Why can’t you just wear a t-shirt that says “Retard Future enthusiast”? What’s messed up about it is that you keep it a secret. THAT is “goblin-mode”.

Whatever, I’m just going to pretend my reader is not one of those “people”.

co-begin the initial beginning

This is an interesting way of phrasing what Heidegger seeks to do in his interpretations of the pre-Socratics. We can try, ourselves, to do that too, though probably not on his level.

If you study his interaction with Beaufret you’ll see that later in life he turned away from Heraclitus to Parmenides as the true beginning, and thus the model to emulate to inaugurate “another beginning”. So, fittingly, I’m going to look at his first writings on Parmenides, to see how he first saw him.

You might want to look at this post from last summer first- the first part of this book is on Anaximander, the second part on Parmenides. I forgot he spoke this gold for instance

“You don’t get it, I don’t just want a Retard Future, I want a Retard Present too!” And you think that if you have that conviction you qualify as a person whose opinion should be heard? I thought I already banished all the blue gum niggers from this site?

So, earlier, we backtracked from the Sophist to Heraclitus. Heraclitus in turn was a response TO Parmenides. One might perceive these as Homeric “agons”. And that is arguably what “thinking” is to this day.

And this is an attempted RESET of thinking in general. Everything that’s been encrusted in our minds since the Roman times, to Christianity, to modernity itself. This is not a primitivism, this is the beginning of the life of the mind- Parmenides has the first scientific account of what the world is, what humanity is, what reality is. I call it scientific because it’s difficult to think of Heraclitus’s conception of the world as fire as scientific- that’s more in the realm of mythical thinking. The occident is one person throughout history, we’re trying to go back to our first memory when we were “aware”.

Moderns will be happy to hear the coincidence that truth for Parmenides was a Goddess. His poem begins by traveling toward the Goddess.

To reveal my rhetorical approach, I mention this first out of anything by the way in order to soothe someone who is afflicted by the destruction of the noble lies of modern society. Do you feel soothed now?

“Anyone has a chance at everything!” Right, and next you’ll tell me a Jew has a chance at not being a kike. I wonder where you got that (((belief))) from anyway? Not from Parmenides, hence we are here.

It is the way of the goddess, not to the goddess; it is the way the goddess herself travels. In traveling on this way, the sun-maidens are the conductors.

Isn’t this just precious? The beginning of thinking is feminist! Rejoice!

I have five things to say but I know it’s too much for people to hear.

Unless you think you’re ABLE to hear it?

You might think of the first words of Beyond Good and Evil, that if truth were a woman, what then? These gentlemen are trying to co-opt the “eros drive”. Most men only understand the idea of passionate pursuit as it pertains to the human realm. It’s a pedagogical tactic to lead them to pursuit of something beyond humans, the gods and goddesses.

What you might not expect is that there is no “lie” here with Parmenides. That is because the Goddess WANTS humans to pursue what is beyond humans.

This is probably difficult to understand so I’ll put it a different way- crude use of eros is in a hidden way the most voluptuous use of eros–because the Goddess is hiding in it.

In our crude-feminist time no one can truly interpret the beginning of Parmenides or Beyond Good and Evil. When Nietzsche plays on the let’s call it “horny” instincts of young men by suggesting they think of truth as a woman, THAT IS Ariadne HIDING there. He does this intentionally, he knows his audience’s instincts. This is also a secret meaning of Dionysus. He’s trying to unite Dionysus with Ariadne, and this cannot be done by ordinary men or ordinary women.

Looking at the typical feminist today, they are far from a Goddess. Disgusting animals in most cases. The Goddess is ashamed of them. This is crystal-clear to me, and I know you’ll disagree.

The Goddess wants you to be a kike-slave, right right. Nothing is more respectable in her eyes than one of the niggers of the crime-family, have no doubt about it.

Remember, this is our attempted “co-beginning”. Heidegger didn’t write in the 2020s so he’s not able to speak directly to us about this in the way that we possibly can, and this is exciting.

Nonetheless, I constantly get the impression that Heidegger’s questions express the “true religion”

did we not precisely hear that the way of the goddess would be far remote from the path tread by humans?

Let’s put it in 2022-speak, the Goddess would be “banned”.

Parmenides, Plato, all these types, were part of “mystery initiations” that you weren’t even supposed to talk about in public, so the Greeks weren’t so different from us. The hoi polloi existed then and it exists now.

It’s similar to how I know what the philosopher’s stone is- I also know what the Goddess is, people just can’t accept it, and freak out like emotion-objects when you talk about it. It goes without saying(!) that she would be “slaying” crude-feminism and the men who fan its flames. I know a few women like this, they’re closer to the Divine Feminine. It’s obvious that they are true “Queens” amongst the heap of ugly rubble. People usually worship turds with crowns. This is the meaning of confronting the rabble. The Goddess wants to strike these shams down, and use us as a conduit to do that. Or like Heidegger said, it’s the way OF the Goddess, not to.

For those of you reading this who are interested in tackling the “40” on the way to the Contributions, it is clear from the text that Heidegger thought about these things AFTER his course on the Sophist. This is from 1932, that was from 1924. So it’s using Plato’s enhanced understanding of Parmenides to understand Parmenides. For that reason I do wonder if he gets “around” Plato here. He also had a course on Parmenides in 1942, so we shall perhaps see in the future.

If you want to get into an even more untimely matter (which people probably only with the mind of Dugin could do), there exists the question of what extent Heidegger was “jewed” by writing within the horizon of Husserl. Yes, you want to broach the dangerous questions, there you go. The “parody philosophers”? How far can we take that?

And why do I sense niggers reading all this and blinking? It’s because this is the German Renaissance, and no one made it out alive. The gods have abandoned them. Only if you study these texts will you have some clue what I’m talking about.

Wow, I wonder why feds read what I say before I even post it? It’s almost like they’re trying to prevent you from understanding something? Not like you care, you’re a nigger.

“Retard Future, Retard Present!” they chant in unison. And I’m left with my friend Heidegger…