinal question.---
                        • Sauwelios
                          ... It may be interesting to look at this development as a succession of changes in the order of castes: 0. Priest Warrior Peasant Chandala. (I have followed
                          Message 13 of 14 , Mar 19, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote: [snipped]
                            >
                            >I discern the following development in the history of native Western culture:
                            >
                            > 1. Peoples with *natural* values (including the *Jewish* people before its military defeat) versus a people with *unnatural* values (the Jewish people *after* its military defeat);
                            > 2. Judaism versus Christianity;
                            > 3. Catholicism versus Protestantism;
                            > 4. Protestantism versus Humanism;
                            > 5. Uniculturalism versus Multiculturalism.
                            >
                            > [...]
                            >
                            > This is the antithesis (no pun intended) to a Hegelian dialectic, for we could render it as follows:
                            >
                            > 1. natural cultures vs. an unnatural culture;
                            > 2. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. Christianity};
                            > 3. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. {Catholicism vs. Protestantism}};
                            > 4. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. {Catholicism vs. {Protestantism vs. Humanism}}};
                            > 5. natural cultures vs. {Judaism vs. {Catholicism vs. {Protestantism vs. {Uniculturalism vs. Multiculturalism}}}}.
                            >
                            > I'm sorry if this is hard to read with your dyslexia. But as you will see, the latest offshoot in each case continues as an old branch *and* shoots off into a new branch. It may not be completely accurate with regard to the history of Protestantism and Humanism, but there's still something in it, I think. Contrary to Catholicism, in Protestantism the 'layman' no longer needed a priestly intermediary between himself and God, or between himself and the Bible; whereas in Humanism, contrary to Protestantism, one no longer needs a God (or a Bible) between oneself and the Idea of the Good. (In Christianity, God is supposed to be dependent on the Idea of the Good, which he "in acting looks to as an exemplar, or which he aims at as a definite goal", to speak with Spinoza. In Humanism, on the other hand, man is supposed to be able to discover the Good by means of his own faculties, most notably Reason, in (human) nature and (human) history.)
                            >
                            > This development is a succession of liberalisations:
                            >
                            > 1. The Jewish people is 'liberated' from its warrior caste (which the Assyrians extinguish);
                            > 2. Early Christianity emancipates itself from the exclusivity of Judaism (in order to be a 'Judaist' one must be ethnically Jewish);
                            > 3. Protestantism emancipates itself from the ecclesiastical hierarchy (the layman's need of priestly mediation);
                            > 4. Humanism emancipates itself from the belief in a Supreme Being (in order to attain the Good one needs Jesus);
                            > 5. Multiculturalism (as cultural relativism) emancipates itself from the belief in the *one* Idea of the Good.
                            >

                            It may be interesting to look at this development as a succession of changes in the order of castes:

                            0.

                            Priest
                            Warrior
                            Peasant
                            Chandala.

                            (I have followed Manu's order of the castes here. However, as Nietzsche says that at this time, "the priest was still nothing" (*AC* 26), we may render it thus:

                            Warrior
                            Priest
                            Peasant
                            Chandala,

                            or even thus:

                            Warrior
                            Peasant
                            Priest
                            Chandala.)

                            1.

                            Priest
                            Chandala.

                            Compare *WP* 184.

                            2.

                            Chandala.

                            Compare again *WP* 184, and note that the phrase translated by Kaufmann as "the Christian" does not have an article in the German and should therefore rather be translated as "Christ".---

                            Note also that, as the chandalas are the outcasts, the casteless, this self-redemption of Christ was in effect an abolition of the entire caste system (cf. *AC* 29).

                            2.1

                            The *Jewish* caste system has been abolished. What happens *next*? A *new* caste system, a new church, is founded on the death of the chandala who redeemed himself.

                            Priest
                            Chandala.

                            This church is no longer exclusive to the Jewish people, but appeals to the 'proletarians of all countries', to the weak and the failures of the whole world, i.e., of the whole Roman Empire.

                            2.2

                            At a certain point Christianity becomes the Roman state religion. And in "the Germanic Middle Ages" (*WP* 143), the order is again:

                            Priest (clergy)
                            Warrior (nobility)
                            Peasant (serfs)
                            Chandala.

                            3.

                            Luther, a peasant type, in effect abolishes the clergy (with which he is helped by the nobility).

                            Warrior
                            Peasant
                            Chandala.

                            4.

                            The Divine Right of Kings is abolished along with God. And along with the monarchy, the *nobility* is also abolished (cf. *WP* 755). Liberté, egalité, fraternité!

                            Peasant.

                            Though there are now only 'peasants' (third caste---cf. *AC* 57), there is still a caste system because this culture of equality etc. is still culturally monistic. One may belong to this culture or one may not belong to it; and it considers itself superior to cultures of inequality.

                            5.

                            Insofar as Western culture has become culturally relativistic, it no longer regards itself as superior to cultures of inequality. This is the beginning of the end of the Christian caste system, the Christian culture.
                          • Sauwelios
                            I just had a insight that, however simple, changes things quite significantly. Luther did not abolish the clergy. Or rather, his abolition of the clergy was
                            Message 14 of 14 , Mar 31, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I just had a insight that, however simple, changes things quite significantly.

                              Luther did not abolish the clergy. Or rather, his abolition of the clergy was like Nietzsche's abolition of the 'true world'. The 'apparent world' becomes in a sense the true world. Likewise, Luther's innovation was that warrior, peasant, and chandala alike all became *in the first place* clergy: for not only were they thenceforth *permitted* to study the Scripture; they were *required* to do so. The function of being one's own personal priest or clergyman became everyman's supreme function. Thus:

                              3.

                              Priest

                              And now the transition from 3 to 4 becomes much more comprehensible:

                              4.

                              Peasant [or: "Citizen"].


                              Now for something different. According to Nietzsche (WP 143), the Jews "learned the pattern" "of an unchanging community with priests at its head" "in Babylon"---i.e., *after* they had lost their warrior and peasant castes (cf. the Babylonian Captivity). I will for clarity's sake pass in review the whole development:

                              0.

                              Warrior
                              Peasant
                              Chandala

                              1.

                              Priest
                              Chandala

                              [Could this mean the Jewish priest arose from among the chandalas? For logically, step 1 would be a 'two-step step':

                              1.0

                              Chandala

                              1.1

                              Priest
                              Chandala

                              Also, it seems the early *Christian* priest also arose from among chandalas:]

                              2.0

                              Chandala

                              2.1

                              Priest
                              Chandala

                              2.2

                              Priest
                              Warrior
                              Peasant
                              Chandala

                              3.

                              Priest

                              4.

                              Peasant [or: "Citizen"]

                              5.

                              none


                              --- In human_superhuman@yahoogroups.com, "Sauwelios" <sauwelios@...> wrote: [snipped]
                              >
                              > It may be interesting to look at this development as a succession of changes in the order of castes:
                              >
                              > 0.
                              >
                              > Priest
                              > Warrior
                              > Peasant
                              > Chandala.
                              >
                              > (I have followed Manu's order of the castes here. However, as Nietzsche says that at this time, "the priest was still nothing" (*AC* 26), we may render it thus:
                              >
                              > Warrior
                              > Priest
                              > Peasant
                              > Chandala,
                              >
                              > or even thus:
                              >
                              > Warrior
                              > Peasant
                              > Priest
                              > Chandala.)
                              >
                              > 1.
                              >
                              > Priest
                              > Chandala.
                              >
                              > Compare *WP* 184.
                              >
                              > 2.
                              >
                              > Chandala.
                              >
                              > Compare again *WP* 184, and note that the phrase translated by Kaufmann as "the Christian" does not have an article in the German and should therefore rather be translated as "Christ".---
                              >
                              > Note also that, as the chandalas are the outcasts, the casteless, this self-redemption of Christ was in effect an abolition of the entire caste system (cf. *AC* 29).
                              >
                              > 2.1
                              >
                              > The *Jewish* caste system has been abolished. What happens *next*? A *new* caste system, a new church, is founded on the death of the chandala who redeemed himself.
                              >
                              > Priest
                              > Chandala.
                              >
                              > This church is no longer exclusive to the Jewish people, but appeals to the 'proletarians of all countries', to the weak and the failures of the whole world, i.e., of the whole Roman Empire.
                              >
                              > 2.2
                              >
                              > At a certain point Christianity becomes the Roman state religion. And in "the Germanic Middle Ages" (*WP* 143), the order is again:
                              >
                              > Priest (clergy)
                              > Warrior (nobility)
                              > Peasant (serfs)
                              > Chandala.
                              >
                              > 3.
                              >
                              > Luther, a peasant type, in effect abolishes the clergy (with which he is helped by the nobility).
                              >
                              > Warrior
                              > Peasant
                              > Chandala.
                              >
                              > 4.
                              >
                              > The Divine Right of Kings is abolished along with God. And along with the monarchy, the *nobility* is also abolished (cf. *WP* 755). Liberté, egalité, fraternité!
                              >
                              > Peasant.
                              >
                              > Though there are now only 'peasants' (third caste---cf. *AC* 57), there is still a caste system because this culture of equality etc. is still culturally monistic. One may belong to this culture or one may not belong to it; and it considers itself superior to cultures of inequality.
                              >
                              > 5.
                              >
                              > Insofar as Western culture has become culturally relativistic, it no longer regards itself as superior to cultures of inequality. This is the beginning of the end of the Christian caste system, the Christian culture.
                              >
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.