Oooh I get it now. I’m supposed to level my own self so people feel “cozy”. You’re the one who chooses to visit here. I only want to know what your unleveled self is like.

I try to give Badiou another chance, because he’s clearly some species of genius, and I flip open a random book of his and all I can see is “This is France speaking”.

Okay, scrolling through some more, this is redeemable

What is universal is that all love suggests a new experience of truth about what it is to be two and not one.

I’m not afraid. Same reason I’m a Nazi- I’m not afraid. I think people tend to be afraid to talk about love.

One of the obscure disciplines I’m interested in is Cultural Symptomatology and I take it as a glaring symptom of our culture that, I don’t know, do people believe in love?

At least from what I can tell there’s a cynicism about it.

You don’t have to be “mooshy” or something when you approach this subject. It’s just how it is. Love is important.

I think it’s a symptom of something not very good that most people seem to be silent about the subject.

Some “tough guy” tryhard for instance. Okay, that makes you a pussy if you can’t talk about it, nice. Or one of my favorites is seeing a vulgarian jewess refer to “fucking” and never talk about love. How is fucking different from masturbation? How empty these people seem to be. I wish they could be brave enough for a second to say in the public square “I wish love was real”. I think many people are like that- even if they don’t believe it’s real they WISH it was. So in that sense it kind of is real.

I’ve already told you my problem, that a golem can’t be respected, thus can’t be loved. Or to put it in the terms of Badiou’s insight, it would take a lot to be two rather than one, when the other one is so corrupt. That’s just a type of “pluralism” or relativism that believes two truths can exist simultaneously. No, there’s only the truth, and that is you’re a jewslave because you’re weak.

Some guy I overheard a couple months ago said something that stuck with me- he was talking about how if a girl really likes you she’ll give you access to more than just one of her holes. Is that really what a woman boils down to? I got real cynical when I heard that. If you really like me I can penetrate different holes of yours. Something meaningless about that. I’m not kidding about posthumanism- we can develop women’s capacity for dignity. I’ve been smirking to myself about those stickers people wear on their shirts that say “Hi, name is” – Hi, my name is Tits and Holes.

“Hey, that’s not fair, I’m a pretty face too!” That’s already factored in there, “toots”, one of those holes IS your face.

What a way to live. Thinking in terms of Determinism though, I don’t think many of them can escape “wearing that sticker”. That’s what they are.

Birds of a feather flock together too. They have their male equivalents. I’m not sure that such types experience “love”.

They’re so interchangeable with each other I’m not sure how it’s possible. There are no individuals there. Woman 1 is tits and holes, woman 2 is tits and holes, there can be no love of a unique personality. Love of a unique non-sagginess of tits, that’s about it.

Anyway, this interviewer of Badiou asks a question that at least for me gets me existentially-emotionally involved

I think it’s because people just don’t think it’s possible for someone to love them. And when they hear it they finally believe it’s possible, and not only that it’s possible- that it’s true. Thinking back, this causes a fundamental shift in the personality. Love is alchemical in that way.

Again, look around- why doesn’t anyone say this? The norm is to see others as objects to screw. Am I wrong?

The sad truth I think, is that what we call a “whore” is someone who has had their soul removed. All they know in life is to be an object to be fucked by strangers in order to have a temporary escape from the emptiness of their existence. And the male equivalent isn’t much different.

Yeah, whatever. I don’t really look for intelligence in women, I look for grace. If they have that then they’re potentially loveable. “Don’t you mean Loveable?” It IS something sacred that warrants a capital letter.

We Socratics aren’t really part of the machinery of civilization in a normal way so being Loveable myself isn’t the main thing I care about in life. Still, there’s something missing without it.

What is grace? You have to tell me. That’s the point of “being two”.

Anyway, Badiou is such an autist in his book on love, and hopefully I’m not that bad. My only point is that I suspect that most are afraid to talk about the subject at all.

Greetings Dionysians, your resident hipster here to show you something obscure

Lots of fragmented plays of Greek Tragedy have survived that you probably never heard of. Aeschylus wrote over 80 plays, and only 7 survive in complete form. Meanwhile we have 300 some pages of fragments.

The question here is what or who was the god Dionysus BEFORE the plays of Euripides and Aristophanes were performed.

The Homeric Hymn to Dionysus isn’t even 3 pages, and he’s only mentioned a few times in passing in Homer. Like I’ve written about before, Dionysus was the eventual crystallization of Greek religion, sort of like a Jesus-type, being the son of Zeus. The festival the tragedies and comedies were performed at was called the Great Dionysia, and Aeschylus is regarded as the founder of performed drama. So it’s interesting that there are extant fragments from a play of his on Dionysus himself. Thus, if you’re a fan of film or shows this might be up your alley.

By the way, if you haven’t read the Bacchae yet, get on that (there’s a general consensus it’s one of the best plays from the Greek world)

as early as the first century bce it became commonplace to mention Lycurgus and Pentheus together in poetic catalogues of Dionysus’ feats.

This might be disturbing to some- the premise [spoiler] of the Bacchus is that if you mess with Dionysus you’re getting your head ripped off your body. Yes, this is the god that is at the origin of movies. It is King Pentheus that is killed. And Lycurgus also has a similar fate. Aeschylus wrote a tetralogy on the Lycurgus myth and it can be at least partially reconstructed.

The Ancient Greeks aren’t exactly known for being “Gandhis”

intended to make worshippers of Dionysus sing the song about Lycurgus during festivals of the god, thus making the hero an example of what awaits those who fail to be initiated into the mysteries.

I remind you that, at least in my opinion, another way of framing the debate between “Athens and Jerusalem” is as Dionysus versus Yahweh.

The names of the plays of the tetralogy are Edonoi, Bassarai, Neaniskoi, and Lycurgus. In the Edonoi, Lycurgus attempts to imprison Dionysus. In the Neaniskoi, he is punished. Then, the Lycurgus is a satyr-play.

ZOG does something like that with neech by interpreting him through a liberal lens.

Ever heard of Orphism? This tetralogy is the first time Orpheus appears on stage

What is Orpheus’ place in this story? Both he, as well as his father or grandfather, could appear at various points in the play as a wise advisor to the king (who ignored his admonitions, as tragic tyrants usually did). What remains clear is that Orpheus himself, as Apollo’s personal protégé, was the most likely person to bring the oracular response.

With only fragments our conclusions can only be tentative. Orpheus possibly counseled Lycurgus on how to avoid being made a victim of the Bacchic frenzy. I interpret Socrates in the Symposium as expressing a type of Bacchic frenzy. Alcibiades arrives in the Symposium dressed as Dionysus and it is soon made clear that Socrates is the “true Dionysus”, Alcibiades being the foil.

Ahhh this is disappointing- this is the main thing I was wondering about

In the majority of texts available to us, Lycurgus opposes Dionysus without a clearly stated reason.

Here’s an example of the main sort of material we have to piece this tetralogy together

Keeping secrets relating to the mystery cult?

It seems Dionysus was more of a military figure in Aeschylus.

Here he is mentioned in the Eumenides

the god lead the troops of Bacchae, contriving a hare’s fate for Pentheus

or alternatively

the god led the bacchants into battle and stitched up a death like a hare for Pentheus

You probably have to be obsessive about the Greeks/Germans to really care about this. Again though, it’s the origin of theatre and cinema.

Look, a vase with a maenad holding a hare

Another detail from these fragments is that Dionysus drove Lycurgus into a frenzy that led him to behead his own son. They don’t call it tragedy for nothing. Orpheus is also beheaded by maenads. Sorry if this is scattered around, this is just the nature of the material we have available to us.

The mysteries of the origins of drama

This vessel features the divine couple of Dionysus and Ariadne, two maenads pulling a fawn, a maenad with a child on her shoulder, and a man (originally) with two javelins and a net who wears one sandal. The motif of so-called monosandalism has suggested to Robertson (1972) that the man could be Lycurgus, who was at least occasionally represented with one foot unshod

This vessel is the Derveni Krater

Strikingly this tetralogy seems similar to the Old Testament in its prominent theme of vengeance. Revenge and punishment for impiety hasn’t died, if you look at our puritanical cancel-culture.

Well at least we have the Bacchae

The liberty with which artists seem to have combined the motifs of the Lycurgus and Pentheus myths may suggest that the conceptual boundary between the two was not felt to be particularly strong.

I’m back to that book on Schmitt that I discussed here. I think of it as “juicy” material that it’s filled with. I just want to completely warp the standard idea of the history of philosophy, and he’s good at that.

Spinoza, the “first liberal Jew,”

“Here we go!!!”

Excuse me, I wanted to share something with you.

Spinoza, the “first liberal Jew,” to effectuate a “decisive turn in the fate of Leviathan” over a few short years: a process involving a “small, switching movement of thinking that emerged from Jewish existence.”

I for one think Spinoza’s ethos is crystallized in Deleuze’s ethos, and that will give you an HD understanding of the telos. I’m interrupting Schmitt though, I want to know what he has to say about this yid’s influence.

How insidious, how Machiavellian

A major thinker like Spinoza was reduced to the embodiment of a race. Spinoza, he writes, was “the first” to surreptitiously introduce himself among the Germans

Speak in the language of Rationalism in order to smuggle in Judaism. Lots of that these days, eh? Course not, you don’t notice nothin’.

Taubes called it a “racist theozoology”, the reduction of someone’s concept of divinity to their race.

Reflecting on the idea that progressivism is secularized theology, consider the possibility that the transcendental signifiers in circulation such as Equality and Diversity are emblazoned with a Jewish stamp. Europeoples have their own concept of Equality and Diversity that isn’t necessarily the same as the Jewish ones, but we’re obligated to believe in the Jewish ones. I think this can explain many people’s world-weariness. It’s highly questionable whether Judaic renderings are seamlessly compatible with Christbrains. And you don’t have a say if you want to “redefine Diversity” to your own liking. Because that would make you a Nazi, and Nazis killed Jews.

Heh, here’s a good synchronicity

Hobbes, the incomparable political mentor, is strongly criticized as the origin of and collaborator in the process of state disintegration… To be sure, he points to “Jewish” authors, from Spinoza to Mendelssohn to Marx, as bearing primary responsibility for the state’s destruction and as having destroyed it in a conspirative manner. But this does not signify any diminution of Hobbes’s own role in the disintegrative process.

Goys and Jews, it’s a mutually-reinforcing downward-spiral. With one distinct “problem child” in the mix.

I’m trying to get a better idea of Schmitt’s meaning that Spinoza inverted Hobbes and “removed the soul of Leviathan from within”. He accuses him of writing a “Kabbalistic commentary” on Hobbes’s Leviathan. How relatable that is, with my golem readers.

Naturally, there isn’t much written on this “sensitive” subject so I’m just pulling what I can from this one secondary study I found. Schmitt saw Mendelssohn as following Spinoza’s project of hollowing out state power.

a “paralyzing of the alien” Volk for the sake of an “emancipation of one’s own Jewish Volk“

Tell me this doesn’t speak to contemporary times. What a racist, you need to hate your own culture, says the world-historical criminal par excellence with a black eye drawn on with a magic marker.

I would have to agree with Schmitt here that “spiritual paralysis” seems quite common these days

the “young Rothschilds, Karl Marx, Borne, Heine, Meyerbeer, and many others” formed a broad front that succeeded in “ideologically confusing and spiritually paralyzing the German state”

Word to the wise- Jews don’t have any remorse about this. It makes them feel giddy. Think of a dog wagging its tail. “The suffering of the goyim, it’s everything I want in life!!” Hunchback goblin Saturn-worshipers.

I’m not a subjectivist about the history of philosophy. There’s probably a more or less objective way of looking at it. I appreciate taboo speculations about it because they’re, well, philosophical. So supposing the following is True, can you imagine it being included officially in a textbook from the Nose Press?

Stahl followed the “general line” (Gesamtlinie) of his Volk, operating in terms of the “double being of a mask existence” (Doppelwesen einer Maskenexistenz); he did his work as a “Jewish thinker” by “carrying forward the broad historical line leading from Spinoza through Moses Mendelssohn”

Someone admit this about the Frankfurt School or Deleuze or even Bernard-Henri Lévy, or even THEMSELVES! What’s suspicious is that they’re secretive about it. It gives one a “Hello fellow kids” vibe. There are degrees to this, not all Jews are the same. Some will never say they’re a Jew and that’s why they’re eroding society. Others will say they are a Jew and proceed to erode society. And never will you see one say, “As a Jew, I seek to erode society.” The more you know, goy! Probably good to know since “society” is an abstraction and what that really means is that YOU are being eroded. Just listen closely. Once you know what to look for you see it’s the air they breathe.

Anyway, if this reinterpretation of the history of philosophy piques your interest Schmitt touches on it some in his book on Hobbes. My presupposition with these investigations is that ordinary culture is determined by the Great Minds. The galaxybrains create the lifeworld for normal people through a gradual percolating effect. And some lifeworlds you probably don’t want to live in.

You might be familiar with a sort of “dialogue” that Jünger and Heidegger had on the subject of nihilism. The former presented an essay to the latter titled “Across the Line”, and the latter responded with an essay titled “On ‘the Line'” (roughly translated). I might get into this another day. What’s interesting to me is that Jünger published a novel the year before he presented that essay to Heidegger. Heliopolis is not in English (it IS in French Italian Spanish though if you can read any of those).

I’m just going to do a bird’s-eye-view and omit spoilers

De Geer describes the regent’s side as “conservative” and that of the bailiff as “nihilistic”.

Okay, I’ll admit it- Jünger began writing this in January 1947. So this is similar to Pound’s writings from the nuthouse. I seek the originary reaction to the “NWO” from people who didn’t jive with it.

This is how he describes the bailiff’s followers

Only seldom did a higher, reflective consciousness radiate from them

If you think this is intriguing, wait til I decode Eumeswil. Lots of work to be done on this Kraut.

LOL how people coped. Evola was “studying” Tantra at the time Jünger was writing this. I think Pound got it worst out of all the main Minds.

“The Enemy cannot have Mind, so I don’t know what you’re talking about.” Tell yourself that.

Doing a zoom-out, what motivates me to write about this is the observation that force and violence precede philosophy. And if that is true then I don’t think it IS philosophy. You can use violence against me all you want, that’s an expected reaction to someone who doesn’t play the “might makes right” game. To put it bluntly, the indifference toward the supposed constrainment of philosophy by violence is itself a reinitiation of war. If you can understand that you’ll understand a lot of things here.

We think it’s possible to extract out of the world an elite formed by pain…

The bailiff represents ZOG/Americanism, the proconsul represents people like Schmitt and Heidegger

we aim to create a new elite… the proconsul is our model, as the bearer of excellent, just virtues called to rule.

Heliopolis is a utopia. The regent set up a worldwide monarchy before exiting to outer-space. There are stirrings of a civil war between the bailiff and the proconsul throughout the novel.

Some of us can relate to Jünger or Pound’s Washington Cantos ever since Biden was inaugurated.

We know that the proconsul wants to shoulder the task. With this in mind he seeks to attract the best forces to himself, the future senate. It should be borne in mind that the original nobility… no longer exists. The selection is therefore dependent on performance, that is, on a group of people who distinguish themselves through deeds, knowledge or ability.

How about being extremely, inhumanly strict?

a method has been found to prevent the entry of demagogues

It’s tough for me to think of many people who wouldn’t be classified as a type of demagogue or follower of demagogues.

Can’t do the “freemason secret handshake”? Then you should mind your own business and keep your political opinion to yourself. And next to no one knows how to do that handshake. Whoa, why do you have a damp rag attached to your wrist? Is that like your idea of a prosthetic hand?

Anyway this is on the main character of the novel (De Geer), which is relatable

He also likes to turn to beautiful things, restored books or various objects related to artist friends. These things are often called “exquisite”.

I still keep laughing remembering “the Evola option” during this time.

Curse those nazi bigots! Meanwhile, another main character in Heliopolis – Budur

she demonstrates the intellectual independence that enables her to enter the Regent’s service.

Sorry to inform the kikes that some percent of eurobloods aren’t happy with postwar ideology, and thus take an interest in old Jünger’s perspective on things.

“Just give us some time, it will be 100%, everyone will be so dull and numb they’ll THINK they’re happy!”

There’s drug-usage in this novel by the way. I know no one can relate to that. I think I read somewhere that Jünger drank a bottle of wine a day, even at the age of 102. (You can fight in the trenches of WWI then judge him.) I’m not sure if he ever stopped taking entheogens.

To be fair, you might be able to see here Jünger’s stereotypical “German murderer” physiognomy (which I personally happen to find “cool”)

Remember Jünger was an anti-herd type of person. The proconsul likely doesn’t represent Hitler&co. Jünger, Schmitt, and Heidegger felt alienated from mass-politics. Sort of reminds me of my own relation to the populist-right over the years. Yeah you retards have the right idea I guess. And of course Evola was similar, writing Fascism Viewed from the Right in 1963.

This is interesting

And again, the Regent is all the way up in space.

You do have to wonder if they’ve selectively translated Jünger over the years. I think of some phenomenal nonfiction of his, The Forest Passage, which was only translated less than a decade ago. Poor baby has a grudge? “Anyone involved in the attempt to oust the international banking cartel needs to be erased from history!” Wow you sound like “the good guy”.

Heliopolis is at least easier to read than Pound’s Washington Cantos. Christ, those are perplexing.

It’s somewhat similar to Hesse’s Magister Ludi which was published a handful of years prior

Heliopolis explores rival forms of government in the fictional futuristic city of Heliopolis, somewhere in the Mediterranean: one populist “with the instincts of the dull masses,” and the other favoring an enlightened absolutism carried by an elite.

Heliopolis and Magister Ludi are, it probably goes without saying, Nietzschean. Definitely politically incorrect. See Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 257. People write novels based on that one aphorism alone?? Reminds me of how so much of Strauss’s corpus is based on Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 30. Yeah, mustache man knew a thing or two about the will to power.

The French Nietzscheans are in this picture to an embarrassing degree, but I digress. See here if you want to know a secret about this–hat-tip to Muhsin Mahdi. TLDR; Nietzsche’s rhetoric can be somewhat manipulative, and often appeals to ksatriyas under the guise of appealing to brahmins. Neech has created many goy versions of golems. Escaping his dogmatisms is probably not for this century.

I mean, reflect on the details of Heliopolis above… seems like a noble enterprise. To condense the formula- to solve the problem of nihilism we need a new elite. Maybe this novel casts light on his better-known “dialogue” with Heidegger.

Interesting take on the Krautnet

the parallels between Jünger and De Geer are so clear that there is no right mood for a novel. If you know Jünger’s vita, you are sometimes uncomfortable with the clear personification.

Spoiler-alert

Lucius De Geer, originally an ardent supporter of the proconsul and his staff, moves further and further away from this side and his actions as the book progresses. Ultimately, De Geer’s moral integrity forces him to break with the proconsul, since the latter, at least in practice, is increasingly approaching the bailiff

This is how I feel with Americans and the egregore-partzufim.