BECOME SUPERHUMAN

(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)