[–]17534263?0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
The inseparable accretions of ressentiment and philosophical thought contaminate the entirety of the Nietzschean corpus. His final fragments are blistered with unrestrained animus, dreadfully bitter and yet sustain an addictive virulence.
In Nietzsche, we find a recognition of the irreconcilable opposition between the perspective of the victimisers’ mythology and the Biblical perspective of the victims – and the consequent ramifications for all future ethics and politics. The passion and intensity of Nietzsche’s polemic betrays his ressentiment par excellence. Perhaps blunted by the silence brought by Christian society, Nietzsche considered ressentiment the primary form of the desire for violence, and both the fruit and the germ of Christianity; everything in Nietzsche is under the influence of Christianity.
The legacy of Cain lies in his role as both fratricide and founder. Consequent to Abel’s murder, the law against reciprocal violence is established. And where Cain builds the first city, his descendants give that city husbandry, music and technology. Modern anthropology, ignorant or unwilling of cultural interpretation, ends at observing the same elements in the mythologies of Cain, Dionysus and Romulus. All these myths are statements on collective murders, and so require a name.
As John 8:43-44 relates:
Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of all lies.
That name is Satan, and these myths are thus expressions of the false accusations, collective murders and victim deification that founded pre-Christian culture, and that the Gospels recognise, reproach and reject. The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, is therefore the advocate of all martyrs as witnesses to the truth of the Gospels. The dreadful sword1 of Christ, l’ordre de la charité, spells the doom of all those Satantic societies by revealing their social order lies on the convergence of collective violence upon a scapegoat. And it was this inevitable destruction of Satan, by the Christian interpretation of collective violence and its universal declaration of guilt that must invariably, argued Nietzsche, prevent any continued order or fraternity between men.
Ressentiment is the element of violence that survives the impact of Christianity. For ressentiment flourishes wherever violence is diminished and Christianity has only partly succeeded in its aims to eliminate violence in all its forms.
The ressentiment, only made possible by Christianity and its diminution of Satanic violence, expressed by Jungian efforts to Biblicise mythology, by Heideggerian efforts to mythologise the Gospels, and by the idealisations of primitive cultures have only contributed to the vague and eclectic religiosity of our time. Faced with the dreadful turbulence of Christianity, both Jung and Heidegger grasped at the vestigial elements of the old sacred. Except for their vocabulary, they are wholly within the realms of nineteenth-century historicism.
Unexposed to the priestly whetting of pagan teeth with blood, few recognise the urgency of the Gospels. Bewilderment and condescension follows each mention of the collective murder of God.
[–]17534264?0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
Per Nietzsche, The Gay Science, §12:
“…God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How shall we console ourselves, the most murderous of all murderers? The holiest and mightiest that the world has hitherto possessed, has bled to death under our knife – who will wipe the blood from us? With what water could we cleanse ourselves? What lustrums, what sacred games shall we have to devise? Is not the magnitude of this deed to great for us? Shall we not ourselves have to become Gods, merely to seem worthy of it? There never was a greater event – and on account of it, all who are born after us belong to a higher history than any history hiterto!” – Here the madman was silent and looked again at his hearers; they also were silent and looked at him surprise. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, so that it broke in pieces and was extinguished. “I come too early,” he then said, “I am not yet at the right time. This prodigious event is still on its way, and is travelling – it has not yet reached men’s ears. Lightning and thunder need time, the light of the stars needs time, even after they are done, to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the most distant stars – and yet they have done it themselves.”
The expression here is contaminated across several layers, yet still distinguished logically. At its most obvious, Nietzsche is writing on the modern disappearance of the deification consequent to the collective murder of a real victim. The second level follows, the realisation that the victims of collective murder are the pagan gods. The highest level is the realisation that the Passion of Christ is not the death of the Christian God but the death of all other gods.
Like his fellow idealists, Nietzsche felt that the death of an exhausted religion – the Biblical religion – would allow the birth of some new god, a birth unrooted in the death of the resented Biblical God. Idealists are unable to apprehend the reality, rendered unintelligible by Christianity, of collective violence, and see it only as a cure for the fermenting pandemonium – the ressentiment – of their, and our, time. The caustic trickle fills the cup of every “intellectual” nihilist, i.e., the psychologists.
The interest of Freudian analysis does not lie in its results, in its pretentious accumulation of psychic agencies; nor does it lie in the spectacle of Freudian apprentices clambering up and down the precarious scaffolding of Freudian doctrine with remarkable and futility. Rather, Freudian analysis is itself an obstacle to discerning the nature of the relationship between subject, model and object; to understanding the origins of ressentiment and violence. Yet Freud recognised, in an anti-Freudian moment, the pagan commonality of collective murder in religious rituals.
Despite its enshrinement in the modern canon, the dramatic insights of Nietzsche have been buried under the rhetorical ornaments and milquetoast analyses necessary to avoid the dreadful guilt of collective violence. The idolatry of Freud ceases wherever his gospel turns to the same Satanic theme.
These men exemplify the heights of ressentiment; their writings plaster every theatre and brothel. They know but one thing: to fill their belly and be drunk, to be wounded whilst fighting for their favourite charioteer, to live like goats and pigs. Here the slayers of Christ gather together, here the Cross is driven out, here God is blasphemed, here the Father is ignored, the Son is outraged, here the grace of the Spirit is rejected. The response to the God Question is as it was in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: You are free to think as you will, and everything of yours shall remain yours, but from this day on, you are one apart from the many.
Few are ready for the answer of Christ: The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.
[–]17412641?0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
ISIS are the bad muslims, Sunnis or more specifically Wahhabis. Shia are the ones who dont blow us up and who just act defensively, like Iranians, the ones Jews always kvetch about. ISIS are cunts, they are not our allies, they are a Mossad front. They dont even kill Jews.
[–] 17534263? ago
The inseparable accretions of ressentiment and philosophical thought contaminate the entirety of the Nietzschean corpus. His final fragments are blistered with unrestrained animus, dreadfully bitter and yet sustain an addictive virulence.
In Nietzsche, we find a recognition of the irreconcilable opposition between the perspective of the victimisers’ mythology and the Biblical perspective of the victims – and the consequent ramifications for all future ethics and politics. The passion and intensity of Nietzsche’s polemic betrays his ressentiment par excellence. Perhaps blunted by the silence brought by Christian society, Nietzsche considered ressentiment the primary form of the desire for violence, and both the fruit and the germ of Christianity; everything in Nietzsche is under the influence of Christianity.
The legacy of Cain lies in his role as both fratricide and founder. Consequent to Abel’s murder, the law against reciprocal violence is established. And where Cain builds the first city, his descendants give that city husbandry, music and technology. Modern anthropology, ignorant or unwilling of cultural interpretation, ends at observing the same elements in the mythologies of Cain, Dionysus and Romulus. All these myths are statements on collective murders, and so require a name.
As John 8:43-44 relates:
Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of all lies.
That name is Satan, and these myths are thus expressions of the false accusations, collective murders and victim deification that founded pre-Christian culture, and that the Gospels recognise, reproach and reject. The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, is therefore the advocate of all martyrs as witnesses to the truth of the Gospels. The dreadful sword1 of Christ, l’ordre de la charité, spells the doom of all those Satantic societies by revealing their social order lies on the convergence of collective violence upon a scapegoat. And it was this inevitable destruction of Satan, by the Christian interpretation of collective violence and its universal declaration of guilt that must invariably, argued Nietzsche, prevent any continued order or fraternity between men.
Ressentiment is the element of violence that survives the impact of Christianity. For ressentiment flourishes wherever violence is diminished and Christianity has only partly succeeded in its aims to eliminate violence in all its forms.
The ressentiment, only made possible by Christianity and its diminution of Satanic violence, expressed by Jungian efforts to Biblicise mythology, by Heideggerian efforts to mythologise the Gospels, and by the idealisations of primitive cultures have only contributed to the vague and eclectic religiosity of our time. Faced with the dreadful turbulence of Christianity, both Jung and Heidegger grasped at the vestigial elements of the old sacred. Except for their vocabulary, they are wholly within the realms of nineteenth-century historicism.
Unexposed to the priestly whetting of pagan teeth with blood, few recognise the urgency of the Gospels. Bewilderment and condescension follows each mention of the collective murder of God.
[–] 17534264? ago
Per Nietzsche, The Gay Science, §12:
“…God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How shall we console ourselves, the most murderous of all murderers? The holiest and mightiest that the world has hitherto possessed, has bled to death under our knife – who will wipe the blood from us? With what water could we cleanse ourselves? What lustrums, what sacred games shall we have to devise? Is not the magnitude of this deed to great for us? Shall we not ourselves have to become Gods, merely to seem worthy of it? There never was a greater event – and on account of it, all who are born after us belong to a higher history than any history hiterto!” – Here the madman was silent and looked again at his hearers; they also were silent and looked at him surprise. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, so that it broke in pieces and was extinguished. “I come too early,” he then said, “I am not yet at the right time. This prodigious event is still on its way, and is travelling – it has not yet reached men’s ears. Lightning and thunder need time, the light of the stars needs time, even after they are done, to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the most distant stars – and yet they have done it themselves.”
The expression here is contaminated across several layers, yet still distinguished logically. At its most obvious, Nietzsche is writing on the modern disappearance of the deification consequent to the collective murder of a real victim. The second level follows, the realisation that the victims of collective murder are the pagan gods. The highest level is the realisation that the Passion of Christ is not the death of the Christian God but the death of all other gods.
Like his fellow idealists, Nietzsche felt that the death of an exhausted religion – the Biblical religion – would allow the birth of some new god, a birth unrooted in the death of the resented Biblical God. Idealists are unable to apprehend the reality, rendered unintelligible by Christianity, of collective violence, and see it only as a cure for the fermenting pandemonium – the ressentiment – of their, and our, time. The caustic trickle fills the cup of every “intellectual” nihilist, i.e., the psychologists.
The interest of Freudian analysis does not lie in its results, in its pretentious accumulation of psychic agencies; nor does it lie in the spectacle of Freudian apprentices clambering up and down the precarious scaffolding of Freudian doctrine with remarkable and futility. Rather, Freudian analysis is itself an obstacle to discerning the nature of the relationship between subject, model and object; to understanding the origins of ressentiment and violence. Yet Freud recognised, in an anti-Freudian moment, the pagan commonality of collective murder in religious rituals.
Despite its enshrinement in the modern canon, the dramatic insights of Nietzsche have been buried under the rhetorical ornaments and milquetoast analyses necessary to avoid the dreadful guilt of collective violence. The idolatry of Freud ceases wherever his gospel turns to the same Satanic theme.
These men exemplify the heights of ressentiment; their writings plaster every theatre and brothel. They know but one thing: to fill their belly and be drunk, to be wounded whilst fighting for their favourite charioteer, to live like goats and pigs. Here the slayers of Christ gather together, here the Cross is driven out, here God is blasphemed, here the Father is ignored, the Son is outraged, here the grace of the Spirit is rejected. The response to the God Question is as it was in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: You are free to think as you will, and everything of yours shall remain yours, but from this day on, you are one apart from the many.
Few are ready for the answer of Christ: The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.