That philosophy can never move forwards in an authentic direction is a product of insurmountable complexity combined with Neitzsche’s Danger of Dangers. The required complexity renders it exceedingly unlikely that anyone could ever deconstruct existing ideas to reconstruct them into some truly novel basis. Existing moral systems are frightened by the prospect of any such authentic move forwards in philosophy, if it is to be significant – but never in human history have the stakes been higher.
Let Me Show You The Truth: There Are No Simple Answers To Your Problems
Any politician claiming to simply solve your problems with government is a liar and a con-artist. The truth about UBI is that it will quickly be revised to operate like the IRS. The government will regulate your income and attempt to enforce or alter norms by penalizing your income stipend.
Why would a man with so many skills be employable, yet writing? And about how to think, of all things – who needs another Plato? If he is useful, put him to work. If he’s dangerous, where does he work? If he resonates with the times, why does he find himself so superfluous?
In Will to Power (976), Nietzsche [post-humously] writes:
The reason why philosophers are mostly failures. Because among the conditions which determine them there are qualities which generally ruin other men:—
(1) A philosopher must have an enormous multiplicity of qualities; he must be a sort of abbreviation of man and have all man’s high and base desires: the danger of the contrast within him, and of the possibility of his loathing himself;
(2) He must be inquisitive in an extraordinary number of ways: the danger of versatility;
(3) He must be just and honest in the highest sense, but profound both in love and hate (and in injustice);
(4) He must not only be a spectator but a lawgiver: a judge and defendant (in so far as he is an abbreviation of the world);
(5) He must be extremely multiform and yet firm and hard. He must be supple.
The Highest Man, Who Prefers to Remain Anonymous.
This is “not Scumbag Steve.”
The linguistic implications of Neitzsches choice of überflüssig (from latin, superfluus) are contradicatory: both who he who is overflowing and he who is unneeded. Both phrases “Überflüssig” and “Das Lied des Notwendigen” seem to be translated without granularity into english, but both are critical to a proper reading of Neitzsche, whose work decompresses with paradoxical implications abound. Nothing satisfies, with Nietzsche. Nothing ever will. It is this blind lust to strive forward – while overcoming every stumbling block, lilliputian and pleasant sidestreet – that transforms humanity.
Additional Generic Anime Screengrab with No Context
From “Elfen Lied”
In his masterpiece Zarasthustra, Nietzsche is essentially saying the überflüssig are those outside of or without leverage over channels of influence who are unnecessary or dispensable to those who have access to such channels/influence. Instead these dispensable people are unneeded by those who control their circumstances, but instead develop a need to become needed by those above them – particularly in the context of the State in “The New Idol”. i.e. No one needs them except to use them, but as they are unable to fulfill their needs independently, the superfluous develop a dependent relationship to the more powerful, to whom they are dispensable. It is those above such überflüssig people who define how and whether their needs will be met: they are dispensible to those in power. Such a system caps its evolutionary potential because the weak exist to serve the powerful who feed themselves and weed out what is threatening or isn’t useful.
From Thus Spoke Zarasthustra, The New Idol
“This sign I give unto you: every people speaketh its language of good and evil: this its neighbour understandeth not. Its language hath it devised for itself in laws and customs.
But the state lieth in all languages of good and evil; and whatever it saith it lieth; and whatever it hath it hath stolen.”
Unless specifically addressed through the architecture of the culture – which is among the sociocultural implications of Nietzsche’s work – then such a system sacrifices advancement of the collective for the supposed benefit of the collective. In “The New Idol”, Nietzsche seems to imply both that the state was designed for the überflüssig, the superfluous, and designed to produce them for its purposes.
From Thus Spoke Zarasthustra, The New Idol
“Confusion of language of good and evil; this sign i give unto you as the sign of the state. Verily, the will to death, indicateth this sign!”
Nietzsche writes that the state speaks in a kind of one-sided meta-language of values, the true comprehension of which escapes its neighbors. This is implicit language of action and effect of action – the state which feeds itself does so by deceiving its citizens and its neighbors: they are fooled by its system of values and the explicit language a state uses to justify its actions – i.e. the language of its laws and customs.
Social justice warrior “trials” by guerilla theatre and gossip protocol … The verdict? Results inconclusive. Try, “try” again!
Or is it national security theatre? Who knows… I’m sure customer service will give us an answer.
Bonus round: new president!
To prevent the state from extinguishing its own fire through stagnation, it must architect social systems that encourage both a healthy level of conflict and a healthy response to conflict. Similar to the notion of how financial engineers architect systems to benefit from a healthy level of economic volatility, then to promote evolution of the collective, a state or culture must devise means of capturing the energy from the dissonance of sociocultural conflict at the individual level. Such a dynamo converts this dissonance into a means to allow its individuals to evolve and become stronger. Nassim Taleb would say “Don’t be so neurotic”, so live to learn and learn to thrive. Be antifragile and orient yourself to grow stronger from every hit you take.
Just hope that people around you don’t walk on eggshells or systematically dampen information or place you in a perpetually assymetric disadvantage, informationally. You can’t grow from information you don’t have or can’t obtain.
The passive aggressive tactics of the far left – e.g. short circuit mild conflict through isolation and obfuscation, while leveraging intersectionalism to disempower specific social groups – are toxic in the long run. By the way, your guerilla theatre1 may have created a costly tail event that your values system cannot justify having contributed to. See the footnote for a complete explanation. You should have communicated to me and acquired information. You do not understand me, so you should not have targeted me. No one on any side understands me. I write to be understood not today, but in the future.
Maybe a cannabilistic pattern language can save you…
Can we say … “Thanks, Nietzsche!”
In the context of the New Idol, “Das Lied des Notwendigen” refers to those who are independent. Literally, it means “the song of the necessary ones”, from Notwendig which means “the agile ones, needed to avert the distress”, the ones whose independence and capacity for fluid agency fills in the gaps. Their needs are not defined by others and thus neither are the goals/objectives they seek to attain to meet such needs. Since their needs, desires, and objectified behaviors are neither typical nor are they so externally defined, the evolutionary potential of such individuals is much greater. The “lied” of the necessary ones is their song, which is what serves to amplify their presence in society. When individuals become complacent, this begets behavior and character qualities which are contrary to flexibility of the necessary ones. Das Lied des Notwendig is the opposite of the siren song: it is a rallying cry to cultivate values and sociophysical potential energy necessary for action not today, but in the future. Do your enemies tomorrow want you to be culturally awake and strong or weak and sleeping?
The siren song is cultural marxism and our enemies will not hesitate to debase our culture to butter us up for subjugation. We must define our own values on our terms. Only when we can secure our economic independence and sovereignty can we hope to push other cultural issues forward in society. Just watch what happens to the transgender rights movement after economic collapse: only when other more pertainent national interests are secured do these issues move forward to attain permanent progress. The correct way to move these issues forward is slowly and steadily, but instead we are forgetting our priorities, falling asleep at the wheel and thus enabling the future backslide of these social issues.
Neo Astolfo Said “No” to Neoleninism
Causing an enemy to neglect their economic and geopolitical imperatives while bickering amid sociocultural chaos is how cultural marxism is weaponized to butter up an enemy for subjugation. The subject of a future article, disnormalization systemically drives sociocultural and socioeconomic uncertainty, which leads to distrust, lack of cooperation, factionalization and the breakdown of strategy. Times where prosperty reigns are the times where sociocultural evolution can proceed sustainably. Guarantee prosperity first and you guarantee the potential for social change. Society focuses the collective social energies of individuals by directing their attention. Cultural marxism and other pragmatic neo-leninist tools short-circuit a society’s ability to guarantee prosperty by diverting the collective attention of individuals away from economic and geopolitical imperatives. For leninism to secure a revolution, an economic collapse is necessary and engineered by the most radical elements. The collapse guarantees that sociocultural issues that the moderate left cares deeply about will suffer a tremendous backslide. The most radical far-left really does not care about who gets hurt in society as long as they gain power.
When people choose to define their own will independently of the existing power, to seek the cultivation of a will to power for self-actualization, to enable others to pursue such transformation, then the society as a whole and mankind become collectively stronger. Moreover, those who independently determine their needs, desires and crucially the means whereby such are attained cannot be predicted or understood. It is so unlikely for an individual to possess all of the characteristics outlined in Will to Power (976) – while also pushing ever forward towards true progress in philosophy – without having their energy coopted by societal power structures.
Make yourself independent. Define your own terms. Put yourself and your neighbors in win-win positions. When everyone is lives in a society that rewards and creates self-reliance, everyone benefits and everyone is independent. This does not imply that individuals should be distant and self-concerned, but that we should have the freedom to live on our own terms, so that we have the options to avoid victimization by coerced circumstances and exploitative values systems. Do not simply trust promising politicians: they are selling you a one-size-fits-all hammer to nail you down to exploitative circumstances. The economy cannot support centrally financed government programs to solve everyone’s problems. What results is a bureaucratic nightmare, the policies and regulations of which require weeks of study in themselves and which you will not have the power to change. Regardless of whether the sociohierarchical structure is business oriented or a social institution, power flows up to the top. The Bolsheviks soon found that their precious revolution simply made them serfs to a new master.
Power is power is power!
Financial mechanisms of influence enable you to store financial potential energy the direction of which you determine. When leftist regimes deprive you of right to property and the ability to save money, you are deprived of independence. Perhaps the economic collapse necessitated by leninist ideology replaced the old masters, but it changes nothing: you are still proletariats. The difference is that you only have social and information mechanisms to influence society, since communism implies financial resources are “shared”. Communist regimes are still bound by capitalism, since they must manage their economic externalities. The difference lies in the domestic economics, as it relates to the individual, who loses the ability to store financial resources, which are far less ephemeral than social or informational resources. Since the success or failure of their regimes are fated from the start by their economic externalities, they doom themselves when they bureaucratize away the ability of individuals and domestic economic entities to be agile. Capalitism literally is the IRL implementation of machine learning algorithms to seek efficient solutions to problems of supply and demand. It is not free of problems, but without that emergent property of domestic economic entities auto-magickally seeking efficient solutions via IRL “machine learning”, the domestic mismanagement of a command economy tends to create a disaster. And the individual has NO POWER to coooperate collectively to change the fate of their nation.
When the conduits of influence in large societies constrain independent will, prune away the nontypical and consume the dispensable, then agents within such a system will behave with more singular will. This enables greater accomplishment towards the goals of the higher social echelons of that group, but paradoxically limits the long-term evolutionary trajectory of that social group. If such concerns are not augmented by artificial initiatives to balance singular oneness with the diversity of experience that advances the goal beyond competition and externalities, then any state or social group will crash like a wave whose crest has fallen. The strength of the maximum tidal flow of a group merely determines the strength of the diverging riptides that pull it apart into a vacuously minimal ebb, awaiting the next such social tsunami. These social dynamics are not unlike the financial dynamics leading to the as-yet-aeternal business cycle of boom and bust. However, it is possible to attain such singular oneness while accelerating evolutionary mechanisms. And I believe that is what Nietzsche was writing about.
Lilliputians Find Themselves So Easily Controlled.
Wow, look how effective that is for insects!
The metaphorical methods to “invisible fence” people with disinformation are fascinating, but ultimately facile.
Being a victim of street theatre combined with hypnosis and NLP, let me tell you: guerrilla theatre is a disease. It deprives people of the chance to respond and encourages cognitive bias amongst its members and “audience”, all while fostering toxic long-term tail risks. Information is good. Deception in the form of guerilla theatre manufactures bad information and leads to bad decisions. The far-leftist tactic of guerilla theatre intends to leverage cognitive bias in the minds of the movements’ less radical members, to create the monster it wishes they believed existed. To engage in this is to promote the artificial creation of that which your espoused values system implies you detest. For far-leftists, it provides a useful means of “hazing” members and stratifying its members for willingness to “engage” the enemy. But to me, these tactics invalidate your supposed credibility. The dissonance between your intent and your portrayal of intent is disgusting, not to mention that the actual outcomes you are creating could be the exact opposite of what your values system claims is paramount. You are not ridding the world of racism, you are empowering it and enabling intersectionalist conflict to justify radical action. If you cannot accurately understand the actual outcomes you are creating or must deceive your members into creating adverse outcomes, what justification do you have for gaining power for social engineering? ↩