The third in a sporadic series. Previously, the intro and the second.
Pulled from The Twilight of the Idols:
The Christian and the Anarchist.—When the anarchist, as the mouthpiece of the decaying strata of society, raises his voice in splendid indignation for “right,” “justice,” “equal rights,” he is only groaning under the burden of his ignorance, which cannot understand why he actually suffers,—what his poverty consists of—the poverty of life. An instinct of causality is active in him: someone must be responsible for his being so ill at ease. His “splendid indignation” alone relieves him somewhat, it is a pleasure for all poor devils to grumble—it gives them a little intoxicating sensation of power. The very act of complaining, the mere fact that one bewails one’s lot, may lend such a charm to life that on that account alone, one is ready to endure it. There is a small dose of revenge in every lamentation. One casts one’s afflictions, and, under certain circumstances, even one’s baseness, in the teeth of those who are different, as if their condition were an injustice, an iniquitous privilege. “Since I am a blackguard you ought to be one too.” It is upon such reasoning that revolutions are based.—To bewail one’s lot is always despicable: it is always the outcome of weakness. Whether one ascribes one’s afflictions to others or to one’s self, it is all the same. The socialist does the former, the Christian, for instance, does the latter. That which is common to both attitudes, or rather that which is equally ignoble in them both, is the fact that somebody must be to blame if one suffers—in short that the sufferer drugs himself with the honey of revenge to allay his anguish. The objects towards which this lust of vengeance, like a lust of pleasure, are directed, are purely accidental causes. In all directions the sufferer finds reasons for cooling his petty passion for revenge. If he is a Christian, I repeat, he finds these reasons in himself. The Christian and the Anarchist—both are decadents. But even when the Christian condemns, slanders, and sullies the world, he is actuated by precisely the same instinct as that which leads the socialistic workman to curse, calumniate and cast dirt at society. The last “Judgment” itself is still the sweetest solace to revenge—revolution, as the socialistic workman expects it, only thought of as a little more remote…. The notion of a “Beyond,” as well—why a Beyond, if it be not a means of splashing mud over a “Here,” over this world? …
First, when he says Anarchist, we can freely substitute any one of those of committed to political revolution, or that is, the intellectual spawn of Rousseau, and of course the devotees of Marx (and all of his derivatives); most of all that glorious caste of morons we know as Social Justice Warriors. Suffering is just another way to say oppression, and someone else is always to blame for oppressing me (or whatever person, or even better, class of people I am not actually a part of, but that I champion). The Oppressor is to these people what the Great Satan is to an Islamic fundamentalist (or, just good old Satan for a Baptist).
Consider the contrast with Job, where he knows (with no small amount of pride) that he is righteous before the Lord, and the great offense taken is by Job’s friends who all seek to counsel him on his error – that he cannot be blameless and suffer as he does. Here this is the projection of the revolutionary, the inverse of the Christian, demanding Job admit his unrighteousness to therefore justify God and His affliction of Job. Job blames no one for his suffering, not even the God who raised the prospect by engaging in a little heavenly wagering and granting Satan the latitude to inflict on Job whatever he would short of death. Job doesn’t even blame the devil! I have to guess that Nietzsche couldn’t bring himself to find something of value in the Bible, even in something as subversive as the Book of Job. And Job was ultimately vindicated by God, which of course wouldn’t be the lesson Nietzsche would want us to learn – which was not simply to endure but to accept, even embrace the suffering, in order to pass through and beyond it.
Now why does he find fault in the Christian? Because the Christian, unlike Job, blames himself for his afflictions – after all, what else is sin? And any decent Christian knows he is riddled with sin, through and through, and that there is no way to escape that. Sure your sins can be forgiven, but you never transcend the sinfulness (at least not in this life).
In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche writes:
You want, if possible—and there is not a more foolish “if possible”—TO DO AWAY WITH SUFFERING; and we?—it really seems that WE would rather have it increased and made worse than it has ever been! Well-being, as you understand it—is certainly not a goal; it seems to us an END; a condition which at once renders man ludicrous and contemptible—and makes his destruction DESIRABLE! The discipline of suffering, of GREAT suffering—know ye not that it is only THIS discipline that has produced all the elevations of humanity hitherto? The tension of soul in misfortune which communicates to it its energy, its shuddering in view of rack and ruin, its inventiveness and bravery in undergoing, enduring, interpreting, and exploiting misfortune, and whatever depth, mystery, disguise, spirit, artifice, or greatness has been bestowed upon the soul—has it not been bestowed through suffering, through the discipline of great suffering? In man CREATURE and CREATOR are united: in man there is not only matter, shred, excess, clay, mire, folly, chaos; but there is also the creator, the sculptor, the hardness of the hammer, the divinity of the spectator, and the seventh day—do ye understand this contrast? And that YOUR sympathy for the “creature in man” applies to that which has to be fashioned, bruised, forged, stretched, roasted, annealed, refined—to that which must necessarily SUFFER, and IS MEANT to suffer?
Suffering is an essential filter of humanity, if of course it is understood properly; that is not an easy thing. This is a value not at all consonant with the dominant value structures of Christianity or the revolutionary movement substitutes for Christianity. Don’t be fooled that Nietzsche was adopting a stoic attitude here – he sees the necessity of suffering and the need to embrace it, as opposed to being indifferent to it. The stoic wouldn’t say “that which doesn’t kill me makes me stronger”.
Nietzsche knew about suffering; it marked his life, so he wasn’t idly speculating about the suffering of others and what purpose it might serve. This is as down to the marrow and personal as it is possible to be. He speaks about the power of convalescence personally in the preface to The Joyful Wisdom [my preference to the alternate title translation of The Gay Science]. The power of the restoration of health, the unexpectedness, the rush of new strength to fill him with fresh perspective – that arises out of overcoming that suffering from injury or illness.
In contrast, he spoke to sickness – most typically in a moral or psychological sense but some of the time as physical – with disdain. Whereas his youthful suffering he viewed as formative (as in the above quote), he would write more disparagingly toward the chronic or the invalid. It isn’t difficult to read him as preferring death to his long decline as an invalid. This he would characterize not as suffering for benefit or growth, but as decay or degeneracy. In neither case though does he seek to elicit sympathy for the sufferer. In the former it is inappropriate and in the latter ineffectual. The weakness in this point is that his biology/physiology wasn’t very well grounded, or perhaps better to say it hasn’t aged well as the field of medical science has improved. However, when he writes of sickness in the moral/psychological dimension we lose no relevance to the present.
Don’t forget Wednesday Zoom! It’s my day off and I’m drinkin’.
We have a Wednesday Zoom again? Cool. I’m going to miss it tonight. Working too much and not sleeping. I am going to go sit in the dark and try to sleep.
My brain is mush tonight. I don’t have it in me to read this stuff. I’ll try to get back to it later.
Puppies
I don’t Philosophize. I leave that to people better trained in rhetoric than I.
It is clear that you understand the man far better than I do. I will substitute a critique with this:
I have a chronic disease. When diagnosed I was told I would only live 5-7 years more and would spend most of it in a wheelchair. That really pissed me the hell off. The fuck you say. I am gonna outlive you (the doc) just to prove it.
20 years later I am successful. I outlived her and I still live a normalish life. I cut my own grass, cut and split my own firewood. I cook for my wife and now and then my neighbors. I have a very good life.
My son had ~7K clients. A number of them came to him wanting out of their contracts because they had been diagnosed with the same condition I have. I have already hoed that row so I offered to talk to them and give them pointers. Four of five of them took me up on it. I was very sad at their reactions. 4 of them told me “I cant do it. I am just going to go home and die.”
Guess what – that is exactly what they did. The one that took what I said to heart? She’s still livin’. The ornery bitch, like me, is too mean to die I guess. Good for her.
Make of that what you will.
I’ve barely scratched the surface, and it is my opinion that Nietzsche runs deep, very deep. And in a characteristic we here are rather likely to find endearing – he can piss off just about anyone. That said, does it mean he is necessarily right? Not about everything.
Not right about everything? I won’t cast the first stone.
If they were seconded by man, they can be Firsted by man.
Kierkegaard’s conceptualization of religious suffering as distinct from mere misfortune in the context of Christianity might well have benefited Nietzsche’s critique, if he weren’t so stridently oppose to Christianity as a category:
Perhaps not coincidentally, Kierkegaard’s life was also marked by misfortune. He reportedly suffered from depression, suffered a broken engagement that deeply affected him for the rest of his life, and died at the age of 42, having barely exceeded the purported prediction by his father that none of his children would outlive him.
Wanted to comment further on one thing I didn’t elaborate on fully. Mainly, the aboriginal DNA found in the Amazon.
1. This DNA is not found in North or Central America
2. They sha
3. It is likely it dates back to at least the end of the Pleistocene. Same signal was found in a skeleton that dates back roughly 8000 years ago – it is at least that old.
Those findings are pretty damning to the notion that ancient people’s couldn’t traverse the oceans. It shows that a separate population entered the Americas and did not do so through any land bridge in Alaska. The simplest answer is they got there by boat. Archaeologists tell you that’s not possible. What the hell are you going to believe – that archaeology is wrong or do you just shrug off the DNA evidence which is as concrete as it gets?
They can handwave this away all they want. The reality is that the paradigm they have in place doesn’t answer these questions.
To further address Raven’s argument – there is tremendous risk for any “expert” to adopt these positions. Yea, there’s potential glory. There’s a reason there’s a saying that science advances one death a time. Paradigms are adopted generationally. We are waiting for a lot more of the old timers to die off right now.
This is also what I believe Suthen was referring to.
The other explanation is that somehow the aboriginal populations made it up through Asia and Siberia and Alaska and then down the coast of the Americas without leaving any trace of their DNA anywhere else.
Yea, that’s far more believable than they took a boat.
It would be unsurprising to find out there are plenty of things about premodern man we don’t know. This reminds me a little bit of kontiki. We tend to underestimate our forebearers.
Indeed.
Somedood in a bot = intercontinental trade in exactly the same way as a female skeleton with “male” grave goods = transfolx were revered by ancient civilizations.
Plate tectonics and the Alvarez theory were both dismissed at the time.
Since you’re bringing this up again,
The “you’re glossing over this thing” criticism was frankly dishonest. I specifically said I was looking at the categories and specifically critiquing the area in which I had expertise. I do not have expertise in linguistics… and neither do you. And yet, somehow you not only believe sumdood’s pronouncements, you accuse people who are skeptical of sumdood’s pronouncements as being somehow intellectually inferior.
But I DO have expertise in historical music and (to a lesser extent) metrology and so I can tell you that the conclusions based on that form of argument is somewhere between “dodgy” and “throwing tarot cards into a top hat.” Which means it is completely legitimate for me to assume the rest of sumdood’s conclusions are based on standards of evidence of equivalent rigor. Which is to say, poor.
Also, sometime, maybe, just maybe actually read whatever the fuck it is you are linking to and think about what’s actually written.
There’s a reason patent clerks are skeptical of any new submissions regarding perpetual motion machines, ZPE, reactionless drives, room-temperature superconductors, 100mpg carburetors and teleportation devices. And not because they hate science, don’t understand science or are bought off by “them.”
I do have some exciting investment opportunities for you however.
Re 1: What. The. Fuck. Does. That. Mean? Seriously.
I think I know what he was listening to when he wrote it.
https://youtu.be/0s1oz5vck3s?si=QbDChdgqzOm2bGvv
Apropos of nothing, ‘Eat My Dorito Feet’ really should be a saying.
https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/health/why-do-my-dogs-feet-smell-like-fritos/
As Bill said,
“All we are is dust,
in the wind”
Good morning all!
As The Byrds knew, Change is Now.
Share and enjoy!
https://www.mcall.com/2023/12/06/allentown-city-council-narrowly-declares-no-confidence-in-mayor-matt-tuerk-citing-alleged-city-hall-discrimination/
Trouble in a Democrat controlled area.
Wakey wakey! 🌞☕
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SpcnYoCSjxw
🎶🎶
Excellent example of proper band name and song title. The music? Eh…
Y’all deserve some better tunes.
Here ya go: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xTgKRCXybSM
suh fam
what’s goody
Morning. And sure why not
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/06/biden-admin-authority-seize-certain-drug-patents-00130452
“Targeting costly meds, Biden admin asserts authority to seize certain drug patents”
Good morning, OBE, homey, Sean, and Beau!
In other news, I’ve determined that I have the authority to give myself a raise.
Morning.
Good morning, U. How are you today?
I’m awake and connected to work, so better than this time yesterday.
I still don’t know how I overslept then.
I have the authority to give myself a raise.
Excellent! Now you can keep pace with inflation!
How many divisions do you have?
Morning GT
I’ve determined that I have the authority to give myself a raise.
Yeah, I believe the legal term for that is embezzlement.
The very definition of fascism. Fascism is an economic system. What most people complain about are merely symptoms of that system.
They are going to fix the price of drugs alright. You won’t be able to get them at any price.
Morning all.
Good morning, Suthen! How’s it going?
Mornin ‘, Suthen.
They are going to fix the price of drugs alright. You won’t be able to get them at any price.
Kabuki theater. Now that Big Pharma has banked billions on a “vaccine” thanks to government pressure, they will make a big show of helping out the little guy with an empty gesture.
Meh, patents are a fiction created and enforced by the government. Live by the grift, die by the grift.
I actually agree with you but a selective disregarding of the codified rules as legally understood is a bad move that will have negative implications and is power seizure by the federal government (which will likely be shot down in the courts BTW). A government entity that can ignore the rules and just kick over the apple cart on a whim is not a good thing
Fair point.
Government is a fiction created and enforced by violence.
No shit.
Well, you might ask why drugs developed with public funds were given patent protection in the first place.
Yeah. As usual govt involvement has created a shit show.
Last I heard it takes around 1B dollars to develop a new drug and bring it to market. That 1B is all govt mandates, fees, blah blah blah.
The whole thing is a tangled mess that is nearly impossible to unravel. Who is responsible for the high cost of some drugs? Govt has as big a role or bigger than the Pharma companies.
I would also ask wat specifically does “developed with public funds” mean? Did fedgov finance the entire set of research, development, testing, FDA applications and approvals? Or something much less?
Mornin’, reprobates!
Good morning, ‘patzie!
Morning.
*ahem*
Look, it’ll be all right.
*tap tap tap*
Morning links are still in the skillet.
>.>
*Rocks back and forth
I don’t know what you lot are talking about…