(Briefly explained:)

To become superhuman according to the fashion of Herr Professor Doktor Nietzsche - as an alternative to Weenie-hood or 'tardation - is to rise above hoi polloi/the goyim/the masses/the lower orders (however one might refer to common humanity) through education in, and adherence to, fundamental political and epistemological realities - rather than in and to ideologically and theologically-based delusions ("Real Worlds," as HPDN would have disparagingly referred to them after the manner of his dispute with Kantian and Platonic notions):

"Zarathustra, the first psychologist of the good, is — consequently — a friend of the evil. When a décadent type of man ascended to the rank of the highest type, this could only happen at the expense of its counter-type, the type of man that is strong and sure of life. When the herd animal is irradiated by the glory of the purest virtue, the exceptional man must have been devalued into evil. When mendaciousness at any price monopolizes the word 'truth' for its perspective, the really truthful man is bound to be branded with the worst names. Zarathustra leaves no doubt at this point: he says that it was his insight precisely into the good, the 'best,' that made him shudder at man in general; that it was from this aversion that he grew wings 'to soar off into distant futures,' — he does not conceal the fact that his type of man, a relatively superhuman type, is superhuman precisely in its relation to the good — that the good and the just would call his overman devil ...


You highest men whom my eyes have seen, this is my doubt about you and my secret laughter: I guess that you would call my overman — devil!

What is great is so alien to your souls that the overman would be terrifying to you in his goodness ...


"It is here and nowhere else that one must make a start to comprehend what Zarathustra wants: this type of man that he conceives, conceives reality as it is: it is strong enough for it —, it is not estranged or removed from it, it is reality itself and exemplifies all that is terrible and questionable in it, only in that way can man attain greatness ..." (Ecce Homo, "Why I Am a Destiny," 5)

Sadly, if Professor Nietzsche were alive now to witness the riotous intellectual pre-school that is the Greater Judea of the modern day, his only realistic immediate hope for the juvenile pseudo-sophisticate Leftists and the puerile patriotarded Rightists, so much in evidence today, would be for their preliminary elevation to so little as mere imbecility, in displacement of their present philosophical idiocy.

(In terms of background:)

Overmen/Uebermenschen refers to the historic warrior nobility/aristocracy of all politically-advanced cultures, who, by virtue of their having predatorily conquered and stratified settled societies at the foundation of their regimes, formed the basis for "every elevation of the type 'man'," according to the account given by Nietzsche. These masters of violence, in a world whose lower, slavish orders were and are inescapably governed by none other than the lies of priests and the violence of nobles, need not resort to the theological and ideological illusions employed by the former and may thus adopt the clear-eyed grasp of the world that Nietzsche's "Bird of Prey" has with regard to the tremulous, "good" (tasting) "lamb" that reciprocates with a hysterical view of the hungering raptor as the blackest of "evil". Thus the master and his "master morality" are "Beyond Good and Evil" and so avoid the destructive, apocalyptic distortions of reality that are required of "slave morality" in all its forms (principally in the eschatological expectations of an escape to "freedom" and "liberation" from oppression and repression in an immanent (Christian) Kingdom of God or an egalitarian (Liberal/Socialist/Pacifist/Anarchist/Communist) Utopia of Man to come).

It was Nietzsche's hope to educationally cultivate a new master-class of "Gentilshomme," following the disastrous passing of the historic noble masters after two millennia of Jewish-inspired promotion of subversive (Christian and proto-Communist) slave morality, in the contest that Nietzsche styled as "Rome versus Judea":

"Let’s bring this to a conclusion. The two opposing values 'good and bad,' 'good and evil' have fought a fearful battle on earth for thousands of years. And if it’s true that the second value has for a long time had the upper hand, even now there’s still no lack of places where the battle goes on without a final decision. We could even say that in the intervening time the battle has been constantly drawn to greater heights and in the process to constantly greater depths and has become constantly more spiritual, so that nowadays there is perhaps no more decisive mark of a 'higher nature,' a more spiritual nature, than that it is split in that sense and is truly still a battleground for those opposites. The symbol of this battle, written in a script which has remained legible through all human history up to the present, is called 'Rome Against Judea, Judea Against Rome.' To this point there has been no greater event than this war, this posing of a question, this contradiction between deadly enemies. Rome felt that the Jew was like something contrary to nature itself, its monstrous polar opposite, as it were. In Rome the Jew was considered 'guilty of hatred against the entire human race.' And that view was correct, to the extent that we are right to link the health and the future of the human race to the unconditional rule of aristocratic values, the Roman values. By contrast, how did the Jews feel about Rome? We can guess that from a thousand signs, but it is sufficient to treat ourselves again to the Apocalypse of John, that wildest of all written outbursts which vengeance has on its conscience. (Incidentally, we must not underestimate the deep consistency of the Christian instinct, when it ascribed this very book of hate to the name of the disciple of love, the same man to whom it attributed that enthusiastic amorous gospel —: there is some truth to this, no matter how much literary counterfeiting may have been necessary for this purpose). The Romans were indeed strong and noble men, stronger and nobler than any people who had lived on earth up until then or even than any people who had ever been dreamed up. Everything they left as remains, every inscription, is delightful, provided that we can guess what is doing the writing there. By contrast, the Jews were par excellence that priestly people of ressentiment, who possessed an unparalleled genius for popular morality. Just compare people with related talents — say, the Chinese or the Germans — with the Jews, in order to understand what is ranked first and what is ranked fifth. Which of them has proved victorious for the time being, Rome or Judea? Surely there’s not the slightest doubt. Just think of who it is people bow down to today in Rome itself as the personification of all the highest values — and not only in Rome, but in almost half the earth, all the places where people have become merely tame or want to become tame — in front of three Jews, as we know, and one Jewess (in front of Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the carpet maker Paul, and the mother of the first-mentioned Jesus, named Mary). This is very remarkable: without doubt Rome has been conquered. It is true that in the Renaissance there was an incredibly brilliant reawakening of the classical ideal, the noble way of evaluating everything. Rome itself behaved like someone who had woken up from a coma induced by the pressure of the new Jewish Rome built over it, which looked like an ecumenical synagogue and was called “the church.” But Judea immediately triumphed again, thanks to that basically vulgar (German and English) movement of ressentiment, which we call the Reformation, together with what had to follow as a result, the re-establishment of the church — as well as the re-establishment of the old grave-like tranquillity of classical Rome. In what is an even more decisive and deeper sense than that, Judea once again was victorious over the classical ideal at the time of the French Revolution. The last political nobility which there was in Europe, in seventeenth and eighteenth century France, broke apart under the instincts of popular ressentiment — never on earth has there been heard a greater rejoicing, a noisier enthusiasm! It’s true that in the midst of all this the most dreadful and most unexpected events took place: the old ideal itself stepped physically and with unheard of splendour before the eyes and the conscience of humanity — and once again stronger, simpler, and more urgently than ever rang out, in opposition to the old mendacious slogan of ressentiment, 'supreme rights of the majority,' in opposition to the will for a low condition, for abasement, for equality, for the decline and extinguishing of mankind — in opposition to all that rang out a fearsome and delightful counter-slogan 'supreme rights of the few'! Like a last signpost to a different road, Napoleon appeared, the most singular and late-born man there ever was, and in him the problem of the inherently noble ideal was made flesh — we should consider well what a problem that is: Napoleon, this synthesis of the inhuman and the superhuman. . . .

" — Did that end it? Was that greatest of all opposition of ideals thus set aside for all time? Or was it merely postponed, postponed indefinitely? . . . Some day, after a much longer preparation, will an even more fearful blaze from the ancient fire not have to take place? More than that: wouldn’t this be exactly what we should hope for with all our strength? Even will it? Even demand it? Anyone who, like my readers, begins to reflect on these points, to think further, will have difficulty coming to a quick conclusion — reason enough for me to come to a conclusion myself, provided that it has been sufficiently clear for a long time what I want, precisely what I want with that dangerous slogan which is written on the body of my last book: 'Beyond Good and Evil' . . . At least this does not mean 'Beyond Good and Bad.' —" (Genealogy I 16,17)

His "readers," his "Gentlemen," his "Free Spirits," his "good Europeans," were to be the men who would "become who they are," who would "revive the ancient fire," and who were to be the paladins of a class of talented tyrants to eventually emerge from the European political scene, as the mass of the population became further debased by democratic modernity:

"Whether that which now distinguishes the European be called 'civilization' or 'humanization' or 'progress'; whether one calls it simply, without implying any praise or blame, the democratic movement in Europe: behind all the moral and political foregrounds indicated by such formulas a great physiological process is taking place and gathering greater and ever greater impetus — the process of the assimilation of all Europeans, their growing detachment from the conditions under which races dependent on climate and class originate, their increasing independence of any definite milieu which, through making the same demands for centuries, would like to inscribe itself on soul and body — that is to say, the slow emergence of an essentially supra-national and nomadic type of man which, physiologically speaking, possesses as its typical distinction a maximum of the art and power of adaptation. This process of the becoming European, the tempo of which can be retarded by great relapses but which will perhaps precisely through them gain in vehemence and depth — the still-raging storm and stress of 'national feeling' belongs here, likewise the anarchism now emerging —: this process will probably lead to results which its naive propagators and panegyrists, the apostles of 'modern ideas,' would be least inclined to anticipate. The same novel conditions which will on average create a leveling and mediocritizing of man — a useful, industrious, highly serviceable and able herd-animal man — are adapted in the highest degree to giving rise to exceptional men of the most dangerous and enticing quality. For while that power of adaptation which continually tries out changing conditions and begins a new labor with every new generation, almost with every new decade, cannot make possible the powerfulness of the type; while the total impression produced by such future Europeans will probably be that of multifarious, garrulous, weak-willed and highly employable workers who need a master, a commander, as they need their daily bread; while, therefore, the democratization of Europe will lead to the production of a type prepared for slavery in the subtlest sense: in individual and exceptional cases the strong man will be found to turn out stronger and richer than has perhaps ever happened before — thanks to the unprejudiced nature of his schooling, thanks to the tremendous multiplicity of practice, art and mask. What I mean to say is that the democratization of Europe is at the same time an involuntary arrangement for the breeding of tyrants — in every sense of that word, including the most spiritual.

"I hear with pleasure that our sun is moving rapidly in the direction of the constellation of Hercules: and I hope that men on the earth will in this matter emulate the sun. And we at their head, we good Europeans! —" (BGE, "Peoples and Fatherlands," 242-3)

These were to be the so-regarded "evil" men - rising above the contemptible, sanctimonious, inverted, liberationist perspectives of lesser persons. These were to be the men whom Nietzsche's fictional Zarathustra would want for the rectification of the historic Zarathustra's error in introducing the delusional moral dualism of slave morality: "Good and Evil":

"I have not been asked, as I should have been asked, what the name of Zarathustra means in my mouth, the mouth of the first immoralist: for what constitutes the tremendous historical uniqueness of that Persian is just the opposite of this. Zarathustra was the first to consider the fight of good and evil the very wheel in the machinery of things, — the transposition of morality into the metaphysical, as a force, cause, and end in itself, is his work. But this question itself is at bottom its own answer. Zarathustra created this most calamitous error, morality; consequently, he must also be the first to recognize it. Not only has he more experience in this matter, for a longer time, than any other thinker — after all, the whole of history is the refutation by experiment of the principle of the so-called 'moral world order' —: what is more important is that Zarathustra is more truthful than any other thinker. His doctrine and his alone posits truthfulness as the highest virtue — this means the opposite of the cowardice of 'idealists' who flee from reality, Zarathustra has more intestinal fortitude than all other thinkers taken together. To speak the truth and to shoot well with arrows, that is Persian virtue. — Am I understood? ... The self-overcoming of morality out of truthfulness, the self-overcoming of the moralist into his opposite — into me — that is what the name of Zarathustra means in my mouth." (Ecce Homo, "Why I Am a Destiny," 3)

Nietzsche's "Superman" was thus neither the cartoon character that stupid and ignorant Greater Judean goyim would imagine nor the proposed product of Darwinian eugenic measures. Superhumanity was to be the re-attainment of a manhood that had virtually disappeared with the passing of ancient Classical culture, wherein many men still combined the virtues of unsentimental, clear-eyed, ideology-free intellect with regard to politics and the courage and appetite for personally taking up arms for (moralistically) unrationalized imperial conquest, as was the resort and destiny of all healthy High Cultures. As Nietzsche presciently saw the prospects:

"[The strength to will is strongest] of all and most astonishing in that huge empire-in-between, where Europe as it were flows back into Asia, in Russia. There the strength to will has for long been stored up and kept in reserve, there the will is waiting menacingly — uncertain whether it is a will to deny or a will to affirm — in readiness to discharge itself, to borrow one of the physicists’ favorite words. It may need not only wars in India and Asian involvements to relieve Europe of the greatest danger facing it, but also internal eruptions, the explosion of the empire into small fragments, and above all the introduction of the parliamentary imbecility, including the obligation upon everyone to read his newspaper at breakfast. I do not say this, because I desire it: the reverse would be more after my heart I mean such an increase in the Russian threat that Europe would have to resolve to become equally threatening, namely to acquire a single will by means of a new caste dominating all Europe, a protracted terrible will of its own which could set its objectives thousands of years ahead — so that the long-drawn-out comedy of its petty states and the divided will of its dynasties and democracies should finally come to an end. The time for petty politics is past: the very next century will bring with it the struggle for mastery over the whole earth — the compulsion to grand politics." BGE, "We Scholars," 208)


The identification of Judeo-European slave morality (referred to as "Christianity") with morality per se was so universal in Nietzsche's day, that one could, to a general audience, write sensibly of its rejection only as amorality or immorality, as seemingly Nietzsche had to do despite his implicit endorsement of master morality, regarding which little could be said.

For the rules by which the masters, the nobility, live have mostly to due with honor and etiquette, personal and familial - and may be codified in a reasonably consistent and complete corpus of prescriptions and proscriptions. There tends to be little debate among such a class of people as to the dictates of honor and proper behavior in any given situation.

But the most important rules by which the common folk live, when they are torn away from tribal roots, have mostly to do with property, personal and public - and cannot be codified in a complete and consistent corpus of rules and regulations. Thus, where there is not the pretense of the existence of such a corpus, the debate is perpetual as to how to organize and govern society beyond the tribal level, since there are no answers to the ancient questions as to "who guards the guardians" or how to arrange perpetually collusion-free commerce and special-interest-free policy without so contrarily burdening commerce and society with corruptible and inefficient bureaucracy and internal security as to be societally non-competitive in international commerce and war-making capability.

For example:

The term “rightly understood interest” is used, in the discussion of the logic of political economy, to characterize an aspect of the behavior of homo oeconomicus, the hypothetical rational actor or entity engaged in commercial or “market” activity. The following illustration of its meaning will show it to be a rather obvious concept — though it nevertheless can be seen to have devastating implications:

If, for example, several individuals periodically derive a minimal level of nutrition from a “pie” created for them by one or several of their number, from materials supplied by others of the same, the “raw” interest, so-to-speak, of each of them might well be to take the whole pie for himself. As there is only one pie at a time and multiple individuals to be satisfied, the raw interest of all cannot be realized at once in this regard. If any one or few of them deprive or deceive others in regard to a share of the pie, violence may ensue with possible damage to pie creation. If the creators of the pie are not suitably rewarded, pie production may diminish or cease — likewise with the supply of materials and the persons responsible therefor. The group is confronted with a multi-dimensional challenge in trying to develop a formula (Laissez-faire?/Command economy?/Mixed economy?/Socialism?/Corporatism?/Syndicalism?/Anarchism?/Social Credit?/Marxism?/Leninism?/Stalinism?/Maoism?/Fascism?/National Socialism?/etc.) for dividing the pie to at least the minimal satisfaction of all, while deterring misbehavior and motivating pie production. If such a formula is successfully achieved and basically adhered to, it may be said to serve the “rightly understood,” as opposed to the elementary “raw” interest, of each of the participant individuals.

This is all rather commonsensical and obvious, but, again, this reality has devastating consequences, when we “scale-up” this challenge to encompass the requirements for satisfaction of millions or billions of individuals. On this scale it is literally impossible, as suggested by the multiplicity of alternatives and lack of officlal clarity as to principles, to develop a formula for attending to the rightly understood interests of this number of advanced organisms confronting inescapably scarce resources. If prevarication does not serve to pacify the victims of inevitable deficiency, violence and death will be the frequent alternatives. Thus is humankind governed, according to the Iron Law of Oligarchy - whereby the rightly understood interest of an organized minority is, rather, in exploiting a disorganized majority - by none other than lies and violence, priests and warriors, as the record of human experience so richly reveals. Utopian hopes, measures toward a “New World Order,” even durable national stability, are thus without foundation, excluded by the logic and experience of political economy, at least until Jesus brings the Second Advent to town or the day those “mysterious material forces of production” finally turn up.


As said, a formula for meeting these challenges does not exist in other than public pretense (for example and especially as to the existence of "human rights," the suitability of the moral Decalogue in this capacity, and the academic notion of a Platonic or etheric realm of legal principle). And this pretense and difficulty are particularly in evidence where indefinable considerations of equality/justice/fairness/freedom/liberty must be accommodated, as in the fatuous, but much exploited, impression that a coherent concept of universal, international "justice" exists such that "victims" of political or military events may be said to have "moral authority" and "rights" to "reparations" and that "guilt" must be imposed upon the so-called "criminals" involved. And yet another pernicious illusion prevails where public propaganda and popular ignorance sustain the idea that form-of-government ("democracy" versus "dictatorship") is a matter of morality rather than a matter of mere utility.

Nevertheless, the fate of polities depends vitally upon the successful management of these irresolvable problems. To fail to manage the unmanageable is to instigate class war and to inspire international war, the latter often resorted to by polities ancient and modern in order to palliate the former development. But this is all in order in Nietzsche's broad analysis of the nature of life - for life is exploitation - the feeding of one organism upon another. The exploitation of one class by another, and the subjugation of one people by another, is all according to the organic nature of society and its will to power and cannot be rectified by resort to intrinsically defective
legal/ethical/moral dictates and enforcement:

"Consequently, only with the setting up of the law is there a 'just' and 'unjust' (and not, as Dühring will have it, from the time of the injurious action). To talk of just and unjust in themselves has no sense whatsoever; it’s obvious that in themselves harming, oppressing, exploiting, destroying cannot be 'unjust,' inasmuch as life essentially works that way, that is, in its basic functions it harms, oppresses, exploits, and destroys, and cannot be conceived at all without this character. We have to acknowledge something even more disturbing: the fact that from the highest biological standpoint, conditions of justice must always be only exceptional conditions, partial restrictions on the basic will to live, which is set on power; they are subordinate to the total purpose of this will as individual means, that is, as means to create larger units of power. A legal system conceived of as sovereign and universal, not as a means in the struggle of power complexes, but as a means against all struggles in general, something along the lines of Dühring’s communist cliché in which each will must be considered as equal to every will, that would be a principle hostile to life, a destroyer and dissolver of human beings, an assassination attempt on the future of human beings, a sign of exhaustion, a secret path to nothingness.—" (Genealogy II 11)

Here we have the evidence of Nietzsche's rare genius in appreciating the moral dilemma with which man is instrinsically confronted in the context of any political activity. It is a supreme irony that the academic and popular impression of this quandary is so disgracefully uninformed, that moral pre-schoolers, as immediately below, may unashamedly offer the following ludicrous assessment of the seasoned philosopher for our consideration:

For example:

"In a world where liberalism and democracies are now increasingly in violent geopolitical conflict with Islâmic Fascism [a misnomer, NN], and trendy progressives despise liberal capitalism more than misogynistic Islâmic terrorists [rather, the Islamic Resistance, NN] the most surprising intellectual developments become possible. In such an ideological mix and ferment, one thing stands clear: Nietzsche's contribution, a morally infantile [emphasis mine, NN] fantasy of barbarism, will always be dangerous, destructive, and seductive to anyone whose moral maturity is no greater than his.

"Editorial Note:

"I should pay tribute to my former professor and advisor at UCLA and the University of Hawaii, Lenn Goodman (now at Vanderbilt University), who once made what I thought was the most acute observation about Nietzsche -- that he was simply not a morally mature person. I wonder if we can excuse Nietzsche because, after all, he was losing his mind. But this is not an excuse that will work for most Nietzsche enthuasiasts."


Resuming the thread of our thought (with indulgent smiles regarding such naivete) - the party of fanciful Good Intentions with which this Road to Hell is presently being paved is the meliorist liberal Left, classical and modern, which has facilitated the liberation of the "people," bourgeois and working-class, from their historic aristocratic masters. If we place the most charitable interpretation upon the motivation behind this contribution, we would say that the oppressed and exploited have thereby been relieved of such injustice, and have been granted the freedom and rights to which all are entitled by virtue of their humanity. Notions of Natural Law and Progress make self-evident the righteousness of this subversive enterprise — based, as it is believed to be, upon universal principles dictated by reason and compassion for one's fellow man. Thus, as is easily observed in the present instance, advocates of this "liberalism" find themselves to be the most compassionate, caring, concerned, and committed of us all in seeing to the welfare of humanity as a whole and of the planet upon which that humanity resides.

The problem with liberating the lower orders, however, is that the revolution means more suffering, exploitation, and death under the new masters than under the old. For example, maintaining order on a mutinous ship in the old days sometimes meant resorting to flogging miscreants even more often than did the martinet who induced the mutiny. More recently, the nascent Soviet Union had to take murderous Russian brutality and callousness to unprecedented heights (or depths) in conforming its much-reduced population of surviving peasants and workers to their lovely new Gulag-enhanced and Secret-Police-supervised "Worker's Paradise". And to date, the tally of Maoist Red Chinese domestic megacide, in pursuit of a pure Communist liberationist regime, has not even been approached in absolute numbers by any other polity.

That is the actual working-out of the brutal logic of political-economy in the history of events, as opposed to the sentimental theory and fable with which we are most familiar. The order created by centuries of aristocratic dominion is not a story of unbridled rapacity presiding over incessant misery, a'la the tales of Robin Hood and Uncle Tom's Cabin, but, in fact, of the progressive minimization of the unavoidable impositions that violent conflict make upon human society. It is when republican "citizenship" and revolutionary "comradeship" make their appearance on the scene that the suffering and killing really start - because the demands of the newly-elevated rabble multiply the demands that must be met. It was democratic Athenian imperialism, not monarchic Spartan conservatism, that provoked formation of the anti-Athenian coalition leading to the Peloponnesian War. It was the most "liberal" of the European powers, England, the World's Workshop, and not Prussian Militarist Germany, on whose empire the sun never set.

Liberalism is thus the logical and historical prelude to anarchy or despotism, by virtue of having unleashed demands, for the satisfaction of which no new formula exists in replacement of the accommodations reached in the course of centuries of aristocratic rule. Anglo-America has avoided this fate, to this date, first, by having long exploited the politico-economic virtues of global colonialism in which Laissez-faire works nicely according to theory - until a pioneering frontier closes - and by having thereafter been sold into another Faustian Pact with the Fifth-Column international theocrats of the day (elite Jewry having replaced the Church in this capacity).

This latter-day Deal with the Devil involved being rewarded in the historic short-term with manhood-affirming, mock-heroic martial "victory," and with long-awaited economic "recovery," and with transitory global pre-eminence in the aftermath of the Fifth Column's engineering of the War to Save Communism from Hitler and Tojo - plus the wide-spread off-shoring of otherwise class-warfare-producing wage-slavery and the additional extortions from global economic imperialism, as a bonus.

This comes, however, at the long-term expense of eliminating effective resistance to displacement of the native oligarchy by elite Jewry, of resistance to illegal immigration and eventual declension into Third-World decrepitude, and of preparedness for eventual attack by the irregular forces of the Asian (currently crypto-Communist Russian and Chinese Communist) revolutionary regimes, who are deceptively exploiting the ideologically-based delusions of their "objective enemy," Greater Judea (formerly "America") - the latter having been temporarily elevated beyond its place in the world (Hua Guofeng-wise) by the Fifth-Column-engineered WWII alliance with its Communist then-and-now mortal enemy, in a back-stabbing betrayal of its would-be natural and present ally, Germany.


For Professor Nietzsche, anti-Semitism was an intolerable and despicable diversion from proper pursuit of the elimination of the slave morality and its secular derivatives that had been introduced with Christianity and developed therefrom after the Christian metaphysic had been discarded. Indeed, opposition to Jewry, the ancient authors of Christianity, tended rather to induce a sense of victimization and class declension among Gentiles, i.e., a slave or lower-class mentality ("ressentiment") - precisely the opposite of that SUPERHUMAN state of mind that Nietzsche was desperately trying to cultivate with his "Amor Fati," his "Eternal Return," his "Aristocratic Radicalism".

In Nietzsche's terms, Judaism was a priestly master morality, employing lies and lllusions rather than violence as the other of the two means by which stratified societies are governed:

In my "Genealogy of Morals" I give the first psychological explanation of the concepts underlying those two antithetical things, a noble morality and a ressentiment morality, the second of which is a mere product of the denial of the former. The Judaeo-Christian moral system belongs to the second division, and in every detail. In order to be able to say Nay to everything representing an ascending evolution of life--that is, to well-being, to power, to beauty, to self-approval--the instincts of ressentiment, here become downright genius, had to invent an other world in which the acceptance of life appeared as the most evil and abominable thing imaginable. Psychologically, the Jews are a people gifted with the very strongest vitality, so much so that when they found themselves facing impossible conditions of life they chose voluntarily, and with a profound talent for self-preservation, the side of all those instincts which make for decadence--not as if mastered by them, but as if detecting in them a power by which "the world" could be defied. The Jews are the very opposite of decadents: they have simply been forced into appearing in that guise, and with a degree of skill approaching the non plus ultra of histrionic genius they have managed to put themselves at the head of all decadent movements (--for example, the Christianity of Paul--), and so make of them something stronger than any party frankly saying Yes to life. To the sort of men who reach out for power under Judaism and Christianity,--that is to say, to the priestly class-decadence is no more than a means to an end. Men of this sort have a vital interest in making mankind sick, and in confusing the values of "good" and "bad," "true" and "false" in a manner that is not only dangerous to life, but also slanders it. (The AntiChrist, 24.)

And he saw the current secular derivative of Christianity - the belief in the "coming states of society in which there will be 'no more exploitation'" - as the prospect of conversion of the planet into a global graveyard, lacking all "organic functions" in consequence of the elimination of "'exploitation'...the essence of the living thing...the primordial fact of all history." Nietzsche, the "Antichrist," felt that "Christianity" had sucked the life-blood out of the superlative ancient Classical civilization, vampire-wise, and was threatening to do likewise in Europe, in Nietzsche's own time:

58. There is a perfect likeness between Christian and anarchist: their object, their instinct, points only toward destruction. One need only turn to history for a proof of this: there it appears with appalling distinctness. We have just studied a code of religious legislation whose object it was to convert the conditions which cause life to flourish into an "eternal" social organization,--Christianity found its mission in putting an end to such an organization, because life flourished under it. There the benefits that reason had produced during long ages of experiment and insecurity were applied to the most remote uses, and an effort was made to bring in a harvest that should be as large, as rich and as complete as possible; here, on the contrary, the harvest is blighted overnight. . . .That which stood there aere perennis, the imperium Romanum, the most magnificent form of organization under difficult conditions that has ever been achieved, and compared to which everything before it and after it appears as patchwork, bungling, dilletantism--those holy anarchists made it a matter of "piety" to destroy "the world,"which is to say, the imperium Romanum, so that in the end not a stone stood upon another--and even Germans and other such louts were able to become its masters. . . . The Christian and the anarchist: both are decadents; both are incapable of any act that is not disintegrating, poisonous, degenerating, blood-sucking; both have an instinct of mortal hatred of everything that stands up, and is great, and has durability, and promises life a future. . . . Christianity was the vampire of the imperium Romanum,-- overnight it destroyed the vast achievement of the Romans: the conquest of the soil for a great culture that could await its time. Can it be that this fact is not yet understood? The imperium Romanum that we know, and that the history of the Roman provinces teaches us to know better and better,--this most admirable of all works of art in the grand manner was merely the beginning, and the structure to follow was not to prove its worth for thousands of years. To this day, nothing on a like scale sub specie aeterni has been brought into being, or even dreamed of!--This organization was strong enough to withstand bad emperors: the accident of personality has nothing to do with such things--the first principle of all genuinely great architecture. But it was not strong enough to stand up against the corruptest of all forms of corruption--against Christians. . . . These stealthy worms, which under the cover of night, mist and duplicity, crept upon every individual, sucking him dry of all earnest interest in real things, of all instinct for reality--this cowardly, effeminate and sugar-coated gang gradually alienated all "souls," step by step, from that colossal edifice, turning against it all the meritorious, manly and noble natures that had found in the cause of Rome their own cause, their own serious purpose, their own pride. The sneakishness of hypocrisy, the secrecy of the conventicle, concepts as black as hell, such as the sacrifice of the innocent, the unio mystica in the drinking of blood, above all, the slowly rekindled fire of revenge, of Chandala revenge--all that sort of thing became master of Rome: the same kind of religion which, in a pre-existent form, Epicurus had combatted. One has but to read Lucretius to know what Epicurus made war upon--not paganism, but "Christianity," which is to say, the corruption of souls by means of the concepts of guilt, punishment and immortality.--He combatted the subterranean cults, the whole of latent Christianity--to deny immortality was already a form of genuine salvation.--Epicurus had triumphed, and every respectable intellect in Rome was Epicurean--when Paul appeared. . . Paul, the Chandala hatred of Rome, of "the world," in the flesh and inspired by genius--the Jew, the eternal Jew par excellence. . . . What he saw was how, with the aid of the small sectarian Christian movement that stood apart from Judaism, a "world conflagration" might be kindled; how, with the symbol of "God on the cross," all secret seditions, all the fruits of anarchistic intrigues in the empire, might be amalgamated into one immense power. "Salvation is of the Jews."--Christianity is the formula for exceeding and summing up the subterranean cults of all varieties, that of Osiris, that of the Great Mother, that of Mithras, for instance: in his discernment of this fact the genius of Paul showed itself. His instinct was here so sure that, with reckless violence to the truth, he put the ideas which lent fascination to every sort of Chandala religion into the mouth of the "Saviour" as his own inventions, and not only into the mouth--he made out of him something that even a priest of Mithras could understand. . . This was his revelation at Damascus: he grasped the fact that he needed the belief in immortality in order to rob "the world" of its value, that the concept of "hell" would master Rome--that the notion of a "beyond" is the death of life. Nihilist and Christian: they rhyme in German, and they do more than rhyme.

59. The whole labour of the ancient world gone for naught: I have no word to describe the feelings that such an enormity arouses in me.--And, considering the fact that its labour was merely preparatory, that with adamantine self-consciousness it laid only the foundations for a work to go on for thousands of years, the whole meaning of antiquity disappears! . . To what end the Greeks? to what end the Romans?--All the prerequisites to a learned culture, all the methods of science, were already there; man had already perfected the great and incomparable art of reading profitably--that first necessity to the tradition of culture, the unity of the sciences; the natural sciences, in alliance with mathematics and mechanics, were on the right road,--the sense of fact, the last and more valuable of all the senses, had its schools, and its traditions were already centuries old! Is all this properly understood? Every essential to the beginning of the work was ready;--and the most essential, it cannot be said too often, are methods, and also the most difficult to develop, and the longest opposed by habit and laziness. What we have to day reconquered, with unspeakable self-discipline, for ourselves--for certain bad instincts, certain Christian instincts, still lurk in our bodies--that is to say, the keen eye for reality, the cautious hand, patience and seriousness in the smallest things, the whole integrity of knowledge--all these things were already there, and had been there for two thousand years! More, there was also a refined and excellent tact and taste! Not as mere brain-drilling! Not as "German" culture, with its loutish manners! But as body, as bearing, as instinct--in short, as reality. . . All gone for naught! Overnight it became merely a memory !--The Greeks! The Romans! Instinctive nobility, taste, methodical inquiry, genius for organization and administration, faith in and the will to secure the future of man, a great yes to everything entering into the imperium Romanum and palpable to all the senses, a grand style that was beyond mere art, but had become reality, truth, life . . --All overwhelmed in a night, but not by a convulsion of nature! Not trampled to death by Teutons and others of heavy hoof! But brought to shame by crafty, sneaking, invisible, anemic vampires! Not conquered,--only sucked dry! . . . Hidden vengefulness, petty envy, became master! Everything wretched, intrinsically ailing, and invaded by bad feelings, the whole ghetto-world of the soul, was at once on top!--One needs but read any of the Christian agitators, for example, St. Augustine, in order to realize, in order to smell, what filthy fellows came to the top. It would be an error, however, to assume that there was any lack of understanding in the leaders of the Christian movement:--ah, but they were clever, clever to the point of holiness, these fathers of the church! What they lacked was something quite different. Nature neglected--perhaps forgot--to give them even the most modest endowment of respectable, of upright, of cleanly instincts. . . Between ourselves, they are not even men. . . . If Islam despises Christianity, it has a thousandfold right to do so: Islam at least assumes that it is dealing with men. . . .

60. Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down (--I do not say by what sort of feet--) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly instincts for its origin--because it said yes to life, even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life! . . . The crusaders later made war on something before which it would have been more fitting for them to have grovelled in the dust--a civilization beside which even that of our nineteenth century seems very poor and very "senile."--What they wanted, of course, was booty: the orient was rich. . . . Let us put aside our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more! The German nobility, which is fundamentally a Viking nobility, was in its element there: the church knew only too well how the German nobility was to be won . . . The German noble, always the "Swiss guard" of the church, always in the service of every bad instinct of the church--but well paid. . . Consider the fact that it is precisely the aid of German swords and German blood and valour that has enabled the church to carry through its war to the death upon everything noble on earth! At this point a host of painful questions suggest themselves. The German nobility stands outside the history of the higher civilization: the reason is obvious. . . Christianity, alcohol--the two great means of corruption. . . . Intrinsically there should be no more choice between Islam and Christianity than there is between an Arab and a Jew. The decision is already reached; nobody remains at liberty to choose here. Either a man is a Chandala or he is not. . . . "War to the knife with Rome! Peace and friendship with Islam!": this was the feeling, this was the act, of that great free spirit, that genius among German emperors, Frederick II. What! must a German first be a genius, a free spirit, before he can feel decently? I can't make out how a German could ever feel Christian. . . .


(Link to) * Money As Debt* [Give it 20 seconds to start]
(Link to) *The Financial Crime Scene *

Now that the reader has been persuaded of the value of Nietzschean sophistication in the appreciation of the difficulties involved in the administration of human affairs, and lest this sophistication seem nothing more than merely academic in impact, we might mention one of the rare instances in which a policy recommendation has little in the way of a countervailing consideration.

This is to say, specifically, that our Clintonista retread regime can provide a desperately-needed emergency transfusion of money - presently and hopelessly obstructed in the poisoned banking digestive system - by directly injecting it into the free-flowing but starving commercial circulatory system. It could immediately give every taxpayer as many tens of thousands of dollars, debt-free, as it takes to restore full employment of national resources (thus countering the destructive deflationary effects of the banksters' unstable, pro-cyclical, debt-based money supply), and as cannot be done otherwise with such speed and efficiency.

The shame of the oncoming global commercial disaster is that there is no lack of world-wide physical capacity with which to produce wealth and employment for us all - all that is lacking is the printed paper, distributed to the populace, with which to resume and sustain productive activity in the physical plant that we already have and that is being increasingly unused. We do not need to "save" money or pay down debt as a remedy in a debt-based-money economy - the perversity of such an economy is that saving money and canceling debt simply add immediately to the problem, by taking money out of commerce, returning it to the constipated banking system, and thus further deflating the debt-based money supply.

Ironically, the merit of a fiat-money system, in terms of the public good, is precisely that it obviates the requirement for saving toward investment by immediately producing the transferable currency with which to initiate physical capital creation. And, as said, the current problem is not a lack of physical capital requiring any form of "saving" - as is the solution according to the advice of Libertarian policy wonks in the financial media. We speak here of those who would also recommend allowing bankruptcies and foreclosures to proceed endlessly, in the doctrinally-desired survival of the economically fittest - of which there will be virtually none at the end of a deflationary death-spiral.

The simple remedy for deflation (lack of circulating "paper" - virtual or material), rather, is direct reflation (paper given to those who most urgently need to circulate it). The present circumstance is a product of the fact that debt-based fiat money intrinsically collapses that which it expands - by requiring repayment (plus interest) of the "loans" through which all such currency is created. Therefore, it must constantly and endlessly loan money, however ill-advised such loaning might be otherwise, in order to sustain the money supply and the continuity of commerce. There would be no such requirement for perpetual debt-creation if fiat-money creation involved no requirement for repayment.

But money creation through the loaning mechanism is employed because it is to the multiple advantage of the bankers, as it assures that the ultimate value of their currency is inflation-proof and it provides the pretext for much taxing of the public through interest payments on the use of what ostensibly is their own money. And the system provides employment and profit for bankers far beyond the requirements of society for such service. This bankerster-friendly arrangement comes at the public expense of commercial depressions that are remediable only through the most extraordinary fiscal measures (as in financing a multi-year World War-cum-Reconstruction to be fought with conventional weapons, in a world where little preexisting debt overhangs).

Thus, the only solution to the present crisis is to Take Back Our Money and end its creation in debt.

[And, it should be mentioned in line with our theme regarding moralities, that a secondary and precipitating cause of the present crisis was the slave-morality-based ideological fanaticism and characteristic attendant administrative incompetence involved in the (egalitarian Liberal/Socialist/Communist) affirmative-action mortgage-lending practices recently forced upon the responsible institutions and the relaxation of regulation that enabled irresponsible organizations to exploit the circumstance.]


So - given that the articulate mulatto graduate of the Permanent Secret Government's finishing school is in place, might we take some small measure of hope from the fact that he would seem, nevertheless, to have a racially-based constituency of his own that is not altogether Semitically-correct in its attitudes?

If we note the historic tension and antagonism that developed between the major ethnically-correct and morally-entitled minorities (which developed amidst and despite their mutual cooperation in anti-majoritarian enterprises), may we infer that an awakening of the more populous and primitive element of this combination to a century-long, institutionalized bankster racketeering by the lesser but more sophisticated element (see Money as Debt [give it 20 seconds to start]) might lead to developments that favor the restructuring of money-creation in a regime that is otherwise arranged to suit only the latter?

Sadly, we are driven to this resort for hope, since we must account the odds of a significant majoritarian reaction to be nil, looking at that prospect in detail.

For the Weenie Liberal Left, on the one hand, requires that its notions conform to standards of Main Stream Media and pseudo-academic fashionability (unless an otherwise impermissible conspiracy theory identifies fascists as the malefactors involved (z.B., the "Military-Industrial Complex" as the assassin of JFK - and "9-11" as a production pulled off by Bushite right-wing extremists)). And this discussion of banking regulation and reformation unfortunately smacks of historic Populist crankery and typical allegations against a Chosen people now having attained the status of Sacred Cows in Liberal theology.

On the other hand, the Jingoist Patriotard Right, with its Gung-Ho/Can-Do/Bring-It-On/Defending-Our-Freedom/Democracy-Spreading/Good-Doing-with-Gunfire mentality is challenged beyond its means in grasping the issue, and lacks the pre-existing prejudices of the primitive ethnic element, mentioned above, that knows its historic partner up close and personal and thus from whom we might expect the only muscular reaction to the present monetary crisis. And finally, the Evangelicals, with their Judeo-fascist sympathies and eschatological expectations, are going to be Raptured, anyway, so what does it matter.