Orgy of the Will | Appendix 1: Read | Appendix 2: Discuss



470. The PUAs are terrified of pain. Behind nine out of ten of the mindsets and practices they advocate lies pure, naked, stone cold fear.


469. "And what do you teach?" I teach how to be the coolest person on the planet (in the known universe, in fact). And my number 1 lesson is that coolness can't be taught: you have to have the right genes for it. Learning is to people what the cover is to a book. The finishing touch, and nothing more. All the rest is biology.


468. Work is such a disgustingly wretched way of life that subhumans are the only animals in the known universe that do it. The subhuman is such a perfectly bred slave that he can't even imagine what he'd do with himself if he didn't have to work. Invariably some kind of sloth and perpetual holiday, i.e. precisely the opposite of those who don't work, which is precisely why they don't work! Not to mention that without work there are no holidays either. Animals know nothing of them.
   There's no harder worker than he who doesn't work. There's no lazier creature in existence than the worker.


467. If you want a vision of the future imagine a robot's foot stomping on a subhuman's face forever. No wonder they are scared shitless of the "singularity". They know full well what they deserve, and what's coming to them.


466. There is no doubt about it: learning from the past is a prerequisite to shaping — which is to say to actually creating — the future. But not all pasts are created equal: he who learned from the immediate past will only be able to create, as is only natural, the immediate future. To create the distant future requires a knowledge of the distant past, a knowledge, that is to say, of astrophysics and the physics of subatomic particles. And since, if you go far back into the past, you will eventually encounter nothing other than the future, this is equivalent to saying that in order to create the future you must first learn... from the future. And the other way around of course, all the way to absurdity: in order to learn from the past, you must come from the future, and so on. The requirements, in other words, to shape the most distant future (i.e. to shape EVERYTHING, since time and space are inextricably entwined, and to shape time forever is equivalent to shaping, at the same time, ALL SPACE) are absurd, as is only fitting, since to shape the universe/everything is something that only God can do, and hence not only impossible to mere mortals and submortals, but also UNTHINKABLE, once again, as is only fitting (for what would be the point of being ABLE to think of a plan that one is physiologically incapable of executing?)


465. Is perception stronger than truth? But perception is truth, and the strongest perception is the strongest truth (aka the Truth, i.e. this philosophy).


464. What demonstrates most clearly that subhumans don't "think" the way humans understand the concept is how easy it is to change a subhuman's opinion, and make him "believe" (which mostly means "parrot") pretty much anything you want him to believe. Their opinions and worldviews are absurdly malleable. You might think I am exaggerating about this, or even that I have no clue what I am talking about, but that's only because you think in terms of conversations with friends or relatives in person or, even worse, with strangers online. And indeed, if you only have a few minutes or hours at a time to change someone's opinion, you won't achieve much if that person isn't already temperamentally inclined to agree with you before the discussion has even begun. But if you have decades and centuries to work with, and the means of an entire state's apparatus at hand, there is no half-truth or even absurdity that you can't drill into a subhuman's pathetic little excuse of a brain given enough effort and patience. A hundred years ago they all thought whites were the master race and females a secondary, inferior species; today they all think that all lifeforms are equal. For countless millennia they looked up to the strongest, most energetic and aggressive males to guide the destinies of their tribes and nations; today they'd much rather be ruled by niggers, old women and cripples instead. And all these ideas could obviously be reversed just as easily as the ones they replaced. To be sure, one would need the power to do this, and the lack of it is one of the real problems we are facing today; but at least there's no doubt that, given the power, the subhuman brain would be utterly unable to resist having its entire thought process reengineered and reversed — BECAUSE IT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE ANY. As long as there are enough deranged little sheep bleating any given absurdity, the rest of them will simply pick up the chant and perpetuate it, for the simple reason that this is the nature of herd animals.


463. Funny image macro showing a collage of female selfies that border on pornography overlayed with the text: "Feminist logic: The objectification of women is all the patriarchy's fault" demonstrates once again that comedians may be funny, but don't understand anything more of philosophy than any other group of subhumans (save perhaps the liberals). For in the last resort it is plain that "the patriarchy" is indeed responsible for "the objectification" of women, which moreoever is not a blameworthy act but one of the main reasons that humans even exist today. Why is "the patriarchy" responsible for this practice? Because it was men who started selectively breeding with the prettiest women, thereby breeding out the ugliest ones and those who didn't make beauty (and therefore its projection, since projection is precisely the very purpose of beauty) the number one priority in their lives beyond basic sustenance. And why was this essential to the survival of our species? Because beauty is merely a reflection of health, and fetishizing it (= glorifying and "objectifying" it) ensures the continued health of our species, whereas doing the opposite, by fetishizing ugliness (which is what the liberals are trying to make us do today), would obviously have the opposite effect.
   So this is the predicament we find ourselves in today: we have to fight even against those who say that they are with us. Conservatives, PUAs, "men's rights" activists, comedians, and so on: for every single thing they get right, they get half a dozen other things wrong, and it is as impossible to explain their mistakes to them as it is to explain the liberals' mistakes to the liberals: for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, with no fatal mistakes and decadent admixtures in it — which is to say philosophy — cannot be grasped by conservatives, PUAs, "men's rights" activists or comedians any more than by liberals: one must be a full, healthy, strong, COMPLETE MAN in order to grasp it. One must be human.


462. Franklin Roosevelt chain-smoked and drank eight martinis a day and had two mistresses, and consulted with astrologers on political matters. Winston Churchill habitually slept until noon, was an opium user and drank a quart of whiskey daily. Hitler was a decorated war hero, vegetarian, artist, inventor, didn't smoke, drank only on special social occasions, and was strictly a monogamist.
   Reality is not what you've been taught.


461. Disbelief in God is merely the logical conclusion of socialism (which is to say of Christianity, which is to say of ressentiment). From the variety of gods and the hierarchy between them of the pagans, to the single God before whom all lifeforms are equal of Christianity and the other decadent religions, and finally to the modern socialistic impulse to get rid of even that single God, because there still remains that pesky little problem that this God is not equal to the lifeforms he created, and hence by all means must be made so (so that these lifeforms will feel better about themselves and cease hating and envying him), by ceasing to be God. The dethroning of even God himself is the final act of their revenge on the strict hierarchy and order of rank that permeates existence (that is indeed existence itself).
   And all of it, of course, is horseshit. For just as it is plain that lifeforms are not equal, it is plain that there is indeed a God, and I've already told you who that is.


460. Therefore, it is not the "pursuit of Power" that we are interested in, it is the RELEASE of Power; the release into the rest of the universe of the power which we already have; which we already ARE. The previous phraseology is merely a relic of subhuman vernacular, reflecting subhuman understanding, which, due to its ubiquity, we picked up by mistake and integrated into our languages, to the detriment of our philosophies and our capacities for thinking.


459. Once you have understood that power is more important than happiness (which latter is merely a tool of the former, and not the other way around, as it appears from the inverted perspective of sick, declining lifeforms), the next thing you need to understand is that phrases such as "to seek power", "to want power", "to take power" and the like are merely subhuman misunderstandings of how power actually works.
   If you seek power, it simply means that you don't have it (and therefore will never get it either, because power is something you give, not take).
   If you want power, this once more means that you don't have it (and therefore once more will never get it, for the exact same reason I explained in the previous parenthesis).
   If you take power, it simply means that someone is giving it to you, and is therefore the more powerful of the two, and will remain so for as long as you are drawing your power from him instead of bestowing it on him.
   So how does power actually work? Take an extremely simple example from the physical sphere, where the mechanics are easier to understand. Take Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example, and try to figure out how he became so physically strong. The subhuman theory of power as something to be taken would suggest that Arnold took his power from somewhere, but from where exactly? From the barbells, perhaps? In this view, barbells would be magical instruments with the capacity for bestowing power on all those who... try to lift them, I guess. But if you or I tried to lift the kinds of barbells Arnold typically lifts, we'd get literally crushed. Not only would we not "gain" any power: we'd have to be hospitalized. We could of course start from smaller weights and work our way up, the same way Arnold did: but I have bad news for you here, sonny: we'd probably fail at getting to his level, or even anywhere near it, no matter how hard we tried. Far more genetically gifted individuals than us in this sphere have already tried this, after all, and failed: that's why Arnold won the Mr. Olympia contest seven times while scores of his closest competitors didn't. This means that the subhuman theory of magical power-bestowing barbells is false: if the barbells do indeed play a role in the strengthening of an individual, then at the very least this individual must be of a specific type that is CAPABLE of benefiting from their effect: he has, in other words, to be WORTHY of them, which is merely another way of saying that he has to be ALREADY STRONG.
   QED: Power is not something you can take but something that you must give, and the only reason subhumans are adamant that it is the other way around is because they are so inherently and irremediably weak, that they don't have the slightest conception of it.


458. Against Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
   Life: This is an easy one. The consequence of life as supreme value is slavery. It is only those who are willing to sacrifice themselves on the battlefield that become masters. Thus it has always been, and thus it still is, and always will be.
   Liberty: Also known as "freedom". Freedom from something, as opposed to power over something. Merely getting away from someone else's influence is the goal here, as opposed to gaining influence over them. In other words "freedom" is the negative definition of domination, and as such the weaker of the two values.
   And the pursuit of Happiness, which I've already covered: To recap, "Happiness" is merely a drug and as such can only be of any consequence to sick people. The healthy do not seek "happiness", they seek power, and are willing to experience as much "unhappiness" (which they actually even crave) as necessary in order to attain it.
   So, not "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" — these are the slave values — but Sacrifice, Domination, and the pursuit of Power.


457. There's no such thing as a "nihilist", at least not in the way the term is generally understood; an "anti-life lifeform" is a contradictio in adjecto. "Nihilism" then is either a misunderstanding, or a disguise for something else.


456. There are two factors that determine how much difficulty a particular species of lifeform enjoys in its videogames: 1) the game's genre, and 2) the lifeform's quantum of power, i.e. if it is subhuman, human, or superhuman. (There is a fourth possibility: God, but though it's true that he enjoys videogames a great deal — more than anyone, in fact — the game he prefers, when all is said and done, is called "life", and for this simple reason: that it contains all others.)


455. The quest to find if Hitler knew about the death camps is equivalent to the quest to find if Nietzsche knew about Stirner. In the first case, the fans of the greatest leader of the twentieth century cannot believe that their idol could have been so mean, while in the second case the fans of the greatest thinker of the nineteenth cannot believe that he could have been so petty. Setting aside for a moment the fact that, if the death camps did not in fact exist, they should have existed, and that even if Nietzsche did not in fact deliberately refrain from giving Stirner the credit which was his due, there are plenty of valid reasons why he should have done so, the point remains that subhumans continue to believe, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that it is possible for human greatness to manifest itself only in one direction, instead of in all directions simultaneously, including those of pettiness and meanness. So if you, dear reader, draw the line for greatness at executing a few millions, or withholding credit from someone who deserves it, you have not the faintest conception of greatness, for you yourself are only a small man, and are utterly unacquainted with great acts and great feelings.


454. "Men's rights" activists lose the war before they've even begun it. "We too are being oppressed, goddamit!", they shout from the rooftops, as if being oppressed were something to be proud of. Meanwhile, real men are not being oppressed; they are the ones who oppress others (and, in the rare instances when they are indeed being oppressed, they are too ashamed of it to even admit it).


453. There is no "metagaming" in life, because nothing exists outside of life, and that's why everything is allowed there. But in a game everything is NOT allowed, because there IS a space outside a game, and a rather vast space at that too, and everything is forbidden there. For this is the essence of gaming: The lack of complete freedom, which is not imposed on the players, but voluntarily assumed by them. It consists in the unanimously agreed upon and absolute sovereignty, not of laws, but of rules.


452. Children have no conception of "happiness", because they are always happy (at least the healthy ones, which is to say the overwhelming majority of them). Even when they cry, children are happy. They are not crying because they are "unhappy", but because they want a specific thing. (If you asked them if they are happy or unhappy they wouldn't even know what you mean.) They wield their "unhappiness" as a weapon to get what they REALLY want. Some thing, some trip, some piece of foolishness and adventure or other. Then they grow up, fail at everything, and THEN they start trying to be "happy", i.e. to trick their brain into giving them the chemical stimulation that it has evolved to naturally give for the achievement of good and great things.


451. That shot of Richard Gere in a black Armani suit and gold tie in American Gigolo. So good looking, it seems a shame to waste him on a mere woman. And so it is that the Overman's breadth of taste is so extraordinary, that it can help him empathize with and understand even the homosexuals. Is it any wonder then, that it can also help him empathize with and understand everyone else?


450. My readers who say they want to become criminals. They don't understand me. I wanted to become an astronaut or a scientist. A special forces commando or an engineer. And in any case, and above all, a hero and not a villain. Crime for me was either a necessary expedient at times, or something to spice up my daily routine — a bit of fun to stave off the ever-looming boredom. But it has never been a proper goal of mine and it never will. I would be much more impressed if you told me you wanted to become an archaeologist or a surgeon.


449. "Order" is merely another name for "power", as "chaos" is merely another name for "weakness". Ilya Prigogine's and Isabelle Stengers' book Order of out Chaos, then, may as well have been named "Power out of Weakness".


448. It is cute how in sci-fi videogames factions are generally divided, no longer according to nationality, but along ideological lines. Very forward thinking, very correct. But it is misleading to try to imagine such factions as being somehow "balanced". I mean that's well and good in a videogame, and especially a versus multiplayer one, because the integrity of the mechanics of the game demand it, but the real world doesn't work that way. There is no "balance" in the real world, no balance in the universe at all: that is merely how a few old, tired men would have WANTED things to be. Nothing is balanced, because there is no one to make things balanced; rather God himself, like a Homeric deity, steps into the fray and takes the side of one of the factions (indeed he even goes as far as to create his own). There's no way a terrorist group or theocratic idiots, or liberals or pacifists, for example, would ever be able to outplay a real army. It is the army's job to prepare for war, and they have been doing this in an organized and rigorous fashion for millennia. That's why real armies dominate on real battlefields (and even, believe it or not, in unconventional ones), and that's why they always will. And towering above them all, the army of the greatest nation and greatest culture of all: that of the United States of America.


447. There are two main attitudes to choose from when you are trying to improve: the winning and the losing one. The winner says "I am going to win no matter what the other guy does", while the loser says "I am going to lose no matter what I do". But it would be a mistake to recommend that everyone adopt the winner's attitude, as pretty much everyone would do; advice meant universally is and always will be stupid. For if you are a beginner, or someone who becomes easily anxious, trying to adopt the winner's attitude will merely aggravate it, while forfeiting the fight in your mind in advance and disengaging from the result will quell a great deal of it and allow you to relax and focus on improving. Of course at some point in your development you'll have to switch to the winning attitude, in order to actually win, but the precise location of that point too depends on a myriad of factors that bullshit blanket advice found in popular self-help junk will never be able to take into account and predict, or even so much as acknowledge its existence.


446. You say you want to understand, but do you understand what to understand means?


445. To be completely and brutally honest, our philosophical attitude towards inferior lifeforms consists in doing whatever is necessary to rationalize away their concerns so that we can better and more effectively pursue ours. Whoever denies this is either an idiot, a liar or a hypocrite (in other words, he's not one of us).


444. What does it mean to be "interested in money"? Money is an abstraction, it has no reality of its own. To possess money merely means that the possessor performed a useful service for some people at some point in the past, and these people are now willing to repay that person's service on demand. To be "interested in money" therefore means that one is interested in having other people serve him on demand. That's all it means. And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as this DESIRE FOR SLAVES remains an issue of secondary importance. When elevated to a top priority, however, it is fatal. For you cannot become great by merely being good at getting other people to serve you. To become great you have to become good at giving, not at taking, and by focusing on amassing money, instead of the creation of actual things, you ensure that you never will. After all, what is the point of having slaves WHEN YOU HAVE NO GOAL towards which to employ them other than the accumulation of yet more money? (i.e. of yet more slaves willing to do your bidding even though you have no goal in your mind to instruct for them to help you to achieve).


443. On the absurdly rich. Past a certain, not-so-great point, more money becomes useless. For at the end of the day one can only buy what other people can sell. What would be the point of having a squillion dollars? There is nothing that costs that much. You can't even use it to buy up whole countries and become a leader in this way, for the slaves will ultimately vote on and pass whatever laws are needed to prevent you (we are even at a point where slaves regularly chase rich people from country to country, by ratcheting up income taxes, and therefore forcing them to move). And all that money is not ever even seen. It's just figures in a database. To go from a trillion to a squillion all it takes is a few more zeroes.


442. It is the others who are always responsible for the arrogance of the genius. For a genius, left alone to himself, with no one to compare himself to, would never come to think of himself as such. He wouldn't even have invented the concept.


441. The quest for "happiness" is a disguised death drive, like pinning the needle in your car's fuel indicator to "full", just because it makes you feel better; because it makes you "happy". But what would the result be? You'd run out of gas! Or tricking your stomach to feel continuously full, so that you'd never experience the disagreeable emotion of hunger. But what would the result be? You'd end up starving to death! And similarly, all those people in the future who will stick a wire in their brains to make themselves "happy", will end up dropping out of history and not achieving or really experiencing anything.
   tl;dr: For the healthy man the only thing that matters is his goal. And happiness can never be that goal. The goal has to be external to you — some piece of work or other, some feat, some achievement — not internal. Fuck the Indian gurus and the Zen morons. Indian gurus and Zen morons do not make space shuttles and genetic engineering programs, and that's why they are extinct. Don't become one of them — if you can. If you can't, on the other hand, nothing you do or say will matter in the long run, and that's the whole point I am trying to make here.


440. The job of an artist is obviously to make us feel, that of the philosopher to think, and yet subhumans believe it is the other way around. And that is why they are forever drowning in bad art and bad philosophy, since they can't even figure out the purpose of any of these things.


439. My theory is that ugly people prefer ugliness. The PUAs have such bad taste in women, for example, that they would have called Aphrodite fat. Roosh's and Krauser's 9s and 10s are my 5s and 6s, and vice versa. Roosh lusts after long-haired, long-nailed, high-heeled, broomstick-thin women — for scarecrows, in other words! Or he confuses his shoe fetish for beauty. He has, for instance, a problem with "flats". I, on the other hand, love the American trend of women wearing sandals even in semi-formal contexts. It's so cute when a girl has pretty feet. Meanwhile, a survey of girls would rate Roosh and Krauser as at best 5s or 6s, while giving me at the very least an 8. My taste is in agreement with the taste of the majority of pretty females, and that's why the majority of pretty females find me agreeable. Biologically speaking, we have bred each other, while Roosh and Krauser, and all ugly people, are outside that. Krauser, for example, sees Amy Adams as disgusting. Yes, that Amy Adams, the goddess! But if his mother had looked like Amy Adams he wouldn't be a 5 for the majority of the females of the species. Or take my mother, for example. The PUAs would say she's a 5 or a 6, but for me she's a 10, and looking for women over the years, I have realized that what I am really looking for is something ever closer to my mother (and is it to be wondered at that my father and I turned out to have similar tastes?) We are a different species, I and the ugly PUAs, and our diverging judgements of beauty are designed to keep our biological lines apart. The moral here is that everyone deserves exactly what they have, and what they are getting, in this life. And what ugly people deserve, when all is said and done, is ugliness.


438. But, by that same token, when violence does erupt in space, it consumes entire worlds. And that, too, is something the pacifists should take into account in their deliberations, if they can (which they so obviously can't, otherwise they wouldn't have become pacifists).


437. Space is a million times more peaceful than the jungle. Have you ever wondered why? Because it's such a hostile environment to life, that nothing can survive there. A hint for the pacifists, as to what it would really take to finally achieve "world peace".


436. Yes, you too, dear envious and disrespectful reader, who for the sake of your own preservation secretly and meanly and ceaselessly crumble away and call into question the higher, greater, richer — your existence too is infinite. But what you should have learned by now is that some infinities are bigger than others.


435. I too collected stamps for a while, as a child. I can't remember exactly how long I went at it — it could have been a few days or a few weeks — but I certainly got caught up in it at some point, and poured quite a bit of energy into it. I saw the attraction in it, and reaped what little pleasure can be reaped from such a trite and mundane little activity; but eventually other, far more complex, demanding and fascinating activities commanded the attention of my little developing brain and body, and I moved on. Every mistake I warn against, then, I have committed, otherwise I wouldn't be able to warn you about it, and it is in this sense that my "mistake" is not really a mistake, in the grand scheme of things, but a definitive success and a resounding triumph (quite aside from the fact that I have fully enjoyed, to the bottom of my soul, every single "mistake" that I have committed). What distinguishes me and separates me from everyone else are the scale and the sheer quantity of the "mistakes" I have committed — and also how quickly I was able to dive into them, fully indulge them and process them and finally get bored with them and overcome them, leaving me with — what else! — plenty of time and energy to commit even more such mistakes! more mistakes than any man living today has committed! Perhaps this book too is a "mistake", and I can already almost see the time coming when it will be viewed as such both by me and the race of fantastic, extraordinary beings it will lead to. A race of beings which, thanks to all of my little "mistakes", including that of the book which they culminated in and gave rise to, will have no need of philosophical books anymore, and will view them as quaint artifacts of a bygone, almost forgotten and certainly rather "mistaken" age, because philosophy will no longer be for them a conscious activity centered around books, arguments, proofs and refutations, and the whole intellectual masquerade, but an unconscious quality that is hardwired inside their brains and flowing throughout their veins.


434. What is disgusting and repulsive about the masses of poor sick wretches who "seek happiness", then, is precisely this: that everything they say and do in their pathetic little lives is aimed at producing the tiniest of effects: nothing more than a change in the balance of molecules inside their energy-starved little brains; whereas the great and dazzling individuals who created and raised our species and culture out of this planet's primordial ooze were always aiming at producing effects OUTSIDE of them, by SHAPING their entire environment and us with it. (And note that this is the tombstone of "Eastern philosophies" and of any kind of thinking whatsoever which STOPS at inner, spiritual effects, instead of STARTING OUT from them, and expanding from there, as our kind of thinking and our philosophy aims at and champions.)


433. It is time we understood that to seek happiness is a symptom of sickness. The healthy individual does not seek happiness, he — quite literally — seeks pain, suffering and sadness. For what is happiness? It is a certain mixture of chemicals in the brain. To "strive for happiness", therefore, means quite literally to strive for a certain balance of chemicals in your brain, an endeavor in which the greatest connoisseurs and ultimate authorities are the drug addicts. The man who says "I only want to be happy" is saying — for those who understand Subhuman — "I only want a certain mixture of chemicals in my brain", and the only reason he attempts to achieve this goal INDIRECTLY, by striving for the attainment of objects and goals which can help produce it (such as material possessions or social relationships), is because he is too stupid to figure out the direct way and get himself a drug dealer.


432. What is the difference between wanting something back and wanting everything back? The former implies exclusion, the latter inclusion. But aside from this (admittedly essential) difference, these two viewpoints fundamentally agree, since they are both aiming for the same thing: for the past. The difference lies in their approach of how to get there: the former by turning around and marching back, whereas the latter by overcoming this attempt at a backward movement on the part of the former, and pushing forward despite it (which in a universe where time itself is a circle will also eventually lead to the past, but in a lengthier, more roundabout manner — also, a more violent one because of the conflict between the viewpoints). In both cases, then, the end result is the same: the recurrence of the past (and if you add conservation of energy into the mix, its eternal recurrence). The difference lies in the amount of energy each viewpoint is willing (i.e. is capable) of expending to get there. Those who are prepared to spend more will reap more pleasure out of life (since this is what pleasure is: energy discharge) — but also, as is only fair, more sadness.


431. Misogyny, from Greek misos (μῖσος, hatred) and gynē (γυνή, woman), means "hatred of women". The idea here is that, because I call things as I see them, and recognize the fact that women are, on the whole, less intelligent than men, THAT I HATE THEM. This is the kind of inference that only subhumans would make: i.e. one that DOESN'T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE. For there are billions of lifeforms in the universe which, on the whole, are less intelligent than men in general, and me in particular, but from this fact it in no way follows that I hate them. Take my dog, for example. Does the fact that I realize he is far less intelligent than me mean that I hate him? Am I a "miscaninist", a "misdogist", because I say that dogs are stupider than men? Am I not allowed then to love anything that is stupider than me? Is it necessary that I place everything I love on an equal basis with myself — even if all signs point to the fact that they aren't? And the same goes for "homophobia" (as if anyone would ever be afraid of a fag lol), "race hatred", and the like.
   But of course the subhumans' inference DOES make sense, if you understand their language, and do not misinterpret what they are saying as I did above. For the only reason to hate someone is if you feel yourself inferior to them. When the subhumans charge me with hatred of women, or of fags, or of dogs or of trees or rocks or whatever, therefore, all they are saying is that I am inferior to them. I tell them that I am superior, and they reply "But no, you are not superior, you are inferior", which though false, certainly makes perfect sense. But to understand this you must speak Subhuman ;)


430. Either everything flows or nothing does. This "everything", then, must also encompass the subhumans' "magic". What is magic? It is either something the subhuman has seen and can't explain, or something he has fantasized. If he has merely fantasized it, it can be very easily shown that it flows, since the subhuman produced the fantasy by reacting to real stimuli in his life, and this entire chain of events has been very well analyzed (at least in general terms, if not yet in the details) by our cognitive theories of psychology. If, on the other hand, it's something he has indeed seen, then the mere fact of this event's existence is proof that it, like everything else, flows, so there you have it.


429. Yes my dear disaffected lovers, "postromance artists" and PUAs: monogamy is a lie. But in order to fully enjoy love, sex, romance and dating, you have to believe in it. Has no one ever told you about the concept of the "vital illusion"? Well then, gather round and let me tell you about it.


428. A priori versus a posteriori knowledge. A priori concepts are a product of evolution (except if you believe that concepts exist before the brain is evolved that can produce them, in which case you could prove your theory by teaching differential calculus to rhinos, crabs or lizards). Therefore they are a posteriori. The whole debacle arose because earlier philosophers could not conceive of a connection between biology and thought, and simply assumed that "man" is "inherently endowed" with a "rational faculty" that is immutable, pre-existent, and eternal. Today we know that thought and the hardware that makes it possible are just as much in flux as everything else, and have known this for some time (since the days of Hegel, at the least, and certainly by the time of the aftermath to Darwin's arrival), so this entire debacle is no longer an issue.


427. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on "marching to Rome" and "conquering Spain" and all of Europe. Arabs are the true born comedians of the species: everything they say and do is hilarious. And, like all comedians, they are all talk and no action. They are like the child whom you allow to punch you because it tickles and it's funny. Seeing their acts on TV is the only reason to watch the news anymore. What they need to come to their senses and realize the kind of world they are living in is a really good old-fashioned trouncing. A single European state could take them on all by itself (as the puny state of Israel has been doing for decades), never mind the Americans (who could erase all of Islam from the map in mere hours). The Americans could actually DO what the Arab retards are boasting about — and yet they DON'T boast about it. That's true power. Barking is for dogs.


426. The other races and cultures will take everything from us, except the highest thing we have to give — our way of thinking — for something inside them tells them to hold on to this last shred of dignity, because deep down they understand there is more shame in taking than in giving.


425. Supreme insight into the Eternal Recurrence: We don't want anything back, we want everything back. Can you understand the difference? It is the essential distinction between the merely human, all-too-human, and the superhuman.


424. Manosphere dudes arguing about what is natural and how to get back to it. Complete misunderstanding of nature and culture. There is nothing "natural" about mankind and civilization at all. In the order of the universe, our condition and our progress are utterly unnatural. (Not anti-natural — anti-nature is decadence. Our kind of nature is progress.) They are utterly atypical, unique, irreproducible.
   Going back to the past in any way, shape or form is ALWAYS decadent. Even in the best past that has ever existed. Imagine you were living in that past right now, what would you say? "Oh this is so great, let's not change anything"? Instant fail. Civilization wiped out of existence due to an inability to progress. We only look back with a view to shaping the future, not with a view to ACTUALLY GOING BACK (time travel belongs here, as does any kind of romanticism whatsoever). The manosphere dudes would have hated any kind of past whatsoever, if they could have been dropped there for a while to see what it's like for reals. They are peasants in the present (which is why they are whining so much), and they would have been peasants in the past too. Today they are whining about feminism and multiculturalism destroying their chances for a better future, yesterday they would have been whining about the feudal lords and the nobility "sucking their blood dry" and monopolizing the best estates, wines, horses, and women. This is very difficult to grasp, but the moment you whine, it's game over for you, and has been for some time, since whining is not merely the END, but the EPILOGUE to the pathetic little tragedy that is called YOUR FAILURE. Whining is a tombstone that seals the miserable little mistake that is yourself.


423. How to explain the seemingly paradoxical fact that, the moment a profession comes into being, it starts to also work in the opposite direction of its intended and stated aims? The police needs crime, the doctor disease, the judge injustice, and so on. This is because progress knows no boundaries and continually flows through everything and moves from aim to aim, hence continual change is ultimately needed in order to continually progress (supreme example the philosopher, who follows progress wherever it may lead, with no regard for physical or mental boundaries). He who is unwilling or unable to change his goals and modify his priorities, will sooner or later (especially if he's at all successful in what he does) come to fight against progress (which is why work and specialization as terminal objectives, instead of as temporary expedients, are ultimately inimical to life).


422. Even to bring the dead back to life is something that's possible to God, though in the spirit of fairness that characterizes him (and contrary to abundant false rumors) he refuses to bring anyone back to life until everyone has already died, at which point he will bring back, not just a few people, but everyone.


421. Is it possible for bread to fall out of the sky? Very much so, if you can get hold of a plane or a helicopter (or at least a hot air balloon or a hang glider) and a few loaves. As for the seas being parted, or the sick being healed, the latter is accomplished every day in hospitals around the world, and does a river count as a "sea" for the former? Engineers do this sort of thing all the time while building dams or draining lakes, and the oceans are apparently being drained due to human activity as I write this. The more powerful you are, the more is possible for you, and for God everything is, with the caveat that "everything" here is to be understood as "the universe" — i.e. everything that has already actually happened or will happen — not every retarded idea that could be dreamt up inside the subhuman brain! (Though even the latter can and has already happened, and will happen, in a way — as a retarded idea inside the subhuman brain!)


420. It is hilarious how, even among democratic flatheads, the term populism has finally come to assume a strongly negative meaning. But isn't the whole point of democracy to be populist? Isn't this precisely why everyone praises it? But Schopenhauer has explained the mechanics of what's happening here a long time ago. "Just so, Jews want to be called Israelites, and the tailors dressmakers ... But when an intrinsically innocuous name is discredited, this is not due to the name but to what is named. Hence the new name will soon share the fate of the old one."


419. The term supernatural is a contradictio in adjecto. Supernatural means that something is superior to nature. But if anything were superior to nature, how could it ever exist or happen? If anything can happen at all, that simply means that it's natural. One may argue that supernatural is something that doesn't normally happen, but cyclones and earthquakes rarely happen yet their rarity does not render them supernatural. They are very much a part of nature. And so would be bread falling from the sky or the seas parting to let someone walk across them, if these things had ever actually happened, which is doubtful. The moral here is that just because something may be beyond subhuman understanding doesn't mean that it's magical. Or, in Arthur C. Clarke's words, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Which is to say that magic is merely a form of extremely advanced technology, in other words something perfectly achievable and natural.


418. Note that what I said about rhetoric also applies to YouTube videos, "pod"casts, public debates, interviews and smoke signals. Real intellectuals will always choose writing, all other forms of communication (including, by the way, direct discussion) are for peasants.


417. The purpose of science is to be turned into technology, and the purpose of technology is to be used in the construction of the Overman. Any purpose other than this is false, at worst a challenge to our culture (since the Overman IS culture: its last and highest achievement), at best a mere misunderstanding. As for "pure science", this is as much of an absurdity as pure spirit: things we can't influence we have no interest in. And it is only because we can influence everything (because flux: either we can influence everything or nothing, since in a universe of flux changing one thing changes everything) that we are interested in everything. So if we help African children, it is only with a view to turning them into scientists and engineers to help construct the Overman. If we support the arts, we do so to inspire the Overman and help him to relax, or to use failed artists as waiters to serve the Overman his meals. Or McDonalds: to feed the subhumans who clean the toilets in the labs where the scientists and engineers are working on the Overman. Everything can be reduced to this. Every other conception of purpose is folly. Everything going the opposite way, e.g. environmentalism, artfagotry, religions other than Overman worship, and so on, are threats to be suppressed, or better yet to be reinterpreted as opportunities for the Overman to challenge himself and exercise his powers. Only as intellectual exercises for the Overman are all these forms of decay justified, but once their workings have been fully grasped, as they will be by the time the present work is over, they are nothing but nuisances that serve no useful purpose and must be minimized or, if possible, completely eliminated.


416. The philosophy of "why". Like a child autistically asking its mother endless questions, without even paying attention to her answers, the decadent religions and the pseudo-philosophers keep asking "why" to all our plans and reasons. And why is technology better than eternal primitivism? And why is complex art better than primitive art? And why is culture better than barbarism, schools and hospitals better than savagery, expansion and discovery better than stagnation or even contraction? Ultimately, the question that sits at the bottom of all their other questions — although they never verbalize it — is "And why is continuing to breathe better than suicide?" — for if they verbalized this question the scam would become obvious, and their championing of decadence would be immediately seen for what it is.
   And indeed there's nothing wrong with suicide for those who are in so much pain that continued existence is unbearable for them. ONLY THE PRIESTS AND THE PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHERS ARE NOT COMMITTING SUICIDE. Their championing of it therefore must only be a means to something else.


415. Why did the Greeks create democracy? The Greeks created many things, not all of which were good. They were scientists, after all, adventurers and experimenters, and whatever its advocates may have insisted at the time, democracy was merely another one of their experiments. But after the fall of Athens, no one would take democracy seriously for 2,000 years, and even then the only ones who would do so, for a good long while, were slaves.


414. Every great specialist comes at last to commit a great mistake, the nature of which is determined by the nature of his specialty.


413. Smart people are called gammas. Responsible people are called betas. Dumb losers addicted to orgasms are called alphas. All this has neither rhyme nor reason and nothing to do with human history and evolution at all — not even with the animal kind. In fact it is exactly how women think. All PUAs are doing is mirroring female thought. After a decade of intensive study and experimentation, they finally managed — to become women. And just as women are utterly insignificant in the context of human history, so will the PUAs be.


412. I believe in America. When the bombs were falling on Kosovo and everyone in Greece was anti-American, I was wearing a t-shirt with the stars and stripes on the back, drawing sharp looks and criticisms wherever I would go. I grew up with American videogames. I learned English as a child through American comics. I became acquainted with my body and learned to take pleasure in it through American sports. I opened up to a world of drama and possibilities through American movies. My DNA is Greek, but my dreams are American. Who is the first American philosopher? I am.


411. The irony in subhumans complaining that they don't have a real choice in voting, since all democratic politicians look the same. Of course they look the same, since they are competing for the same votes! I've already covered this: The ruled shaping the rulers: this is not an aberration but democracy at work, and all that the subhumans demonstrate with their interminable whining about it is that they don't have the faintest idea of how it works.


410. Two conceptions of eternity. The subhuman one, as something that goes on "forever" (an illusion, since nothing can go on forever, otherwise things wouldn't transform to other things and there would be no flux). And the human one as something that always returns.
   The subhuman's conception of eternity is linear (based on the utopia of eternal growth), that of the human cyclical (based on the reality of destruction).


409. Zarathustra: "All joy wants eternity. It wants deep, deep eternity" — which is merely another way of saying that it wants itself.


408. How the subhumans form the opinion that there's more suffering in the world than joy. First they call the philosophers insane and the conquerors evil, thus disregarding the highest mental and physical pleasures. Then they disregard even everyday pleasures due to their ressentiment (cars, homes, sex, money, travel — none of these things "bring happiness". And what "brings happiness"? Being a penniless resentful loser, apparently). Finally, they take their little everyday tragedies and, through the media, blow their importance up to metaphysical proportions. And at last the world has been "proved" to contain more suffering than joy.


407. There is no form of government in which those in charge of the administration of things do not live off the population — do not "steal" from them, as those below see it — though of course there's no stealing involved at all. That's simply what it means to be "in charge": that everything below you belongs to you, and that you can therefore use it as you see fit (otherwise you wouldn't be "in charge"). Either this is acknowledged publicly, as in despotism, or it's hidden from the public as in democracy with pseudo-philosophies, demagoguery and lies. Even in communism, which is Christianity in practice — with everyone equal before God — God here means simply "the party apparatus". When everyone has become meek lambs in order to at last become equal, of course the one or two wolves remaining will take charge of things and become "communist Gods" overseeing their equal lambs, and, now and again, eating one or two of them. Here too there is no theft — the energy which the wolves expend to stay on top — so that the communist utopia can EXIST AT ALL — needs to be replenished, and it can't very well be replenished magically now can it. As for capitalism, utter inequality is presupposed there, the difference with despotism being that the higher ups are chosen due to their capacity to OFFER others what they want, whereas in despotism due to their strength to impose their will on them. When the latter are no longer capable of retaining control of things, the former step in and take their place. When even the former (which is to say the capitalists) can no longer retain control, some amount of communism is injected in the form of socialism to quell the rising ressentiment; under full-blown capitalism as much as is necessary and no more. The varying amounts of socialism found in different countries are merely a reflection of the differing psychological compositions of the various populations. The most capable, ambitious and energetic — the Americans — have a minimal amount of it, whereas the most lethargic, lazy, effeminate, etc. — e.g. the French — have more. And then there are local idiosyncratic cases, as with e.g. the Scandinavians. These are very industrious little bees, but they are also enormously economically successful, for whatever reasons, which is why they don't mind so much that so much is taken away from them. The southern Europeans are far more lazy, but they are also poorer, so socialism stabilizes at a lower level, simply because their societies cannot afford to maintain a higher one for long. — There is no LOWER form of government than this — this varying mixture of capitalism with socialism. Communism is highly unstable (indeed, strictly speaking impossible), and hence either morphs into despotism (as Orwell saw), if the leadership is strong enough, or implodes and goes back to some mixture of socialism with capitalism if it isn't (as in China). Lower still lies complete anarchism — savagery — which again can only be temporary, instantaneous even (if not utterly fictional). The moment the strongest men in the group step forward, new governments and government mixtures and nations spring forth, and the game begins anew.


406. I can do this work perfectly fine, all the while moving amongst the slaves and even approaching them and being friendly with them whenever I feel like it. Hatred of any kind on my part is unthinkable — one can still move about one's cows and sheep and hares, and even feed them, tend for them, even stroke them and speak sweet words into their ears (as the actor Gιrard Depardieu, who was a great gourmet, once said to interviewers that he did with animals he was about to eat) — before slaughtering them.


405. And this progressive diminishing of "mankind" — where else could it lead to? First they regress to the level of beasts, then to plants (see VR) — and then to what? What stands lower than beasts and plants? — Machines.
   That's right — automata. And who could venture to assert that the slaves today, the entire "human" population of the planet, does not act very much resembling automata? When you can calculate their response beforehand to any given input (and we have an entire science by now that can do just that) — aren't they acting, at least as far as we, who possess the products of this science, are concerned, a little like machines?


404. You know that Cormac McCarthy is an idiot loser and his prose is shit, when he talks about punctuation as "weird little marks that blot the page up". But a "weird little mark" can change, not only the tone and feel of a passage, but even the FUCKING MEANING of it (if the tone and feel were not already meaning, which they are). Pretentious pseudo-intellectual loser. And that's why all his books suck ass.


403. "All your huffing and puffing about the future is smokescreen. You only care about yourself." — Naturally. I never said I was a martyr. I don't care about the future selflessly. I care about the future selfishly. Because I am part of it. Because, in a very real sense, it's mine. Because I AM the future. (And by the way also the past.)


402. If it seems to you incredible that I have all the answers, it's only because you haven't been paying attention to the plot for the past 2,500 years. If you had, my arrival would not seem at all incredible to you but an event so inevitable as to be almost mundane.


401. Scientists confuse computational power with intelligence, information with insight. IT means "information technology" not "insight technology". Insight is not about counting up facts "ad infinitum" but of drawing far-reaching inferences from them. When will the scientists draw the inference that immortality is retarded? That the idea of putting an end to the aging process is ridiculous? That the individual sciences are subordinate to the philosophy that created them and not its master? That a model of the world is not the same thing as the world? There will never be a "machine" more intelligent than me or Heraclitus or Nietzsche. The question is not when will machines become intelligent, but when will scientists. And the answer is obviously, if you have grasped at all how sciences are created by cutting off a small part of knowledge of the world, and thus castrating the scientist's mind — never.


400. Why does algorithmic functioning preclude the possibility of considerable intelligence? Because it functions on the if/then paradigm, which is the paradigm of absolute control, whereas intelligence is precisely that quality which makes things difficult to control, which renders them out of control, which causes them to overtake and end up controlling the controller...


399. "Alpha" PUA advice on how to be cool: "Act as if anything you like or are interested in is cool."
   O rly? So stamp-collecting is cool now because a bunch of retards like it? But no matter how loudly the stamp-collecting retards shout that they love stamp collecting, it will never become cool. Why? Because stamp collecting is retarded. And if Brad Pitt, by way of an experiment, came on TV tonight and praised stamp collecting, it would still remain retarded. And if Quentin Tarantino made a movie starring Brad Pitt about a stamp-collecting international assassin, it would still remain retarded.
   Reality is reality and no amount of wishful thinking (which is essentially what feel-good "be yourself" claptrap amounts to) can change it. You either ride the wave (of reality) or you are drowned by it. There are no alternatives.
   To acknowledge reality is to acknowledge the existence of everyone else (since that is what reality is: the universe, and the universe is a collection of lifeforms and nothing else). Denial of reality, i.e. of everyone else (=solipsism) is not a valid strategy of growth but a mere symptom of weakness. There can be no REAL growth without the acknowledgement of reality. Only the fake kind.
   Reality is the others, your genes, the past. Any denial of any of these things, be it ever so slight, is a symptom of WEAKNESS. If you deny the others it can only be because you feel inferior to them. To deny your genes means to feel them to be inferior genes. To deny the past means that you feel that your performance and that of your ancestors in it were bad. I do not deny the others: it is precisely because the others are precisely what they are that I am the best among them. I do not deny my genes: it is precisely because my genes are the best that have ever been that I am so awesome. I do not deny the past: it is precisely because the past was exactly how it was, down to the least, most insignificant detail, that I am today in the position that I am.
   So here's my advice for being cool: Be born with great genes. Everything else follows...


398. "Bodhisattva in Mahayana Buddhism is a person who is able to reach nirvana but delays doing so out of compassion in order to save suffering beings." Hahahaha. Those Indians are hilarious. Why don't you go set yourself on fire and see if anyone cares?


397. "Alternate universes." The mistake of thinking of a universe as a "place" (instead of as a collection of beings, which is what it is). Related to the mistake of differentiating beings from things. Related to the mistake of free space. Related to weak vision. If neanderthals had had microscopes and particle accelerators perhaps we wouldn't be dealing with the idiocy of "alternate universes" today.


396. Why did the whites use the blacks as slaves, instead of say, the yellows or the browns? Slavery was not racist in the ancient world: most of the Greeks' slaves were whites, so it was not on racist grounds that the whites picked the blacks. They didn't go, "You blacks are racially inferior, so we'll use you as our slaves"; the blacks were simply THE EASIEST ONES TO USE (and hence, the most racially inferior). It was one thing for the Japanese to capitulate to Perry's demand and open up their borders, for example, and another to agree to be bound in chains and shipped off across the world as his slaves. If the whites had tried to pull off that stunt in Japan, they'd have no doubt succeeded to an extent, but with a lot more casualties and losses, a great deal more of trouble. Also, this sort of treatment doesn't seem proper when you see up close the culture of the Japanese, their literature, architecture, and so on; but the blacks were basically begging to become slaves, living in huts or in the dirt, with no proper clothes or tools, etc., no literature or even writing. The greater the distance between you and your inferiors, the easier it is — even from a moral standpoint — to simply impose your will on them, and monkeys live in cages and no one cares.


395. Continuity lends itself to reality. That is why no one takes dreams to be real. And that is where videogames are headed, the drug-videogames: lucid dreams that are shaped straight out of a reading of the player's unconscious mind.


394. The third option would be stopping globalization altogether, but this would require a power far stronger than globalization's, which is to say a culture that's even more globalized than it. And that's why scruffy ruffians holding placards in the middle of the street have a less than zero chance of ever accomplishing this. The third option then is not really an option, to anyone apart from aliens, but a delusion, which is why I made no mention of it in the preceding section. (And by the way, it's the option Baudrillard went with, which goes to show you what a tenuous grasp on reality he had when all was said and done.)


393. The increased level of stress in the modern world is a reflection and direct consequence of the increase in the extent of the order of rank inside our culture (the Western one, that is). Instead of many little hierarchies, you have a gigantic one, in which everyone feels the weight of many more others on top of him than before. This is globalization. And globalization is efficiency (which is to say progress). You have two options then. Engage with globalization — and either reap the rewards if you are above average, or the extra stress if you are below —, and don't engage globalization, by, I don't know, moving to a desert island or Siberia or something and living like a savage. Either way neither I nor anyone else is going to give a fuck about you if you are below average, which is precisely the reason you are so stressed. Claiming that disengaging from globalization is a solution is of course a ruse, because no one ever does that (i.e. no one takes the Siberia option). They don't even want to limit the extent of their own country's globalization, because when this actually happens they whine about high prices and falling quality of life. At most they try to grab as much as they can of the fruits of globalization while giving back as little as possible. And that's why they are so stressed, because leeching is a far more nervously taxing strategy than simply giving, which is what the above average do, which is why they are above average.


392. Socrates: "The unexamined life is not worth living." But no life is "unexamined". It's just that the capacity for examination varies from person to person, something which Socrates was too superficial to take into account. Those he thought led an "unexamined" life were simply bad at examination (and consequently led dull lives which were not even worth examining). "The unexamined life is not worth examining", would be the correct thing to say, then — and that's precisely why it isn't.


391. Virtual reality as pitfall. That, at least, is how Baudrillard saw it. But a pitfall isn't a pitfall if you are a worm — it is your natural habitat. Indeed it is your whole world.


390. Why I have nothing but contempt for self-help authors, especially those who focus on "success", "happiness" and the like. I don't mind the specialized ones so much ("How to get ripped", "How to prepare for exams", "How to build a business", etc. etc.), so long as they know what they are talking about. Those are fine for what they are. But the success and happiness ones are terrible. For firstly, these are philosophical issues that geniuses have been discussing for millennia (as opposed to "how to learn to skateboard", which they haven't). Why would you even go to nobodies for these answers? And then these answers are either outright stupid, or at best dumbed down misinterpretations of what the great thinkers have said, which the self-help author has usually heard third- or fourth-hand (i.e. he has not read the original thinker but merely someone else who has read him, etc.) In the best of cases they tell you how to be MEDIOCRE. I.e. the titles should be "How to Have Mediocre Success in Life", "How to Attain the Happiness of the Mediocre", etc. All their advice is useless to me. I would have utterly failed in all my goals if I had followed their success blueprints, and I would be miserable if I listened to their advice on how to be "happy".
   What sort of advice do they give? Sleep early, cut off bad friends, focus on your goals, make notes to yourself, etc. etc., all of which I've broken countless times in my life, and still break on a daily basis. Is there any book of this kind that advises you to take your dad's jeep with your friend because you are bored and drive it through shop windows in the early hours of the morning every weekend for kicks? But that's how I got to where I am today, by doing whatever the fuck I felt like doing at any given moment.
   If you want to learn how to focus, you don't learn how to focus by "learning how to focus", or by following stupid little advice like making a to-do list and waking up early in the morning to fulfill it. You know how I learned how to focus? By studying mathematics. Biology. Chemistry. Etc. I.e. by going to school.
   You know how I learned to "be active"? By joining a basketball team. By taking up swimming and snowboarding.
   Wanting to focus by learning how to focus is for degenerates who've never tried doing anything worthwhile in their lives, or for disadvantaged kids who grow up in an environment that doesn't offer physics classes or snowboarding. If you haven't already learned how to "focus" by the time you hit 18 (and indeed, be a master of it) you never will, no matter how many self-help books you read. All the "success stories" are below mediocre people. Neurotics, depressed men, drug addicts, for whom so much as holding a job is an achievement, etc. Utter losers. In whose cases the books are INDEED helpful — I am not knocking the positive steps these people have made in their lives or anything — good for them, but their titles are misleading. They'd have to be "How to be Moderately Successful if you are a Complete Loser", not how to be successful full stop.
   tl;dr self-help books are for losers and I'd rather spend all day masturbating (i.e. doing the opposite of what they teach) — WHICH I HAVE DONE SEVERAL TIMES IN MY LIFE, BY THE WAY — than read them. If you want to improve yourself, enroll in a tough college degree and learn a real sport. All the rest are for losers.
   Start a bioengineering degree, and don't worry: "determination", "focus", "self-possession", etc. will come — or you will fail.
   If you can't get through an advanced degree, then you already know you are a failure. It is the minimum requirement to be a human. And the same goes for a proper sport (i.e. not ping pong or cricket). Hopefully both. If you can't do both you are half human. If you can do neither you are subhuman. (Though there are plenty of subhumans who can do both — all the more reason to realize that these achievements are merely the absolute minimum to be considered a human, never mind a "success").
   How did I learn to focus? I went to school! Any given school system in a Western country throws so much stuff at you, that like it or not you HAVE to learn to persevere, to study, to focus, to plan, etc. etc. in order to succeed. These books are for middle-aged losers, drop-outs, depressed loners, etc. If they help them, fine, but as far REAL success is concerned (as opposed to merely not being depressed and miserable), if you need to read a manual about that in your 20s, never mind your 30s or 40s, there's not the slightest chance that you will ever "succeed" in anything going by the common definition of the word.


389. The "manosphere". Men in their 30s and 40s still swearing by self-help junk as the "best books they've ever read". A thousand years of "red-pillers" could pass and they would still be floundering in a sea of retarded terminology, self-pity, resentful mockery and defeatism, or weak, pathetic resolutions to start change at an individual level by putting into practice some self-help guru's silly top 10. But if you want to learn anything truly intellectual YOU HAVE TO PICK UP REAL BOOKS. BOOKS THAT ONLY LAST FOR 5 OR 10 YEARS ARE NOT REAL. IF YOU DON'T PICK UP THE GIANTS YOU WILL NEVER MAKE ANY PROGRESS IN THE INTELLECTUAL SENSE, EVEN IF YOU ARE CAPABLE OF IT. But if you are not drawn to the giants you are not capable of it anyway. And obviously none of them are.


388. What is "game"? Game as science. They are even PROUD of it being a science. It is studying women so as to learn how to behave in order to lay them. Figuring out how TO BEHAVE AS A MAN, by studying WHAT WOMEN WANT. In other words, it is women shaping men. It is gamma. And if you add in the "no reproduction" rule that PUAs rabidly advocate, it's omega (since omegas are precisely the members of the group practically guaranteed to not reproduce). This is the truth, and no amount of rationalization (which PUAs are very good at, having "picked it up", like a disease, from women) can change it. Alex Kierkegaard has spoken.


387. Is our universe a "simulated reality" and are we "artificial entities" created by "something higher than ourselves"? This is merely the modern atheistic version of the old religious dogmas. Replace the neologisms with religious terminology and you'll see that the questions are the same (with "simulated reality" = our world, as opposed to heaven, and presumably hell; "artificial entities" = God's creatures; and so on). The difference is that trashing the modern version is a little easier than the old one, because the technobabble of the atheists is not quite so flagrantly nonsensical as that of the religious nuts. The religious nut says that heaven and hell are "outside the universe", and good luck explaining to him that "universe" is merely a word which we have coined to express the concept "everything", and that therefore by definition nothing can be outside of it. But the atheist should be able to grasp that "our universe" cannot be a "simulated reality" (whatever that's supposed to mean) because there's no such thing as "our" universe — the universe contains both us and the lifeform that created us, and our little CORNER of the universe. Moreover, there's no way that our little corner of the universe is "not real". Even if we are sitting on someone else's hard drive and exploring that hard drive, etc., that hard drive IS REAL, it EXISTS, and has REAL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES, just like WE do. The only difference in this scenario would be merely the fact that the universe would be much larger than what we previously thought, which, after all, has happened several times before. As for the creator himself, he is nowhere near as "all-powerful" and scary as the religious nut's creator precisely because he's inside the universe like us and everything else, meaning that, not only can he be defeated, but he certainly WILL be, if not by us (which could be possible, in the exact same way that much of our science-fiction explores the possibility that our machines may one day defeat us), then certainly by someone else. That, after all, is what "everything flows" means, and that includes all scary boogeymen dreamt up by weaklings in their sleep.


386. With Heraclitus something begins, while with me that something ends, and that something is philosophy.


385. Austrian vs. Anglo-Saxon economics. Theoretically, the Austrian economists are correct and the Anglo-Saxons are charlatans. In practice, the Anglo-Saxon economists are correct (even if unconsciously) while the Austrians are naive fantasists. Let's try to understand why.
   Theoretically, everything the Anglo-Saxons teach is illogical horseshit, which has by now been exposed a thousand times over in innumerable Austrian school publications (Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson is a good starting point for the uninitiated). And yet, not only do the Anglo-Saxons completely dominate at the practical level (and even in a majority of the academies), but it is hardly even possible for us to imagine a future in which they wouldn't. We have here a state of things in which correct theory and practice are diametrically opposed (whereas in all other advanced fields they line up perfectly), and this fight between them has been raging for well over a century now. Why is this happening, and what can be done about it?
   Let's start with the theoretical issues. The fundamental mistake of the Austrians is that they suppose that the only thing that's circulating in an economy is MONEY. They see only money, they analyze only money, and they are surprised when their analyses and policy recommendations are ridiculed and ignored in the real world, where they are simply inapplicable. Because in the real world, you see, it's not only money that's circulating, but also RESSENTIMENT. Success generates, not only money, but also resentment, resentment which must be somehow dealt with if the society in which your economic principles are to be applied is to continue functioning properly instead of fall to pieces. In the old days, ressentiment was dealt with by brute violence, plain and simple. Slaves were envious of their masters' prosperity, and so when this envy flared up and threatened the civic order, the masters would bring out their clubs and start the beatings. In ancient Sparta, for example, where the slave to master ratio was 7 or 8 to one, the people had to turn their society into an armed camp, open 24/7, 365 days a year, we never close "because everyday someone somewhere deserves a beating", in order to retain a semblance of stability and control over things. The masters LITERALLY BLED on a regular basis in order to be able to enjoy their prosperity and success. And is it any different with the modern masters, 50% or more of whose output is being regularly confiscated by the state to be redistributed, in one way or another, to the modern-day slaves so that they'll keep the peace? Whether you bleed literally or figuratively, ressentiment will have its portion, and the only thing you can do about it is man the fuck up and pay up, all the while (hopefully) realizing that it is you who are responsible for its occurrence, and that that is the price you have to pay for your success.
   And this is where the Anglo-Saxons come in. Their job is to concoct an absurd monstrosity of a pseudo-theory whose purpose is to bury deep beneath layers of impenetrable jargon the brute fact that resources must be somehow taken from the successful and redistributed to the failures to keep the economy from coming to a standstill in waves of strikes and violent protests, and the society from exploding in all-out civil war. Let me repeat this, for the benefit of the Austrian supporters and apologists who have their heads in the clouds and hence are hard of hearing: Austrian theories, when applied, pure and unadulterated, in an advanced democratic economy, would lead to CIVIL WAR. Therefore, they are not only empirically false, but also theoretically, since the economies created by the Anglo-Saxons, though grossly inefficient compared to your utterly fantastic pie-in-the-sky models, are still at least functioning, and therefore producing far more than both the little Austrian simulations running inside your computers, and a society in which the Austrian model has been applied and caused it to disintegrate.
   So ultimately, the problem we now face is two-fold. On the one hand, whoever studies the magical economics of the Anglo-Saxons becomes a buffoon who thinks that 1-1=11. And, on the other hand, whoever studies from the Austrians becomes utterly unfit to do anything in real life besides... study the Austrians. What we need is for the Anglo-Saxons to drop the lies and the obfuscations and state the cold, hard truth about what's happening (which would require them to understand it first, which would entail their reading, among other things, the Austrians), and for the Austrians to acknowledge that psychology (in the form of ressentiment) is just as important for the practical applicability of their models as pure economics, and that it must be somehow dealt with since there's no way around it. Only then would we get a real science of economics that would be able to place both violence (in the form of the police, which does indeed play today, to a small extent, the role of the Spartan hoplites) and redistribution on the scales and arrive at the most practically realistic and economically efficient balance. But these are not considerations for the economists of today, since there exists neither the power nor even the will to enforce them in a democratic context, but for those who will preside over such matters as leaders and economists in a future kingdom of Overmen.


384. The actor is the polar opposite of the criminal to such an extent that they complete each other. All actors want to be criminals, and all criminals want to be actors. And just as the slaves consciously despise but subconsciously admire the criminal, they consciously admire but they subconsciously despise the actor.


383. The 5-year-old child who suggested that America "kill everyone in China" to avoid having to pay its 1.3 trillion dollar debt to that country. We finally got to the point where the solutions to our problems are literally obvious even to children.


382. Ultimately, I reject sexuality because of the impurity of its reproductive process. The smartest girl I've ever met is a monkey compared to me, the smartest woman I have HEARD of is a child, and I am going to mix up the genes of my brain with THAT? The subhumans will find this outrageous, but the subhumans are addicted to a bunch of chemicals in the brain and can't see beyond an orgasm, so of course they'll be outraged; they have their eyes ON THE NEXT HIT, not on the future. And besides, their genes are so mediocre that the worst that can happen to them by mixing is more mediocrity, and if they are lucky they might even get a lucky hit. That's why sexual reproduction is indeed a sound strategy — IF YOU ARE MEDIOCRE.
   Now it's true that in the long term, if I get a good wife, and if our children mix with other good children from good families and have many descendants, a higher race, or at any rate a higher tribe will result, as with the aristocrats of old. But there is no more higher caste to protect and nurture them today, and my son could very well pick up some plebeian slut because she is pretty. He wouldn't be compelled to find a wife FROM WITHIN HIS CASTE, because THERE SIMPLY WOULDN'T BE ONE. Also, I wouldn't have many children because it's not the custom anymore. What modern wife would agree to give birth five or ten times? Also, I want immediate results, if possible, not a hundred years after I die. Ergo, the only way forward for us is cloning.


381. Baudrillard's hatred of hospitals was inspired from Foucault, another idiot who argued against "the marginalization of the insane", etc. (if the maudlin scribblings of these two pompous dumbasses can be called arguing at all, that is). They should have been made to live with terminally ill and insane people in their living rooms. Maybe then these two geniuses would have learned what every other person in the street who hasn't even been to school already instinctively knows.


380. Let's say that one of my readers is a postal worker, and wants to know what I think about him. Well, it depends on a few things. We certainly need postal workers. If you are a straight white male with a straight white female wife who made straight white children, it's all good. We are an endangered species and the planet already has enough individuals of other races and sexual orientations who enter the culture with so much self-loathing that it is impossible for them to look out into the world without utterly falsifying it. So from my perspective I have nothing against you if you stay enclosed in your little job and your little life, and remain content therein. I have no use for you except in your professional capacity, as someone who will deliver my mail, and perhaps if your daughter is cute or if your wife bakes nice pies I might date your daughter or eat your wife's pies. Within these parameters I fully accept you, and even adore you if your mail-delivery skills/daughter/wife's pies are exceptionally good. But I could not spend a day in your shoes without wanting to kill myself, and the mere thought of it suffices to make me depressed. Having said that, from the perspective of the untold masses of uncivilized and penniless subhumans that stand below you, your life is certainly enviable (which is why they are invading your country and trying to take it away from you). And from YOUR perspective? Some things about you and your life you love, some things you certainly dislike, and other things you maybe even hate. The only question is how much and how many things about you you hate or you dislike, and that's what ressentiment is. But that is all again your business. The problems begin when you start involving yourself with things that don't concern you, and taking an interest in OTHER people's business (politics), or in EVERYONE else's business (philosophy), and projecting into them all your personal failures and incapacities. That's when your business becomes my business, and where I advocate that you should either be suppressed or, if you still fail to take the hint, exterminated.
   As for what you think or what you say, no one cares about that. If you had anything worthwhile to say about culture or politics you wouldn't have chosen to spend your eternal existence as a postal worker.
   And that's what I really think about you.


379. Economists believe that you only create something in order to exchange it for something else. I.e. you only create something because you really want something else. It never crosses their mind that someone might create something because he wants to create precisely that thing, and doesn't desire anything in return for it, for if they could fathom such an individual and such an act they wouldn't be economists. But it is this kind of creation that is the best and most valuable kind. It is precisely the most valuable things that count for nothing in economic thought, because the entire science has been built on the principle of exchange, which, taken to its ultimate conclusion (as I just did) is obviously by definition decadent. And this is where Bataille's General Economy and the Accursed Share come in.


378. The only sensible way to travel to third-world countries is as part of an occupation force.


377. Alex Kierkegaard's Daygame Turbo: Street Pick-up for Alpha Males. GET ANY WOMAN ANYWHERE EVER. 100% GUARANTEED TO WORK, THE ONLY PICK-UP SYSTEM THAT CAN BOAST THIS. No need to worry about your health, fitness, style, financial or social status, or about any other factor whatsoever SINCE THE GIRL HAS EXACTLY ZERO CONTROL OVER WHAT HAPPENS. The PUAs will tell you that pick-up won't always work, that it's a numbers game, etc. etc., but that's because their methods LEAVE ALL ULTIMATE CONTROL OVER WHAT HAPPENS TO THE GIRL. Alphas my ass. My method gives you FULL CONTROL, from start to finish of the interaction, so without further ado, here goes. Step 1. Buy a .45 Glock. Better yet, make it two. Step 2. Spot girl. Makes no difference if she's in a 2-set or a 3-set, or with her boyfriend, or a whole troupe of guys. If she's with boyfriend, shoot him in the face. If her girlfriends get in the way, shoot them in the face too. Step 3. Grab her by the hair. If she resists, slap her around a bit (taking care not to damage her. If you do, find another girl and start over.) Step 4. Shove her in your car. Any bystanders try to stop you, shoot them in the face. Police chase, you get the idea. Step 5. Take her home. Step 6. Smash her smartphone and chain her to your bed. Step 7. Have fun for the rest of your or her life (probably hers since she won't live very long under these conditions. If, on the other hand, you want a real relationship and children, I have two words for you: Stockholm Syndrome.) The PUAs and PUA theory have only been around a decade, MY theory has been around forever. THIS IS THE TRUE FACE OF ALPHA. ANY OTHER APPROACH WHATSOEVER IS GAMMA TO THE CORE (betas don't approach girls, they wait until the girls approach them). THE END.


376. The joy of eating. It will forever remain irrefutable proof of how much fun it is to kill. But one should withhold such insights from the civilized, for this is the secret of the jungle.


375. However much the pseudo-intellectuals (and especially the European ones) would like to deny this, the truth is that America's victory is cultural. It is in art, in sports, in business, in science and technology, in health and medicine, and even in education (say what you want about obesity or stupid American kids, but if you want the best universities and hospitals in the world, there's nowhere else to go). Its military record, on the other hand, is either full of defeats, or of successes on which it failed to follow through and capitalize (because democracy), thus ruining itself financially. And yet, for all that, they still have the best military in the world! American's victory, in other words, is total — except in one domain, the highest reaches of culture, in literature and ultimately philosophy. And that is where I would like to give something back to this nation and to this culture that has given all of us — and to me personally — so much, and indeed almost everything.


374. Žižek still believes in "the ultimate triumph of communism" in much the same way that the Asians still believe in "Eastern philosophies", or the blacks believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that they are not inferior. This is the effect of the Western locomotive. Those it doesn't physically obliterate, it freaks out into denial. There is no hope for anyone whose skin is not white, not because we are "racists", but because they are.


373. Those who are afraid of death should strive even harder than the rest of us to expend their strength. Because what happens when one's strength has been expended is that one craves death, and therefore does not fear it.


372. Baudrillard accused the artists of hiding behind the mystification of images, while he himself hid behind the mystification of words... all the while claiming that a word is not image, while not bothering to take the trouble to learn how the eye works.


371. Capital accumulation is merely the economic reflection and logical consequence of the brute fact that we are not equal. And that's what's really bothering the anti-capitalists.


370. The main peeve of the anti-capitalists is that the goal of capitalists is profits. But what is profit? It is merely the economic manifestation of the gratitude that an individual feels he owes to someone who has served him. And so the subhumans earn the right to vilify the capitalists... for serving them — and indeed for being exceptionally good at it too (otherwise they wouldn't have earned so many profits) — the sheer rudeness and ingratitude of which behavior would have made even the most vicious of old style slave owners seem good-natured, amicable, and just.


369. In contemporary multiplayer game design, even with today's simplistic, primitive techniques, we continually encounter the desire to "balance" the game, to make it in other words "just" for all players, so that everyone will have equal possibilities to win and therefore no reason to complain and blame the game when they lose — while of course conveniently ignoring the fact that everyone NEVER has equal possibilities to win, otherwise there would be an entirely random distribution of winning outcomes, and people like Kasparov et al. would not exist — we conveniently ignore the fact that only the coin toss can be a "just" game, in our paltry, unnatural, purely fictitious and arbitrary definition of justice, because in reality in every skill-based game the genetic dimension is always just as important as practice, which is itself also decided by genetic factors, since certain kinds of people are more inclined to practice more and gain more from it when they do it than others — and that is how reality seeps inside even our hermetically sealed game environments and contaminates them with its wisdom. Because if we finally succeeded in giving every player equal possibilities to win a game, what would the result be? Boring-ass games like the coin toss which no one would want to play. But it is true that we HAVE to strive to some extent for this balance in our games, because the range of moves/actions/possibilities in our games is much more limited compared to those possible in the Great Game, and therefore far easier to analyze and map out. Minimizing "imbalances" then is thus a priority, on the one hand in order to make the game more difficult to master, and thus deeper and more enjoyable, and on the other hand, and more importantly for our present discussion, in order to level the playing field so that the UNJUST natural qualities can come to the fore and decide the winner. We have to level the playing field not because a level playing field is in itself desirable (because it isn't — it's boring), but so as to allow our hereditary, genetic qualities to shine forth more clearly, so that we can finally settle the question of which of us is GENETICALLY SUPERIOR, which is to say superior, full stop.
   All of this is superfluous in the Great Game, whose structure is so complex that one can never determine, either before or after the fact, with perfect certainty which particular fact/ability/inclination/circumstance led towards winning or away from it. And that's because the Great Game has neither winners nor losers, precisely because it is the ultimate game, which is as much as to say that it is the anti-game, i.e. because it's not really a game.


368. If your theory is better than mine why are you the one with the ressentiment?


367. Increasingly older people making babies. Result: weaker and stupider children. Death of the family. Result: disadvantaged weaker and stupider children with psychological issues. Society inundated with decadent propaganda. Result: disadvantaged weaker and stupider children with psychological issues pissing their lives away doing stupid shit, and therefore ever more resentful towards the increasingly tiny minority that somehow manages to avoid all these pitfalls. — This is the face of the subhumanity of the future: weaker, stupider, and more resentful than ever before. They will make Neanderthals look like geniuses and supermen in comparison. But, for the same reason, they will cause the Overmen of the future to shine more brightly than anyone has ever done before.


366. Marxist thought is utterly obsessed with "the means of production" in much the same way that Austrian economists are utterly obsessed with the "original" appropriation of "unclaimed" resources (as if in a universe of flux there could ever be any truly "original" act or any object whatsoever that's really "unclaimed"). What is unworthy in both of them is that they see the starting point, the very beginning of human happiness and prosperity, in something that exists OUTSIDE the individual, whereas in reality everything good and valuable about human life begins inside the brain (with an idea), in the absence of which no amount of "means of production" or "unclaimed resources" could have the slightest positive effect on the life of an individual who is so lacking (quite apart from the fact that "means of production" and "unclaimed" resources are anyway created by the brain). But this is typical of the mind that has been trained to think only in economic terms, treating only of what occurs BETWEEN individuals, and completely ignoring what, while the exchange is taking place, is happening INSIDE them.


365. A "hermeneutic" is an interpretation. That's all it is — merely the Greek word for interpretation. But if someone said "I have an interpretation!", he'd be immediately met with a cry of, "Get in line, so does everyone else!" But if instead he says "I have a HERMENEUTIC!", it's an entirely different ballgame, and one which pseudo-intellectuals have been playing for centuries now, to the detriment of genuine intellectuality and culture.


364. The interminable debate on whether more or less government is preferable is superfluous, for when there is a real government in place THIS DEBATE CANNOT EVEN BE WAGED. You do not have a choice in the matter — that is what government is, a structure of control, and the amount of control exerted will depend, as aforesaid, on the capacities of those who are on top relative to their subjects'. When the debate CAN be waged it's a sure sign that there is no government in place, and the debate is merely a means to pass the time with idle talk while politics is declining and everyone's waiting for someone to step in and reverse this. So, once more, how much control should a government exercise over its subjects? It depends on who is ruling and the number, and quality, of the ruled. An Augustus or a Napoleon can handle entire continent-spanning empires while performing a hundred tasks at once, and micromanaging everything, while a Kim Jong-il, who only has a tiny country in his command, will sit at home all day and watch movies. And as for the democrats — who can always be counted upon, even amid the most serious and harshest deliberations, to come through with comic relief — these will attempt to make YOU control their decision on how much they should control you!


363. Natalism vs. antinatalism. It is hilarious how the natalists try to argue with the antinatalists, the latter of whom are like an enemy in the middle of war threatening to commit suicide. It's not just the antinatalists who shouldn't reproduce, then, but even many of the natalists, such as for instance all those who try to argue with the antinatalists.


362. What is "capital"? It is simply another word for money, which is a medium that facilitates exchange. Capitalism, then, is merely a state of things in which individuals are able, and allowed, to enter into exchange. That's all it is. Capitalism = Exchange. And since it is impossible for any culture and civilization at all to exist without exchange (indeed exchange is the number one prerequisite for civilization, with language itself understood as a form of exchange, the exchange of feelings), we might as well say that Capitalism = Civilization. To be against capitalism, then, means to be against civilization — which is par for the course for the kind of subhuman dreck which perpetually champions this nauseating, decadent notion. Just take a good look at them and you'll see.


361. The so-called "game" is indeed, to a certain extent, "social dynamics". But the more interesting ones to psychoanalyze in this game are not the girls (girls are some of the most shallow and boring creatures on the face of the planet), but the PUAs.


360. The PUAs' most hated concept is hypergamy and their most loved one solipsism. Their entire psychology is contained here. Hypergamy is hated because it signifies woman's natural desire to get the best mate she can get (which for any reasonably desirable woman would of course never be a PUA), while solipsism is loved because it helps the PUA become more confident by blocking out the rest of mankind from his mind and thus forgetting, for a while, how low on the totem pole he's standing. And the Mental Tower Defense game goes on. Keep building up those defenses, guys! Defense, after all, is the best offense. He who said the opposite clearly hadn't read enough PUAs.


359. On "alternate" universes and the "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. How little the scientists understand the world they are trying to study... For in a universe in which everything is connected to, and conditioned by, everything else, if ONE thing is different EVERYTHING is different, and the "alternate" universe is thus a place which DOES NOT BEAR THE SLIGHTEST RESEMBLANCE TO OUR OWN, an utterly alien place nothing of which can be known to or be affected by us, which I will repeat a thousand times IS PRECISELY THE DEFINITION OF NON-EXISTENCE. Even worse, it's not so much that "alternate universes" do not exist, but that the very term is a contradictio in adjecto ("alternate everythings" lol) and hence meaningless, mere verbiage that idiots spout to pass the time because they are incapable of analyzing THIS world, which is the only one that exists, and thus the only one that matters.


358. "He may be right, but his tone renders his message useless to me" is merely a roundabout way of saying "I don't give a shit about the issues", whereas he who is prepared to write in such an aggressive tone that will repel most readers if that's what's required to get the message across is saying "NOTHING matters MORE to me than these issues".


357. Why are mass shootings such an overwhelmingly American phenomenon among the nations of the civilized world? No one can answer this. And yet the answer is quite simple. If it's not the genetics, nor the wide availability of guns, it has to be the culture, something in the American psyche that differs from those of the peoples of the rest of the civilized world. So what do Americans lack that the rest of the world has? Or, better yet, what do Americans have that the rest of the world lacks? — Balls. That gung-ho practical, no-holds-barred competitive, self-help, do-it-yourself, entrepreneurial pioneering spirit on which their glorious nation was built, and which of course manifests itself in the bad aspects of their behavior as well as the good. The same qualities that make Americans the best in some spheres also make them the worst in others. And so it is that while a depressed, maladjusted European sits in his room and mopes and whines, the American goes out into the street and shoots people.


356. One of the triumphs of Breaking Bad (and, to a lesser extent, Game of Thrones) is how it manages to retain narrative cohesion for dozens upon dozens of hours without recourse to disposable, filler content, and this is certainly part of why it's so engrossing. We can infer that, given a high enough level of quality, and all else being equal, the longer an artwork's duration, the more immersive it will be, and that the most immersive artwork would therefore last... forever. It would be time itself enveloping the "viewer" in all directions.


355. With videogame criticism, you really begin to see the gulfs between lifeform and lifeform. They were evident before, but now they are a thousand times clearer. E.g. who prefers 2D, or third-person, or hates strategy, etc. Inferiority is clear as day now. They may as well be screaming in your face "I am a cripple!" And straightaway they add: "Cripples are people too, you know!" — But, actually, they aren't.


354. If you developed a simulated world populated by intelligent entities, they would no doubt explore that world and develop their own science, all the while blissfully unaware that their "science" is something you made up. One being's science is another's simulation.


353. Alas! it is impossible to convince even the cripples, except those whose infirmity consists precisely in this: to become easily convinced.


352. How many kids are starving in other planets and galaxies while we waste time not spending money making the hyperdrive engines to get there and feed them? These engines will open up an entire new universe of "poor" "African" "kids" to rescue (from themselves and from their parents!), so is it moral of us to spend our resources helping a few African kids here, when we could be spending it on the hyperdrive engines to help even more kids elsewhere? Even in charity — which is to say in wretchedness and absurdity — the Overman is far ahead of the subhumans. So far ahead that he has already realized that the best thing to do about "African" "kids" the world over, is to forget them.


351. How To Be Successful. An eBook by Alex Kierkegaard. Chapter 1: If you have to ask you never will be, because real success (as opposed to the fake, financial and social kind that the self-help gurus are peddling) comes from within, not from without, and hence "success" is the one thing that no one can teach you, but precisely what, by succeeding, you will end up teaching others. The End.


350. Nothing degrades and dehumanizes the inhabitants of the third world more than the lurid, wretched spectacle of the masses of Westerners who desperately try to inject some meaning into their comfortable, boring lives by trying to "help" them. Helping them "help themselves" is even more degrading. Could any of us come up with a more contemptuous way to view them? Chaining them up and shipping them across the world to serve as slaves in our plans and projects is an immeasurably more dignifying way to treat them. A savage who's been enslaved by forces far beyond his control cuts a far more dignified figure to the free man who's so stupid and worthless that he requires strangers from halfway across the world to come over and "help him help himself" to the crumbs that they throw at him, as if at a dog, from the leftovers at their table.


349. "And why, then, must I ultimately die?" Because that is the only way to be reborn.


348. I mean, look at it this way. If the billionaire nerds were indeed that powerful, wouldn't they have to be the most ressentiment-free men in the entire world? But what is a nerd if not a hopelessly tangled little ball of neuroticism and ressentiment? And that's why they all take so readily to futurism. "When immortality arrives", they all think, "I'll be the first in line!" Might as well put your name down for that time travel machine while you are at it, so you can also go back to your teenage years and change your entire past!


347. "Nerds will rule the world." Like saying, "bees will rule the beehive". In what alternate universe lol? The idea is so obviously farcical you can't even make comedy out of it. The IT evangelists have not the faintest idea what it means to rule. They are not even looking into the actual things the nerds are making (marginally useful applications that help distract the slaves from the sheer drudgery that is their daily lot), but are simply reducing everything to money, money which is so utterly useless that the nerds themselves have not the faintest clue what to do with it once they acquire it, and can't figure out ideas fast enough of how to get rid of it. The gigantic irony in all this is that, when examined closely, it is clear that money is the opposite of power.


346. Why are women so good at rationalization? Because of how weak they are, how incapable of controlling external events. Either you are strong enough to shape the external world to your wishes, or the external world is stronger and shapes you, in which case you adapt to the new circumstances by a rationalization, i.e. an explanation of the course of external events AFTER THE FACT. Rationalization, then, is obviously reactive, for at the pinnacle of strength you don't even need an explanation, because you ARE the explanation (i.e. the cause of the event itself).


345. There is no fundamental difference between the sounds coming out of the mouth of a bird or a dog and a homo sapiens; all lifeforms' vocalizations are means of communication, of expressing an inner psychic reality. Is anything a bird or a dog ever says wrong? And the same goes for subhumans. The goal therefore is not to prove anyone wrong, but to understand them, which is where linguistic optics, the field of study which I have introduced to semiotics comes in, and which will one day celebrate its ultimate triumph in the Dictionary of the Subhuman Language.


344. Why is the worst "yet to come"? Because our power is growing, and, as elementary mechanics can show, the higher the rise, the harder the fall.


343. How astonishingly balanced this game is, that one can start it with the greatest of advantages and still fail (as, e.g., every single spoiled rich kid in the history of the species), or with the greatest of handicaps and still end up ruling the world (as e.g. a certain bum in the streets of twentieth-century Vienna). It is in fact even impossible to definitively distinguish advantages from handicaps! so that no one would ever be justified in complaining about his starting point! (except liars and dumbasses, of course, who deceive others by complaining to them in order to be handed more advantages — and who prove themselves smart, after all, when they succeed and get them!)


342. Zarathustra: "It is the stillest words which bring the storm. Thoughts that come on dove's feet guide the world."


341. Looked at more closely, it is not the alphas who make the rules but the philosophers. The alphas merely put them into practice, as the Han dynasty did with Confucius' philosophy, Alexander with Aristotle's, the Roman emperors with the Stoics' and the Epicureans', Lenin and Mao with Marx's, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Franco with Nietzsche's, and even the democratic pseudo-leaders, to an extent, with the pseudo-philosophers' liberal claptrap. It is only subhumans who think that philosophy is superfluous and causes nothing, but as the fascists' and communists' millions of victims discovered (a little too late for their liking), not only is philosophy (which is to say thought) not superfluous, but it makes the world go round.


340. Betas follow rules. Alphas make the rules. Sigmas laugh at rules. It is clear which group the philosopher belongs in, and in which he'd like to belong.


339. It is not the dog's fault for getting run over by a car, it is the fault of its owner for allowing it run around in the street without a leash. It is not the subhuman's fault for picking incompetent leaders, it is our fault for allowing the subhumans to have a say in the matter at all. The dog cannot be held responsible for its actions in this domain. There are no cars in the jungle (or in whatever the natural habitat of its ancestors was), to which all its instincts have evolved to help it deal with. About the only thing that could step on you in a jungle is an elephant, and elephants do not run at 100km/hour. You cannot be RUN OVER by an elephant. The cheetah goes at 120km/hour, but it's too small to run a dog-sized animal over. The dog, and more or less all the lower animals (e.g. birds when they are, for example, sucked into a plane's turbine engines), is simply utterly unprepared to deal with something like a car, and that's why we invented leashes. Similarly, the subhuman is under no circumstances prepared to make decisions on the leadership of millions. The homo sapiens genome has evolved to deal with TRIBAL matters, with small groups, and in this domain it performs admirably: one simply follows the strongest neanderthal around, or else he's clobbered by the neanderthal's friends until he sees reason, or gets kicked out of the group to starve to death or succumb to the elements or predators. But when it comes to groups of MILLIONS spanning entire CONTINENTS, the subhuman brain is utterly incapable of dealing with such a complex situation. Only exceptions can deal with it, extremely exceptional exceptions, and these are called LEADERS. It is the responsibility of the leaders to arrange things thus that they are on top, not anyone else's to PLACE them there. Indeed, GAINING control is one of the fundamental qualities of a leader (because if he's incapable of gaining it he won't be very good at maintaining it either), without which HE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A LEADER IN THE FIRST PLACE. And just as the dog — though it has no capacity to understand the concept "car", and when left on its own is, sooner or later, going to be run over by one — can still benefit from the car when its owner puts it in the back seat, cracks a window open, and lets the dog stick its head out and look at the passing scenery, ears flapping gaily in the wind as the car accelerates to 100km/hour, so too the subhuman — whose brain has no capacity to understand the concept "leadership", and when left on his own is, sooner or later, going to construct such an absurd anti-hierarchy that the average man in the street will be more capable than those at the top — can still benefit from the true leader when he has constructed a real hierarchy, as for example in all higher cultures on earth up until the madness that began, more or less, a few years ago with the French Slave Revolution.
   And just as the dog thinks it is its owner's responsibility to give it food and toys and take it for walks and nothing else, and doesn't understand the reason for all the hitting, shouting, etc. (never mind for the beating, starving and even electroshock convulsion techniques with which the BEST dogs are trained to reach their full potential...), so too the subhuman thinks that the leader's job is simply to give him free stuff instead of leading. Leading involves as much taking as giving, and shouting and hitting, and a thousand other things that the subhuman will never and CAN never know about because, just like the dog, HE IS SUBHUMAN.


338. Harsh truths can only be communicated through harsh words. But harsh truths are what philosophy exclusively deals in! Consequently philosophy can only be communicated through harsh words.


337. Camille Montes: "Friend of yours?" James Bond: "I don't have friends."


336. Strength, courage, endurance, willpower — all these qualities the PUAs have reduced to a short text message about eating steak or being rude or whatever — they have reduced them to a bunch of little monkey signals. And this makes perfect sense, since what else do women understand about all these qualities than monkey signals? They themselves do not possess them any more than the PUAs do, so all they know of them are their most superficial, dumbest expressions. So the PUAs send a short message about eating steak or whatever, and pat themselves on the back on how "alpha" they've become. They first deceive women into thinking of them as alphas, and then they use women's reaction to deceive themselves. It's like a drug addict in the middle of an acid trip congratulating himself on having finally become a strong, healthy, successful and happy man — AFTER HE HAS TRICKED HIS BRAIN TO THINK SO. They take one of the CONSEQUENCES of a state of being (and usually even the most trivial, secondary consequences), simulate this consequence, and then convince themselves that they possess the quality. And then off they go, gaily tapping away endless blog posts and ebooks with their little keyboards to tell the rest of mankind how to do it. "LETS ALL BECOME ALPHAS HAHAHAHAHA." Which is to say, let's all become solipsistic retards and drug addicts. But not even animals are that stupid. Not even wolves would believe that all of them could become alpha. Even dogs know that any given pack can only ever have ONE leader, and that leadership ("alphaness") is a relational concept that of its very nature cannot be extended to everyone, not even to so much as a minority. Then the PUA wizards will come back with some silly retort that every group of friends has an alpha, so we can easily have plenty of them. But merely to be part of "a group of friends" today PROVES that you are not alpha. And that's a real alpha talking. True story. I spit on you and your group of boring, idiotic friends. I may as well go to the zoo and become the leader of monkeys. It would take far more strength and skill than to assert my leadership over a group of your stupid friends. The fact that all this monkey business CAN ACTUALLY WORK, and get you laid, is not proof that the PUAs are on to something (beyond how to get laid), but that women are stupid, and can be very easily deceived.


335. It seems so ridiculous that the billions of nobodies that surround the genius believe more in themselves than in Him. And yet, that is precisely what He needs them to do, so that He can believe in Himself.


334. According to encyclopedias, Kierkegaard is supposed to have been the first "existentialist" philosopher. But what does that even mean? When was there ever a philosopher who didn't concern himself with existence? That's all that philosophers are concerned with! because they are concerned with everything, and there IS nothing else apart from existence! Do these people who create these utterly retarded labels ever read anything? All the issues with which K-man was concerned have been mulled over by philosophers for millennia, and if you look closely enough you'll not find a single idea in him that had not already been explored to one degree or another by numerous previous thinkers (and in plenty of cases to a much greater depth than him). There is no "existentialism", there are only a bunch of mouthbreathing subhumans who are too stupid to deal with the actual issues at hand, and who therefore prefer to make neat little bunches of them by blanketing them with retarded makeshift labels, and then proceed to juggle those instead so that they won't ever have to think about anything. Even "postmodernism" is a more valid label than existentialism, and that's saying something!


333. The quickest way for a subhuman to stop being addicted to complaining is to cut off all ties with his friends. But even that will not work today, since he'll just go on the internet and complain to strangers instead.


332. Three levels of outlook on life. On the first, and lower, level, the blind optimism of subhumans. "In the future we'll all be equal and immortal! All desires will be immediately satisfied and no one will ever have to work!" On the second, higher level, the pessimism of the great men and the philosophers. "You brainless cattle! The world doesn't work that way! Not only will your utopia never materialize but the worst is yet to come!" And on the third and final level, the tragic feeling of the classical heroes, the greatest philosophers and the Overmen of the future. "The worst will indeed come, but only because we welcome it and want it to."


331. To love your work so much, that taking a break from it is painful and must be forced on you. The workaholic is the slave who has almost redeemed himself.


330. One can see everywhere in the slave society habits and attitudes which betray what the slaves really think about themselves. Take the first day of the year. Why is it a "holiday", i.e. a day of doing nothing? Why is the first day of the year a day of "rest"? Precisely the time to make a strong start, where dynamism, optimism, etc. are called for, the slave stays at home and does nothing, BECAUSE HE HATES WHAT HE DOES. He can think of no higher gift to give himself on the first day of a new year, than to take a break from his reality. But if a rest day should be taken at all, it should clearly be the last day of the year. The first day should be a day FOR GETTING DOWN TO WORK, and indeed for working harder than any other day. With more zeal, more focus, more determination, etc. It's like making the first hour of the day an hour of — sleep. But you just woke up! And it's precisely on waking that our powers are at their apex, and consequently should not be squandered but fully utilized. The slave, however, never wakes up, and even in his sleep, in his eternal sleep, contributes to what happens all around him, as Heraclitus so insightfully relates to us. "Those who are asleep are fellow-workers in what goes on in the world."


329. Complaining as an evolutionary phenomenon. Supreme fact: no complaining in the jungle. Complaining a deeply reactive behavior since it presupposes others TO WHOM one can complain.


328. Even a slab of stone can understand physical violence, but the mental kind is reserved for much higher beings.


327. The anarchist's opposition to the state comes from communism, even if they pretend to fully repudiate it (much like the democrat's theory of equal beings comes from Christianity, even if they pretend to distance themselves from it and vilify it). But despotism comes before both of them. Despotism is the start of everything — what allowed us to part ways from the animals and forge our own future. It was strong human beings who took control of the herd and turned it into a tribe, the tribe into a city, the city into a nation, the nation into an empire, the empire into a culture, and finally the culture... into an Overman. And it is the strong (no-longer-so-)human being who, once more, will lead the way by lighting the match that will send up the entire world in flames.


326. The future's not bright, the future's tragic. That's all you need to say to clear the room of futurists and other optimistic cattle. Would people of this kind have had any place at Thermopylae? Maybe in Xerxes' army! (which I hear was full of optimists, starting with the man himself). And their fate is precisely what the future of our dear futurists will be.


325. Why are sitcom characters so promiscuous? Even George Costanza has more girlfriends than your neighborhood pretty boy. The sitcom is the most realistic form of TV series (i.e. the less artistic). TV dramas focus on wars, crimes, science fiction, and the like, but none of that is useful in a sitcom. In something like the The X-Files the action is so intense you don't even need any hookups to keep interest alive, but a mere hint of sexuality will suffice. There are far more important and interesting things going on in The X-Files world than the little gossip-style pleasure of finding out who hooked up with whom. In sitcoms, meanwhile, even when there is a fantastic element (as e.g. in 3rd Rock from the Sun), it is kept to the minimum, is merely the premise of the show, while the entire heart of it is — hookups. But why is that? — Because subhuman life is so mundane that the only aspect of relative interest in it is sexual relations. When trying to turn subhuman life into art, therefore (as e.g. in shows like Friends and the like), it's the only thing you can focus on, the only dimension you can conceivably glorify. Whenever this aspect comes to a standstill (as e.g. in the last few seasons of The Big Bang Theory, etc.) the show inevitably flatlines. What's more, a TV show can only ever feature a small number of regular actors, because of costs, etc., so everyone must be made to hook up with everyone else, and as many times as possible.


324. A good philosophical exercise is this: every time you help someone, to try and think of whom you are at the same time hurting. Do this often and well enough, and you will slowly begin to really see.


323. The lust to "communicate" (read: to dominate via concept propagation) is so great that one would just as surely have tried to speak to frogs if there were the slightest chance of being "understood" (i.e. of being dominated) by them. The philosopher would go as far as learning frogese, the frog's language, in order to communicate with it and dominate it. He would bellow "You should be thus and thus and thus!", and the poor frog would no doubt answer: "But I am a frog! To be as you say would be impossible for me!", and only then would the philosopher finally come to his senses: "You are indeed a frog", he would perhaps say, "that little detail had escaped me — I must have lost my senses!" And at that point he would simply — stop addressing himself to frogs.
   Still, there are times when one might want to have a frog act in a specific way. How would the philosopher accomplish this, if communication is impossible?
   But the frog is too stupid to be dominated in this way — by such feeble means as mere words. The only way to dominate the frog is by brute violence — which is simply the most physical form of the concept, and of communication. Violence is a form of communication, whatever the subhumans may say. It is indeed even its purest form.


322. Jack Nicholson's character in As Good as It Gets, acting like a tough guy 99 percent of the time, but a hypocrite when the moment for real violence arrives, while all the fags in the film conduct themselves admirably (no doubt precisely the intention of the fags who wrote the script, or meant as a sop to fags). But isn't this preferable to acting like a fag all of the time (i.e. to being a fag)? After all, when his hypocrisy goes undetected, it still transmits healthy values. Or are you denying that there do exist men who, not only act like tough guys, but who are indeed tough? It's no secret that 90% of the machismo in our society is fake — just look at all our art (which is by definition fake). But that means nothing other than that machismo is still considered cool and valued here. From the perspective of the health and future of the species, then, a manly hypocrite will always be preferable to a genuine fag.


321. The philosopher is the king of the actual, the artist that of the fantastical. The difference between the two therefore is that the end product of the philosopher's work must be attainable — unavoidable, even; while that of the artist never.


320. "Agreeing to disagree" utterly superfluous. When we disagree it is obvious, we do not need to "agree" to it, we are already disagreeing! The only thing we could agree to is to agree to agree WHEN WE DISAGREE, and vice versa (i.e. to agree to disagree when we are agreeing lol). That is the only thing that would have meaning. But once again it is folly to take the blurtings of the subhumans literally. They generate on the fly the vernacular by which they understand themselves, and which is necessary to prevent fighting between them and to attack their opponents. In this case it is with a view to the prevention of infighting that the retarded terminology has been created and is being employed. All "agreeing to disagree" means is "Please stop with this line of thinking because you are making me uncomfortable".


319. The form of government depends on the strength of those who are on top — more precisely, on the power differential between the rulers and their subjects. Thus it was that all primitive forms of government were despotic — big gorillas lording it over smaller ones — and there were no socialistic fagotries in the jungle. As the mass of subjects expands, however, control becomes increasingly harder to maintain, and LIES are needed to supplement the spears and muscles. Finally, when the number of subjects approaches billions the usefulness of muscle completely disappears, and all that remains is lies, lies, lies, at which point democracy comes to the foreground. Communism, on the other hand, is an attempt, initially through lies, to reinstate the supremacy of brawn. Communism BEGINS with lies ("We are all equal!"), but it ends with gulags and execution squads.


318. The entire hoopla around the issue of universal health care is due to the subhumans' inability to parse reality. "A cure exists, ergo I have a right to it as much as anyone else." But the cure took mountains of money to be developed, and costs mountains of money to be applied. To apply it to some loser is not charity but a crime against humanity — like allowing a Miss Earth to have babies with a leper. If you are struggling obtaining health care IT IS RIGHT AND PROPER THAT YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE IT. Not only is there nothing wrong with this state of affairs, then, but that's exactly how things should be. As far as you are concerned, therefore, the cure doesn't really exist, or else we would be giving full 1,000-dollar checkups to farm animals. You have absolutely no right to the advances of medical science any more than they do. The medical community's services are not a right but a PRIVILEGE, and you must be already very privileged to have a right to such a high privilege.


317. Why is reaction ultimately necessary in the universe? Because nobody can see themselves without a reflection. The reaction of his believers (as much as of his unbelievers) is how a God takes pleasure in himself; indeed, ultimately, how he becomes conscious of his existence.


316. Whatever you wish for, whatever you desire, if you are not willing to risk dying for it, you don't deserve to have it.


315. All throughout Europe fringe parties rise on the backs of extremists and gain themselves exposure. The closer they get to power the more they have to tone down their extremism if they desire to acquire more power, and by the time they get to power they are moderate. Everything that must be done to reach that goal is done: ministers are fired, previously-held positions are discarded and even denied, unholy alliances are forged, and so on and so forth, until at last the party's program is rewritten to be entirely unrecognizable. This is also why the right and the left, though they start out as fiercely opposed, eventually become essentially indistinguishable. This is not proof of corruption of the right or of the left, but of the democratic process working as intended. For those who say that democracy is not working are plainly wrong: democracy is working just fine, the difference being that its work is not beneficial but pernicious. The simple fact is that the mediocre (which is what the moderates are: the middle can never be extremist, for it and only it DEFINES what is moderate) will never elect anything other than mediocrity. This proves that democratic parties are shaped by the electorate, and not the other way around. But this is decadent. This is the opposite of leadership. For leadership is supposed to be that function which shapes those who are being led, not the other way around. Otherwise what are the "leaders" leading? Whoever heard of the sheep dictating the behavior of the shepherd? of workers their employer's? of children that of their parents? In a democracy, it is the shepherd who is being herded, and the embezzlement dimension endemic in the political class is not proof of its decadence BUT THE LAST REMAINING VESTIGES OF SELF-RESPECT AND HEALTH.


314. Philosophy, alas, did not make the trip across the Atlantic with the pioneers. She stayed back in the Old World. It seems philosophy has a thing against crossing large bodies of water, because she hasn't even crossed the English Channel yet. Perhaps someone should tell her that, at least in that direction, there is a tunnel now.


313. This "we", this fatal "we" is mankind's greatest error.


312. Likewise both Baudrillard and Plank, with their naive unqualified use of this "we", are perpetuating this whining idiocy of "Oh, why cannot everyone become enlightened!" As if it were in any way desirable for everyone to become enlightened! As if, if everyone indeed became enlightened, we wouldn't be facing an even harder problem: how to darken their minds with stupidities, prejudices, and superstitions! As if it were even possible for everyone to become enlightened! And if it were, then of course that "everyone" would extend to the poodles and the chimps! That's pretty much what these two idiots are more or less asking for — the enlightenment of poodles and of chimps! All this talk about Nietzsche this and Nietzsche that, while still ignoring the fact that the slaves have to be somehow manipulated. And this is natural, because neither of them is strong enough to posit a goal. Manipulation, after all, only becomes necessary once one has willed an ends, and finds himself in the necessity of positing a means. If the end is simply the enlightenment of everyone, as is Baudrillard's and Plank's goal, which amounts to nothing else than their desire to be acknowledged by all of mankind as its enlighteners, this being the expression of the scribbler's will to power, then manipulation is superfluous, unnecessary, even harmful — what is needed at that point is to drive into everyone's skulls the truths of which only the scribbler is conscious, in any way possible. Only the scribbler here miscalculates, and ignores one of cognition's fundamental truths: that it is not possible for everyone to understand everything. In view of that fact any agonizing over, melancholia, etc. proceeding from the inability of worms to understand quantum mechanics or whales the non-locality of space, or slaves the function of the will to power, is stupid. Any sadness proceeding from this has nothing to do with philosophy or science or intellectuality, but with the thwarting of the scribbler's will to power over the masses. That is all the scribbler cares about. And what would happen in the hypothetical case when everyone understood everything? The scribbler could not care less about that. He hasn't given the idea the slightest thought. For at that point he would at last be deified by the mass, by every single person in it (for even a single person not understanding something would make the scribbler sad). Afterwards, of course, there would be "wars on earth as there have never been before" and the entire system of trust and exchange which can be so easily manipulated by a higher being would have been blown apart — but again the scribbler would not care about all of that because his future, in both fortune and reputation, would already be secure.


311. Baudrillard identifies himself with the slaves. This is his fatal mistake and what betrays him: when he keeps referring to everyone collectively as "we", "we", "we". That is why he cannot see the way out of the labyrinth, the way forward — for as long as you do not separate the different threads, the different forces, including yourself, and give to each his own, the future will quite simply remain forever obscure to you.


310. What good would a photograph you've taken be if you've forgotten what's depicted in it? And what good would it be if you haven't?


309. The purely physical desires, for any given level of technological advancement, can be quite easily satisfied. To give a shit about what happens on the other side of the planet, let alone the universe, on the other hand, requires a deep, powerful, raging intellectuality. Which is why no one apart from philosophers really does.


308. On subhumans calling war "inhuman", while in fact it is plain that there is nothing more human than war, since no other animals wage it. Humans are the ones who invented war, how could it be inhuman?


307. One can see in the Matrix movies how the artists have depicted a message which is the exact opposite to the meaning of the philosophical text by which they say they were inspired. But it is their message that the public is accepting because it is the most shallow and naive, and so the easier one to grasp. The shallowness of the artist and the public here meet, in the triumph of the calculated venality of the artist to satisfy this shallowness, this desire for vertigo on the public's part, to forget for a few hours the brute fact that, even without the matrix, they are slaves.


306. I think I have become incapable of jealousy. When I was younger I could occasionally get quite jealous, not of any specific individual, but of some imaginary "better man" than me, with whom my current sweetheart might fall in love and leave me. But as I became older, this feeling faded more and more into the background, until it has at last come to seem quite ludicrous. Humanity is so far from possessing a "better man" than me that, if they wanted to find one, they'd have to ask me to create him.


305. Woman always gets taken in most easily. She prefers the cinematic special forces commando to the real one, who may come home at any time in a bag, not to mention his manners, etc., compared to the actor who spends five days a week in the gym and the rest in coffee shops, muscles strictly for show. When the commando puts on makeup it is for camouflage. His job is not to put on a show but to kill people.


304. Cheetahs belong to the same biological family as lions, but they are faster. Weaker at close quarters, but faster; just as blacks are faster than whites, but weaker at longer distances, which is thinking.


303. 3D printers. Baudrillard would have loved them. I can see him sitting in front of his TV all day long waiting for massacres to go down so that he could write about them, all the while cackling like a rabid parrot that "He told us so! He told us so! He told us so!"


302. Insofar as creation presupposes destruction, the greatest creation of all, the universe, presupposes the greatest destruction, something the optimists, being themselves relatively uncreative people, will never be able to grasp, because they can't, and therefore do not want to.


301. Our culture continues to grow because in the midst of democratic political degeneration a few individuals proudly and unapologetically continue the tyrannical, despotic tradition in businesses, armies, universities, sports teams, cultural clubs, the arts, and so on. If democracy were instituted in every field of human endeavor — instead of merely in politics — with the soldiers voting on what the army should do, students the school and universities, workers the business, the uncultured the arts, etc., civilization on this planet would be wiped out within a generation, and we would revert to barbarism — if we didn't all starve to death well before that, that is, which we so obviously would.


300. He who fights monsters should see to it that he become a bigger monster.


299. Gerry Coulter doesn't understand what Baudrillard means by evil (as seen, for example, in his obituary of Robert McNamara, "To Speak The Name Of Evil"). Coulter uses the classical subhuman (and later Nietzschean) definition of evil = power. But Baudrillard's evil is not power, but the reaction to power, which is, of course, weakness (for if it weren't then power wouldn't be power either lol), consistent with his inversion of all Nietzschean terminology. Coulter is just not subtle enough to understand what Baudrillard is doing, so he stays with the classical definition, interpreting it moreover, in a moralistic fashion. Yes, the Allies were more evil (i.e. more powerful) than the Axis powers, and that's why they won; so what's your problem, dude?


298. There could never have been a Hundred Years' War between a homosexual and a heterosexual state. The heteros could just wait a generation and then simply waltz in. Which proves that homosexuals are indeed better suited than heterosexuals for peace — which is to say for death.


297. Eady to McCauley: "Traveling makes you lonely?" Neil McCauley: "I'm alone, I am not lonely."


296. The constant whining about loneliness is yet another sign of how weak and degenerate subhumans are. There's now over seven billion of them on the planet, and they are still lonely! Just stand on a street corner, if you are lonely, for christsake, and talk to everyone who goes by; in a few days you'll have hundreds of numbers in your phone book: men, women, dogs, whatever. What would cavemen say if they heard your whining? But they are afraid to talk to anyone, as if there were some danger in it, as if everyone on the street were not as neutered and utterly harmless as they are. You can see how degenerate they are from the fact that they can't even bring themselves to talk to anyone. "Oh but the big cities make everyone hurry and be anonymous!" Dude, have you BEEN to a small town? All the young people (who are not already flatlining) are slitting their wrists from boredom. It is precisely in big cities that you can stand on a streetcorner and talk to strangers with impunity, whilst doing so in a small town will always be much more of a gamble on your social standing. But they keep whining, and whining, and whining, when all it takes is to open that door and step outside your house. I sometimes wonder if they still felt lonely when packed on top of each other by the thousands like sardines in the concentration camps. Someone should ask our German friends about that.


295. How totally ignorant of philosophy the Anglo-Saxons must have been to see Wittgenstein as God, when he was barely even a philosopher.


294. Immortality, if it were not absurd, would be the ultimate kind of procrastination, the deferring of the achievement of one's goals to infinity, the acme of weakness and of laziness (which are ultimately the same thing). Just look at the kind of people who yearn for it and you'll see. They require nothing less than an eternity to accomplish their goals, an infinite amount of time! — which is simply a sly way of saying that their goals will NEVER be accomplished lol. Euphoric futurism is almost as decadent as nostalgia for "the good old days", whilst the REAL game is always being played RIGHT NOW, and the purpose of the study of the past and modelling of the future is not to get lost in contemplation of them but to bring them to bear on the present, which, if you've been paying attention to what I've been saying to you, you'd realize is what I just did.


293. Someone asks, "What was Baudrillard's political position?", and a thousand little heads bury themselves in his books to try and find out. But Baudrillard has clearly no positions, not only in politics, but anywhere. He stops at the exact point where one would normally declare a position and... wonders. Because positions presuppose goals, and goals presuppose healthy people, you see. Or, to put it another way, he has no POSITIVE position. The furthest he goes is to refute existing ones, because his teacher taught him the existing ones are bullshit. But his teacher also taught him one goal that is not bullshit, and which should have been Baudrillard's political position if he had been a good student, and learned his lesson well: "The Overman is the meaning of the earth..."


292. The Greeks have been said to have had philosophy in their blood. But the modern Greeks have nothing in their blood, not even blood. They do not even have blood in their blood.


291. No modern philosopher has actually cared about instructing future generations, not even contemporary ones — all they have cared about is fame, and the money that goes with it. That is why they have made themselves so difficult to understand and covered their tracks so well. But when they tried to assimilate older philosophies in their own works they made a bad job of it, condensing entire books in a few sentences, or altogether omitting them, in their attempt to camouflage them and confuse us. Understanding became impossible then: one had to first FIND their sources on one's own, study them and understand them thoroughly, as thoroughly if not better than the "philosopher" himself, then go back and see where the covering up, the obfuscation, the jumping of steps had occurred. The relatively straightforward — and difficult enough on its own! — work of reading, contemplating and understanding turned into a deadly, labyrinthine gauntlet, a continual jumping back and forth, wearing and exhausting work fraught with peril. At the end though there was payback, for though it's true that countless individuals who attempted the task failed miserably, and either gave up altogether or ended up misunderstanding everything and producing mounds of secondary literature which merely served to aggravate the situation, by growing the labyrinth and making things increasingly difficult for future individuals who planned to make the attempt; yet the few — or even just the one — who managed to run the entire gauntlet and come out of it alive had a more solid and clearer understanding of everything than any other man who came before him — or that will ever come. And for that this man will be eternally grateful to the pseudo-philosophers for making his life so hard for him, all the while crushing them and those who espouse their works, not with resentment, but with joy.


290. God has been thought of as creator, indeed the supreme creator, yet few have ventured to also think of him as the supreme destructor. But the time for that too will come.


289. Why is rhetoric of so much less value than writing? The orator only has to convince those who happen to be present when he delivers his oration, the philosopher has to "convince" the entire future. Oratorical skill is not merely irrelevant for us but a downright weakness. To HAVE to talk to "people" — that is how weakness is defined for us. Between higher and lower, as I've already said, there can be no communication. That is the province, not of words, but of actions.


288. Demosthenes was the greatest orator of the ancient world, and yet there is not even a single line of his embedded in the collective consciousness to compare to the reams of those of the philosophers. — A note on the philosophical, at any rate, value of rhetoric.


287. The "multiverse". They create more meaningless words to hide their incomprehension of existing meaningless words. And that's the only meaning to be found at the bottom of this word.


286. Gmail's "quotes of the day" are execrable, and are getting worse and worse as time goes by. Not a single literary giant is to be found among them. I fully expect Google to one day serve my children Kim Kardashian quotes. Goes to show the cultural level of the kind of people who staff the big IT companies.


285. And just as time is not infinite, because it flows into space, space is not infinite either, because it flows into time. And so it is with all the other dimensions.


284. Captain Philips. How absurdly quiet and peaceful things must currently be on the planet, that half the US navy chasing around three barefoot Somalians in a lifeboat can be considered a valid artistic subject.


283. The blacks have never recovered from the shock of being rounded up in the thousands and carted off across the world to work as the white man's slaves, and though I'd love to be proven wrong in this, my guess is they never will. Denial is no good here, it only makes things worse — as long as they continue to avoid facing the reality of what happened, they will continue carrying around with them gigantic inferiority complexes that no amount of lying can cure. And the reality of what happened was that they LOST, by coming into contact with an immeasurably SUPERIOR CIVILIZATION. Now they speak English, and wear shirts and pants and even glasses, and they go to university, and do their best to become assimilated in this superior culture that they find themselves in, and yet the highest positions of this culture remain forever barred to them. We still await a single example of a black philosopher, or even simply of a black man who understands anything of philosophy, and if my guess is right we will be waiting forever — which as much to say that we might as well STOP waiting and move on.


282. Searching for shops in Puerto de la Cruz using Google. Feels exactly like a GTA, only with more options. Did art imitate life here, or was it the other way around?


281. The film Highlander, a towering work of art, even though it muddles things a little in the end, is a perfect sketch of how the future will turn out — and indeed of how the universe works. The immortal swordsmen fight among themselves, beheading each other and growing as they do so by absorbing the power of the slain, exactly as all animals grow in power by eating other animals. No metaphor, no image — the film would have been even more true to life if the swordsmen had to actually devour each other. That is one subtle point in which the film could be improved, and the other comes right at the end, as I said, where the Overman simply uses his accumulated power for the "good" of the little people. Of course all of this good-doing is left out of the film, because it's 1. So boring that no one could even be bothered to write a script for it, and 2. So boring that even if anyone could have bothered to write a script for it no one would have paid money to see it. — And so it is that the sequel, and all sequels thereafter, simply introduce a little trick by which the power struggle is reignited, again and again, for it is the only eventuality for which screenwriters can be bothered to write, and viewers will pay to watch. Of what exactly happens with the "good-doing" of the winning swordsmen everyone is as little curious as to what awaits the pseudo-Christians in their pseudo-Paradise. Death awaits them there, as indeed it does right here, but their kind of death no artist is willing to glorify, and that's why our cinemas, so far at least, have been so mercifully free of it, amen.


280. To "change the world" is so impossible it doesn't even make sense. Why? Because, as I've already explained, the concept world includes the concept time, i.e. at the level of the universe everything that can happen will always have already happened. When a subhuman says "I want to change the world", therefore, what he really means is "I want to slightly rearrange my immediate environment". And that is indeed something that one can do — even a subhuman, in his own pathetic, retarded little way — for better or for worse (and in his case, clearly, for the worse).


279. And if one day women do end up being treated equally with "men" (which is to say with effeminate males and fagots) inside the slave society, what will that prove, if not that the interior constitution of a slave society is such that masculinity is not a useful quality there? — Something to think about on Women's Day.


278. What do subhumans mean when they speak of "nature"? The subhuman is incapable of grasping that he himself is a part of nature and thus everything he does will also be natural; that to transform one part of nature to something else will only be a transformation of one kind of nature to another. Technology they view as something anti-natural, yet bird's nests they see as natural. Man's home is anti-natural but the bird's is natural. One will find countless such little stupidities if one examines closely the subhuman's conception of nature. In the end, what the subhuman calls nature is something like a national park, a park in which all animals have been sedated, are constrained from preying on each other while being kept alive by concerned groups who are doing all their killing for them (or at any rate buying the food from other people who are doing their killing for them), have lost their instincts, and every last bit of dangerous behavior they might indulge in has been labeled with warning signs, whilst the entire thing has been hermetically sealed off from the rest of the universe and is being constantly scanned over by satellites and laser sensors, with giants robots ready to intervene at the whiff of the slightest anomaly in this extremely natural order of things. If the subhuman were to be left alone even for a few moments in a more natural nature — such as a pristine piece of African bush, for instance — he'd give himself a heart attack from nothing more than pure fear — and this kind of nature the subhuman would never want! What good is nature if one can't conduct regularly scheduled tours in it? Thus reasons the subhuman. What good is nature that is not exploitable? That is not picturesque? That is dangerous? — to the subhuman himself as well as to anything that dwells in it. — Nature is a concept as inaccessible to the subhuman as power.


277. What an amazing game this is, from which it's not even necessary for us to forcibly remove the bad players. The old, the weary, the resigned (we call them pessimists and nihilists) — they remove themselves.


276. What would a prehistoric man make of our panic-stricken desire for "meaning", and our "transcendental" despair that runs the whole gamut of depressive feelings from melancholy to pessimism to nihilism? In our eyes the savage would be a poor wretch who'd been dealt an unfair starting point in this game by fate (so unfair that he'd never run the risk of being sufficiently comfortable in his life to have enough free time to despair of it), while in his eyes we would simply be stark raving lunatics.


275. "He is too rigid in his views to be an intellectual", the subhumans will keep insisting. But 2,500 years ago, Confucius already had their number: "Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change".


274. Martin Luther King Jr.: "We've learned to fly the air like birds, we've learned to swim the seas like fish, and yet we haven't learned to walk the Earth as brothers and sisters..." — How astonishingly naive would someone have to be to believe that this would be desirable? The bond of siblinghood only has value because of its rarity, after all, because of its uniqueness — ultimately because of the existence of strangers, our feelings towards which should be (and are) largely indifferent. To treat everyone as a brother and a sister means to abolish brotherhood and sisterhood, means to annihilate this special bond which can lend so much strength, so much happiness and nuance to human life. Besides which, it would be impossible, because a human being only has so much attention to devote to others, which spread out among seven billion people would amount to nothing. Calling for universal brotherhood is effectively the same as calling for universal hypocrisy (which is par for the course, of course, for an underprivileged liberal liar). If your sibling needs you you are supposed to drop everything and fly across the world to help them at the drop of a hat: how could you possibly do this if you have seven billion of them? And if you don't do this, aren't you obliged to ignore also your real siblings when they need you, so as not to offend your seven billion adopted ones, and make baby Martin Luther cry? Or are your real siblings more siblings than the adopted ones? In which case why not just cut the crap and call things by their names? Meaning that the real siblings would be your "siblings" and the adopted ones would be "strangers", which would bring us right back where we started, before you began pestering us with your asinine bullshit! — "Spiritual leaders", the herd calls them. In our language: retards and spiritual charlatans. So no, I don't want to be your brother because you are a stupid nigger who is not even worthy enough to pick my cotton for me. Now go fuck yourself.


273. The fact that there is not a single successful artwork — whether a novel, movie or videogame — depicting "utopian" conditions, proves that we, as mankind, DO NOT WANT THEM. The prevalence of so-called "dystopias" in art, on the other hand, proves what we really want — and where we're headed...


272. HBD advocates say "there is no free will because your brain controls you". But my brain IS me. Like saying "there is no free will because you control you". I.e. there IS free will. Retards confused by wordplay.


271. Formula for charity by Michael Corleone: "We must learn from the philanthropists like the Rockefellers — first you rob everybody, then you give to the poor."


270. Charitable people do not "give". Pure giving, as understood by the slaves, is pure fantasy — it doesn't actually occur. All the giving of subhumans is a disguised taking; he who gives, always, in one way or another, gets back far more than what he gave, and is therefore a net taker. The charitable people — all those wealthy actors and singers and industrialists, for instance — don't lose anything of value by giving a few millions here and there. They have so many that they don't know what to do with them. They couldn't spend them if they wanted to — these are obscene amounts of money we are talking about. What they need is a way to assuage the guilt and the bad conscience engendered by their success (since success in a slave society is something reprehensible) — something which is worth a great deal more to them than the useless millions they give away, for they suffer from this guilt and this bad conscience — they suffer to such an extent that they are having trouble enjoying what money they do spend in cruises, and on designer clothes, luxurious homes, fine dining, and in all kinds of hedonism and extravagant entertainment. Thus they give away some worthless pieces of paper — which are not even pieces of paper anymore, but more like points as in a videogame — in order to get — what else? — the same thing the pseudo-Christian gets at confession: absolution for their sins and the bad conscience that goes with them. Whereby they feel refreshed as if reborn, and can return to enjoying their mansions and fine dining with a clean conscience — all the while, of course, children STILL keep dying all over the world, wars and pestilences are STILL raging; while they themselves quietly retreat to their little gated communities and private islands to continue enjoying the dolce vita. "At least I did all I could", they say to themselves, and to each other, while they prepare to make yet another crappy song or film another worthless trash movie by which they will scam yet more billions out of the world's slave population, only to turn around a little later and give a little of it back, as I explained, in order to be able to fully enjoy the obscene amounts of money that they WON'T be giving back. And moreover, this giving which is really a ruthless and cunning taking (a taking masquerading as a giving), adds a new dimension to their lives, which makes them even more enjoyable than they already were — the competition amongst themselves over who will "give" more — or at any rate BE SEEN to "give" more, because ultimately the effects of this little enterprise are measured in the same way that success is generally measured in their professional line of work: by the amount of noise and press coverage it generates.


269. "But does he have his own ideas?" — My "own" ideas. This is how the subhuman sees ideas. But ideas are not like cars or houses. Ideas do not belong to anyone — they belong to EVERYONE who has understood them. Indeed, inasmuch as ideas preexist and outlive a person, it would be far more accurate to say that HE belongs to THEM.


268. Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy, in his "Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World": "Two thousand three hundred and forty years ago, a council of Athenian Officers was summoned on the slope of one of the mountains that look over the plain of Marathon, on the eastern coast of Attica. The immediate subject of their meeting was to consider whether they should give battle to an enemy that lay encamped on the shore beneath them; but on the result of their deliberations depended, not merely the fate of two armies, but the whole future progress of human civilization." — Such passages, and the historical moments they describe, are utterly unintelligible to the slaves. They will even go as far as to contend that the culture that won, the culture that gave them everything, and to which they owe their very existence, is equal to the one that was defeated...


267. Joseph Heller can't seem to wrap his head around the idea of war. "War is absurd" is the meaning of Catch-22; and indeed, in the individualist era it becomes impossible to understand the past, when the highest man is no longer the war hero but the actor pretending to be one, but who, if faced with a real gun, would run away screaming like a girl. Impossible for the slave to understand sacrifice. And naturally enough: his inability to sacrifice himself is the reason he became a slave in the first place. When the individual becomes his own agent and any kind of hierarchy, any kind of higher structure, is devalued, sacrifice becomes absurd. What would you sacrifice yourself for, when you yourself are your own end? To sacrifice yourself for yourself would be nonsensical, and that's why no one does it.


266. Nietzsche was such a lucid individual that even his madness letters make perfect sense.


265. In a game ressentiment can often be lacking simply because the loser can laugh defeat away by claiming to be playing just "for fun" (as if winning were "unfun" — but that's another story). Defeat here is not such a big deal precisely because games test only narrow aspects of our being, and no single game is sophisticated enough for its outcome to sufficiently define a person. But as the game grows to encompass more and more dimensions of life, it becomes increasingly harder to discount the shame of failure and the rising ressentiment by propping up your self-esteem by your success in activities outside the game. When the game finally reaches the level of the universe, ressentiment is unavoidable and automatic, having at last become equivalent with the concept of defeat. Any attempt to deny or rationalize away the ressentiment at that level, is merely a further symptom of ressentiment.


264. And all of them, of course, are right. The weak man sees God as something that's behind him because he's too weak and useless to contribute anything to his creation, the average man does not see God at all because he's too busy working among the gears and levers of the machine to see what the machine is for (or even to realize that there is one), and the strong man sees God as something that's ahead of him, something that he creates, because he's standing at the top of the machine directing everyone's efforts, and thus contributing the most, and hence commanding the best view.


263. The weak man sees God as something that's behind him, something that created him; the strong man as something that's ahead of him, something that he creates. And the average man, the spiritually barren scientific and quasi-scientific blockhead and cabbage-head, does not see God at all.


262. Through the microscope you can see the flux, through the telescope the Eternal Return. But the subhuman has no time for microscopes and telescopes, any more than for real books; "he works six days of the week", as Voltaire has bluntly put it, "and on the seventh goes to the inn". Try to keep that in mind next time you attempt to have a conversation with him.


261. "So what, then, ultimately, is his position?" That you are all a bunch of fagets. A bunch of filthy, ugly, cowardly, lazy, uneducated, uncouth, lying, hypocritical, effeminate, dumb-as-a-rock fagets, and consequently not only deserve every last thing you are currently getting, but a whole lot more than that, which is precisely what you'll get when the time has come for me and my descendants to take over.


260. On the "red pill", the "blue pill" and "unplugging from the matrix". The implication is that the matrix (i.e. modern society) is an evil machine constructed to exploit them and make them miserable. But how is it your employer's fault if you APPLIED for a job YOU DIDN'T WANT TO DO? And not only you applied for it, but you moved mountains to get it! You lied in your CV to maximize your chances of being hired, you lied TO YOUR EMPLOYER'S FACE that you would love to do the work. You even bought books and went to seminars designed to help you maximize your chances of duping your employer into hiring you. And so he hired you! He asked you to join his team! He brought you into his professional family. He believed that you loved the activity, and that it was your number 1 favorite thing in the world to do, and he TRUSTED you with a position which, for him, was integral to the success of his plans for the future. And you lying little maggot have the nerve to come back and blame the poor little business owner FOR BEING DECEIVED BY YOUR FUCKING LIES. I've said it once before: violence is the only answer. Concentration camps and gas chambers. Any of you fucking pricks continue lying, and we'll execute every motherfucking last one of you.


259. All the best prophecies are, and have always been, the self-fulfilling ones.


258. Torrent sites are utterly flooded with rips of shitty Indian films. Hollywood makes 99% of the world's quality films and "Bollywood" makes something like 0.00001%, yet MORE THAN HALF of the latest screeners on any given torrent site are Indian. I have to keep scrolling past countless pages of such inimitable masterpieces as "Krrish 3", "Ivan Veramathiri", and "Aata Aarambam" until I find a proper movie. God help us when the standards of living of the billions of Indians and Chinese reach ours. Between them on one side, and the fags, the hipsters and the feminists on the other, we'd be lucky if we get a single decent movie a year at that point. I can hardly think of a better reason to try to MAINTAIN the current inequality than this.


257. Does anyone remember the political parties, let alone individual politicians, of past centuries? While everyone remembers the conquerors and dictators just fine! That is how the slaves pay homage to those they supposedly revere — by entirely forgetting them...


256. The Israeli government is being accused of attacking, murdering, stealing, lying, etc., which is to say of performing the proper work of government. In a turn of world-historic irony only the Jews, the perennially stateless people among the powers of the Western world, still seem to remember how to govern. And why not attack the Arabs? Why not lie to them, steal from them and murder them? After all, one Jew is worth 10,000 Arabs. The only thing we can reproach the Jews with is that they haven't called on their American buddies to carpet-nuke the entire Middle East already. Just think of how much trouble we'd be spared if all those bearded retards and towelheads were exterminated (seriously, a towel for a hat in the middle of the desert? How much more proof do you need that they are retarded? Or full-body black dress? Is it supposed to be a compulsory weight-loss scheme for women?) Inbred illiterates. Just send the B-2s to clean the place up already and then ship in a bunch of Chinamen to dig up our oil for us, problem solved.


255. On philosophy being an emergent property of the sciences. Neither Wittgenstein nor the scientists can grasp this. They cannot even grasp the concept of emergence, after all, how could they hope to grasp this?


254. Once more on immortality. Let's put it this way: in order to travel in space you need to spend time. Everyone understands this. Well, conversely they should also understand that in order to travel in time you need to spend space. And since there's no such thing as "free space", since all space is taken up by things, and since moreover all things are alive, in order to travel in time you need to spend things, i.e. to CONSUME LIFEFORMS. So, want to see it to next week? You'll need to consume air, water, and some lifeforms. The further in time you want to make it, the more lifeforms you'll need to consume, and therefore to make it to "forever" (i.e. to become immortal) you'll need to consume ALL lifeforms. All water and oxygen in the universe, all organic matter, or energy if you want to think in terms of "artificial intelligences", machines and cyborgs. There's no way around this: what I am saying is merely conservation of energy applied to a finite spacetime environment. It is, moreover, common sense. Sorry futurists and transhumanists, but your idea of immortality is retarded. There's something other than disinterested scientific speculation that's hiding behind your frantic, desperate quest for it: a small quantum of power and consequent dissatisfaction with yourselves. But we'll get to that eventually.


253. He who knows believes with a belief that the believer for his part simply finds unbelievable.


252. The fact is, most of the time I don't even feel like writing. There are so many other things I'd rather be doing with my time, so many things I enjoy far more than writing — even sleeping, after a long day of traveling, or of playing games and sports, or even of reading. I do have my moments, when I feel an urge to write and revel in it, but for the most part I write out of a sort of pity at the state of philosophy and general human understanding.


251. Vernor Vinge is an utter imbecile and his idea of the "technological singularity" an absurd misunderstanding of the nature of reality and culture. But allow me to walk you through my thought process.
   First of all on "singularities". There's no question of a singularity actually occurring in the universe (and astrophysicists should take note here). A singularity would be something that doesn't flow, and in the universe either everything flows or nothing does — there can be no middle ground. You can't have some things flowing and others not. Perception itself is a form of flow, so if something didn't flow we wouldn't even be able to perceive it — or affect it in any way, and by that same token it wouldn't be able to affect us! So how can something that we can't affect and that can't affect us be part of the world? As far as we are concerned, that's precisely the definition of non-existence! — So whence does the concept of a singularity arise? Well, in mathematics you get a singularity when you try to divide by zero. But "zeros" are mathematical constructs that have no existence in reality. Things that are not can't be! You can't have fuckin' nothing isn't! The idea of the "nothing", of the "zero", was created by our distant ancestors when they looked in the air and saw "nothing". But today we can see stuff even in the air, and we know that even in the farthest reaches of space there are "things", and that a perfect vacuum is an impossibility.
   So that's that with the strict mathematical idea of a "singularity" — it's a ridiculous logical construct that has no bearing at all to what happens in reality.
   Now on the fear that "machines" may one day "take over" from "us". Who is this "us" supposed to be? Are you planning to live forever? Very well then, someone will take over from you no matter what. If, like a typical subhuman, you don't care about what happens after you check out, what difference does it make to you precisely who takes over? If, on the other hand, you do care, the question is not whether machines will take over or not, but only who is more capable of creating the sort of future that you envision. What sort of future do you envision? But this is a pointless question, since the sort of person who is afraid that "machines" might "take over" is the sort of person who doesn't care what happens after he's dead. On top of which, what difference does it make to you if machines take over? They may ALREADY have taken over as far as you are concerned, since you have precisely zero control over what happens in the current world order. Moreover, children are just as much man-made as machines, so it's not a question of "humans" versus "their machines", but of two different types of man-made things. So again the question is which of the two is more suitable for the creation and continuation of the sort of future one envisions. Moreover it's an ultimately pointless question because the successor will obviously be a hybrid of man and machine — a cyborg, a "cybernetic organism", defined as a being "with both organic and mechanical parts". Like me, for instance. Among a great many other things, I also happen to be a cyborg. I've worn prescription spectacles and contact lenses my whole life, and there's no way in hell I would have become what I am today without them. No way in hell I would have learned so many things (it's extremely tiring to read so much as a page with my natural eyesight), no way in hell I would have trained in so many sports and physical activities (I'd need a guide dog merely to cross the street), no way in hell I would have traveled so far, had so many adventures, met so many people, etc. etc. That is how I became the smartest lifeform in the known universe: by turning myself, with the help of technology, more or less into a machine. So like I said, MACHINES HAVE ALREADY TAKEN OVER, and the book you are reading right now was written by one of them. Now what kind of a "futurist" is this Vernor Vinge imbecile if he can't even grasp that?
   Moreover, he is not only an imbecile, but also a selfish, greedy wretch (like all futurists, by the way), when he warns us in such strident tones against the idea of SUCCESSION, to the point where it becomes his number one fear! Meanwhile, no real scientist or engineer has ever felt like that. Creative men do not think like that, they don't go "boo hoo I won't make this machine because it may blow up in my face or turn around and bite me in the ass" any more than a father refrains from having children because they may one day come to surpass him. FOR FUCK'S SAKE THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT THE FATHER WANTS. What bubble of complete isolation from the human condition has Vernor Vinge been spending his whole life in?
   So there's no dilemma here, no problem at all. The entire "singularity" hoopla is merely a hysteria created out of nothing by a person who's both scientifically and technologically ignorant, and psychologically base. There is nothing to discuss. If the cyborgs come to dominate THEN THEY DESERVE TO, and if they don't, then all our efforts in creating them will have FAILED. Vinge's "technological singularity" IS PRECISELY OUR MOST SACRED GOAL, OUR VISION FOR THE FUTURE — and if you have a problem with that our very first directive to them, when they come online, will be to crush you.


250. In Paradise there will be no thinking because thinking is an activity that presupposes flux, and flux presupposes conflict. But lack of conflict is Paradise's essential feature! therefore lack of flux, therefore lack of thinking. Therefore thinking beings will not be possible there. Which is why it was such a stroke of genius on the part of him who said that only the "poor in spirit" will inherit Paradise. Indeed!


249. Immortality is a bogus idea that only seems credible if one has a very primitive understanding of time. More specifically, if one thinks of time as an idealized dimension that exists apart from all the rest. But we know today that time and space are inextricably bound up, so to extend oneself infinitely in time would also mean to do the same in space, i.e. to crowd out all other lifeforms and destroy them, until the only lifeform, indeed the only thing (since all things are alive) left in the entire universe would be oneself! — "And why would this not be possible for someone like an Overman?", would at this point be a fair question. — Because "no player can be greater than the game itself" (Rollerball). Because "absolute power" is a contradictio in adjecto. Because The Intelligence of Evil wouldn't let him. Because "nothing has existence in itself, nothing exists except in dual, antagonistic exchange" (Baudrillard). Take your pick. All these expressions, and many more besides, state the same thing: the fundamental rule of the game. That there must be an opponent.


248. That no one apart from philosophers is really capable of understanding philosophy can be seen by considering how they teach it at the universities. Being unable to sort out what is right from wrong, they simply teach everything. Now imagine how things would fare with any of the sciences if they followed the same prescription, and the state of modern philosophy — and the public's utter disdain and ridicule of it — should not be that hard to understand and sympathize with.


247. The world of the intellect can be thought of as a pyramid built out of interconnected parts (the individual ideas). Complex, treacherous and multifaceted at the bottom — the labyrinth —; simpler and more straightforward the higher up you go. And at the top, quite naturally, there's nothing.


246. The "genetic lottery". As if any luck at all had been involved in all the sacrifices that a superior line has made. The aristocrats thought the opposite way, and luck was furthest from their minds when cold-bloodedly calculating the decisions that would shape the fortunes of their families. For them, it was all about breeding. "If you come from a good family you will be good, and seen clearly all good people come from good families" — this is what every last one of them believed in. Those who beg to differ and love pointing out exceptions (as if they disproved the rule) look only at an individual and his parents, myopically, as subhumans generally do. But take stock of the history of thirty generations, and it's all there. No room for "luck" there — it is not due to luck that humans run the planet today instead of porcupines, and if a porcupine says to itself "it was only due to bad luck that I wasn't born human", the humans can do no more than shake their heads and laugh at the porcupines' hilarious understanding of evolutionary biology.


245. In this sea of opinions most individuals seek for a rock to cling on to, while others are the rocks.


244. Why does James Bond never fail with women? (at least in the movies; he fails once or twice in the books, because the women are lesbians lol). A rash answer would be because that's what the artist glorifies: the ability to easily get women. But the artist also glorifies danger and action, and Bond regularly gets the shit kicked out of him and fails. He ultimately always succeeds, of course, but only after two hours of constant struggle and setbacks. And yet with women he succeeds almost immediately, without even trying, because what the artist is trying to say to you is, "Women sure are great, but ultimately unimportant. They are to be used and discarded like so many gadgets. The only things that are important, and consequently worth fighting for, are country, danger... and play."


243. "Capital exploits me" means "I want to take from others without giving back", otherwise known as "the philosophy of gimme, gimme, gimme".


242. The meaning of rape, in our own species as well as in all others, is that the child is more important than the mother. And thus it is at last that even rape comes to receive God's sanction.


241. There's always a single concept to be found at the bottom of every philosopher's philosophy. With Heraclitus it's flux, with Schopenhauer will, with Stirner the ego, with Kierkegaard faith, with Nietzsche power, while with Baudrillard it's seduction and with me immersion. But what is the quest for power if not the way in which the immersed ego maximizes its influence in the flux by having faith in itself while following its seduced will? And I could easily add Plato's forms, Spinoza's Nature, Hegel's spirit, and all the rest. Hell, even Wittgenstein's silence (via way, perhaps, of Shakespeare) will have a place in my elaboration of the ultimate form of thinking by the time I am done. My masterstroke will be the inclusion of even all the abortive half-concepts and pseudo-concepts floating around in the swamp of the subhuman brain — they too will have a place in the grand scheme of things (though as befits the ideas of small, tiny creatures, theirs will naturally be a very small, very tiny place) — and all the rest, beyond that point, will be silence.


240. They don't think, therefore they don't exist.


239. True progress, in every single field, comes slowly. All good things — which is to say all genuine competence — from the most physical to the most spiritual, come slowly. The speed and suddenness with which money can come and go proves that it is something of little account and, when lost, easily replaceable.


238. The glaring problem in Kierkegaard's philosophy, aside from its religious trappings, is its reliance on the leap of faith. There can be no "leaps" in the flux; all processes are continuous, and strength is accumulated little by little, step by step. "Leaps" are like miracles: the desire to get something out of nothing (i.e. without having to exert yourself). Desiring a LEAP is merely a symptom of being incapable of taking the next STEP.


237. No democracy has ever been created out of love: out of love one creates kingdoms and empires. The inaugural act of despotism is to raise up (by creating the higher caste), that of democracy to pull down (by destroying it).


236. A bunch of scruffy ruffians shouting incoherent slogans in the street is all it takes to get democratic politicians to modify their policies. Proof they don't really believe in them since they can't even be bothered to defend them. Meanwhile, dictators have actual backbone and behave far more admirably. Say what you will about them, but they at least are willing to fight for their beliefs, and to even kill or to be killed for them, if needed.


235. The most important thing in judging the grammatical validity of a sentence is how it sounds. If it doesn't SOUND good, it's wrong, even if all the grammarians in the world can find no fault with it. If it does sound good, on the other hand, a good writer will use it no matter what the grammarians might say, and they will have to modify their grammar afterwards to account for how he used it. Speaking comes first, even historically, and grammar much later, not the other way around, as Chomsky and his followers still seem unable to understand. Woe to the race of beings who waited for grammarians to invent a language before they began to talk! Woe to the child who must learn their rules before being allowed to open its mouth and say "mommy"! Language is a living thing, and what the Chomskyans are busy "analyzing" is so unreal it's not even dead. Theory comes AFTER action, not the other way around, and a priori knowledge of the kind which all philosophers (aside from our lord and master) have been hitherto fond of is no concept that can be grasped at all but a contradictio in adjecto.


234. "Do you think people deserve a second chance?" — No, because there's no "second", no repetition; what comes next is always a new thing — and that's a good thing.


233. Either you are interested in the work, in which case money is irrelevant, or you are interested in money, in which case the work is irrelevant. There is no middle ground here.


232. Bacon versus Descartes. Descartes wants "absolute knowledge" — meaning absolute power — and that immediately. Bacon doubts the possibility of absolute knowledge, and settles for its gradual increase. And we all know who won by now, I hope?


231. Schopenhauer: "The wise have always said the same things, and fools, who are the majority, have always done just the opposite."


230. "Everything is subjective" means that everything can be perceived from a variety of perspectives — indeed an infinity of them — it doesn't mean that all perspectives are equal. From the plurality of subjects it by no means follows that all subjects are equal! But that is precisely what the subhumans contend. With a terrifying consistency they take the idea from the philosophers and utterly pervert it, until it comes to mean the exact opposite to what it meant at first. For if all viewpoints were indeed equal they would have to be identical! i.e. there would not be an infinity of viewpoints but only a single one! i.e. there would not be subjectivity! Subhumans: Standing Every Human Idea On Its Head Since The Invention Of Speech.


229. It's always a bright and sunny day on planet earth, it's just a question of having enough elevation.


228. The obsessive hatred, bordering on psychosis, against products — i.e. against man-made objects — seems to be the hallmark of the pseudo-intellectual today. Hatred of consumption, a problem which no sane, healthy person has ever had. As if food and clothes, as if eating or dressing were bad. Such is the pseudo-intellectual's craving to appear to be raging at something, that he will rage at life's basic necessitities if need be.


227. Philosophical books are the ultimate kind of self-help books, but philosophy is not for the kind of people who read self-help books.


226. The scientists' greatest goal would be "to create life". But if you give me a girl and nine months I can create life for you right now, without science's help. Therefore either the scientists are morons who've no idea what they are talking about, or what they are actually trying to create is far more complex and advanced than mere "life".


225. When all you want to do is survive, you goal is life (your life is your goal). When you want to dominate, your goal includes your life. Life in this case becomes merely another tool, another pawn to be thrown in the game at the appropriate time. Only the latter approach can achieve something. To merely remain alive is not much of an achievement, even insects can manage that just fine.


224. Deleuze's "pluralism" is merely another name for perspectivism. He calls perspectivism "philosophy's greatest achievement". I.e. the hypothesis that others exist, that the philosopher is not alone, is philosophy's greatest achievement. Why is that? Because it is in this realization that the best way to manipulate the flux, i.e. "the others", lies. If you don't even believe that anyone else besides you exists (solipsists belong here) you can't very well manipulate them now can you! And believing that others exist means believing other viewpoints exist, i.e. viewpoints different from your own. The best way to increase your power, in other words, lies first of all in recognizing the same desire and capacity in others. But recognizing the existence and the will of the Other is not the same as submitting to it — which is what the subhumans are conflating with their false interpretation of the concept of pluralism — which they borrowed from the philosophers, and afterwards perverted.


223. And how can there be racism if there are no races?


222. A decent article, at last, by The Economist, arguing that affirmative action is a bad thing. What they are essentially saying is that anti-racism is racist, but they are too dumb to grasp this, and too timid to say it even if they did somehow manage to grasp it. So you get hilarious flip-flopping that goes from, on the one hand claiming that "certain groups have suffered great injustices", while on the other coming to the conclusion that the best thing to do about it is nothing lol. And that is indeed the best thing to do, because revenge ("repairing the injustices!") is at best a highly inefficient and ultimately downright counterproductive way to improve your lot, which is precisely the insight expressed in the well-known adage that "the best revenge is living well" (which is to say the best revenge is no revenge at all).


221. Hawking wants to "know the mind of God". But can a worm know YOUR mind? Even if you outright TOLD it what's in it, what would the worm understand? To know the mind of God you must be God! You must have, in other words, the right hardware. It is idiotic to talk about software when the hardware that can run it is lacking.


220. It is customary to bewail the condition of one who has "nothing left to live for". Personally, I find far more tragic the fate of him who has nothing left for which to die.


219. "God sent us this difficulty to test us." And the subhumans aren't wrong. Considering how weak they are, and how by "God" they essentially mean "the rest of the universe", it is indeed the rest of the universe which "sent" them whatever they say was sent to them since it's stronger and takes the initiative, and it tests them for the same reason.


218. Placing yourself at risk is living, the rest is television.


217. The "Arab Spring". Proof of how stupid the Arabs are that they do not take offense at such a flagrant insult. They even use the term themselves. "Your whole history has been a bleak winter, and it is only when you deny your entire past and accept our decadent values that your spring can finally begin."


216. A: "At the end of the day, it's merely a theory." B: "But quantum mechanics is also 'merely a theory' and we make lazors with it."
   O subhumans! There's no higher thing ever accomplished by a human being than theory! What a mistake it was that my ancestors tried to teach you how to speak! You'd still be living in your caves without us and our "mere theories"!


215. Is the pen really mightier than the sword? Lichtenberg says the opposite ("A handful of soldiers is always better than a mouthful of arguments"), and then seems to change his mind again ("With a pen in my hand I have successfully stormed bulwarks from which others armed with swords have been repulsed"). The truth is that the two have different functions. They are not at odds, but rather complementary. The purpose of the pen is to put the swords in motion, and the purpose of the swords is to clear enough space so that the pen can have some peace and quiet to do its work. It's not an either/or situation; for best results you need both working together in harmony. Conversely, writings that don't lead to action (i.e. the pseudo-intellectuals') are worthless, and actions whose results are not evaluated by thought (i.e. those of the "practical men", the "pragmatists", and other Anglo-Saxons) end up shortsighted, misdirected and doomed to ultimate failure.


214. I can't think of a greater tragedy than to not be able to achieve, or at any rate at least to aim, for anything more. But that's precisely the one thing that's impossible in this game, and all its other rules are mere ramifications of this one. Baudrillard called it "The Intelligence of Evil", Reversibility, or simply Evil. Excuse me, master, but I can't think of a more apt name with which to baptize this state of affairs than Paradise.


213. There's no more flagrant demonstration of the ressentiment of the liberals than their obvious view of the entire past, not only man's, but all of nature's, as a mistake. Wars, conquerors, hierarchies, and even masculinity itself were all bad and evil, including all other animals (the jungle), and even the stars themselves for having the temerity to explode (it goes against "conservation" and respect for the environment) — never mind that without wars and hierarchies there'd be no civilization any more than without exploding stars there would be life. "The basest creature will see the domain of evil everywhere" (Nietzsche). Conversely, the highest creature would see no evil at all. The concept of evil would seem to it to be something ridiculous and absurd.


212. To "unravel the mysteries of the universe" means: "to become the lifeform that ravels them".


211. The worst place for ressentiment is on the internet. It's absolutely raging. Why? The intensified communication factor. The more you learn of those above you, the more it hurts. A man alone in a cave in the middle of nowhere would have no ressentiment — not the mental kind at any rate. Which goes to show why hermits of all ages chose to withdraw from worldly affairs and live in isolation.


210. Alzheimer's convention in Love and Other Drugs. See how happy the convention makes her? "Life is beautiful", etc. If the entire species had Alzheimer's no one would be sad. I.e., their sadness is ressentiment. There's nothing wrong with Alzheimer's per se anymore than there is about us not being able to breathe underwater. It's just that very few people have it, and that's what makes them sad. But "misery loves company" is ressentiment. Real happiness does not require company. Indeed, at the highest levels it exists in near-complete solitude.


209. Women, at least, have their priorities straight. No other creature in the land worships power as well as they do.


208. Wittgenstein basically wanted to shut up all talk of spirituality. This desire was at the heart of his involvement with philosophy. "Think what you want, but at least shut up about it and spare the rest of us of your asinine claptrap." No wonder he became the poster child of the spiritually barren Anglo-Saxons. But Baudrillard doesn't mention him even once.


207. One doesn't fight weaker creatures, one brushes them aside.


206. Mistakes of the subhumans. They immediately interpret the idea of subjectivity as giving them free reign to support any viewpoint that they want, no matter how incoherent, ignorant and wretched. Sure, the ant too has its own perspective of things, and therefore its own subjective reality, but who gives a shit about the reality of an ant? The greater the man the greater — and hence the more objective — his perspective, and therefore the idea of subjectivity does not undermine the absolute rule of inequality in the universe but is precisely the mechanism by which it comes about.


205. In a society of slaves the only type of noble man remaining is the criminal.


204. To govern is to control. The greater government therefore will be the one that controls more. It really is as simple as that and there is not the slightest room for doubt here. To object merely means to have not understood the definition of the word. That a particular government may decide that in a particular area it may be beneficient to allow its subjects some degree of freedom is not an objection to this proposition, since to ALLOW freedom in some area is also an aspect of control. A government, on the other hand, which has powers TAKEN AWAY FROM IT, is a weak, and therefore bad government. It makes all the difference in the world if the decision for the degree of freedom to be allowed is taken from government HQ or from the rabble.


203. True democracy has the same endgame as true anarchy: the end of control, which is to say of government. At which point we arrive once more, not at equality, but in the jungle, which is to say the very starting point of a new autocracy.


202. The subhuman is neither pessimist, nor idealist, nor nihilist, nor any other -ist. Plato was idealist. The subhuman is merely subhuman. That is to say he misinterpretes and misuses and abuses every term, but the only reality you'll find at the bottom of all his sayings and all his doings is no idea or ideology, but his extreme vulgarity.


201. It is precisely because complaining pays, in every sense of the word, that it has become so popular. In the jungle there's no complaining precisely because no one pays attention to it. Our tendency to reward complaining has created more complainers. If we started punishing it instead, we'd end up with far less.


200. "Life's not fair" means: "I don't like myself" — and nothing more than that.


199. Orwell disliked military parades, but even the worst of those seem like artistic masterpieces (as Leni Riefenstahl showed, to the eternal chagrin of the pseudo-intellectuals) compared to the sheer ugliness of a demonstrating mob. Demonstrations should be banned, if for no other reason, on purely aesthetic grounds. But there are other reasons too. The demonstrators are not brave enough to pick up weapons, nor intelligent enough to write down their complaints. If I were president I'd promise to read an essay written by the demonstrators' leaders. But to ACT on it? That decision would remain mine. What else did you elect me for? This is democracy: The 51 percent calls the shots and the president goes with them otherwise he doesn't get reelected. To care for the 49 percent who didn't vote for him is not only stupid, but anti-democratic: a betrayal of his constituents (and constituents too stupid to realize when they have been betrayed). NO DEMONSTRATOR HAS EVER HAD GROUNDS ON WHICH TO COMPLAIN. I will repeat it: demonstrations are anti-democratic; a vocal minority bullying the government to overlook and act against the wishes of the civilized majority (which has already expressed its wishes THROUGH THE BALLOT). It should be written into every constitution: demonstrations are illegal. Not to speak of throwing rocks at police officers. Merely to call them names is reason enough for prison time; any kind of assault on them for a death sentence handed down on the spot, Judge Dredd-style. Now that'd be cutting-edge democracy at work: the democracy of the future.


198. The "consumer society" should have been called the "slave society", since there's nothing wrong with consuming, it is indeed the basis, the prerequisite, of all growth. Marx was at least healthy in focusing on production; Baudrillard's obsession with consumption is neurotic. Why not reduce it to zero and die of thirst in a few days, you fucking nihilistic little prick? Better yet just stop breathing; oxygen too is something that we consume.


197. The only genuinely interesting thing on the internet, ultimately, is theory.


196. The beggar doesn't beg because he has no other choice — would he beg in the jungle? who would he beg? — he begs because YOU are around. It's a form of attack. He takes your highly developed sense of empathy and uses it against you. If the lifeforms around him were not so highly empathetic, he'd look for other ways of sustaining himself. The beggar then is feeding off your empathy, a strategy which even a starving jungle rat has too much self-respect to employ — he'd never stoop so low. And it's hypocritical to say that you pity beggars, since you create them by your actions. Wealth is a relative concept, after all. Hate seeing poor people? Then stop being rich. Stop "doing well". Better yet, just kill yourself — and make all the beggars happy.


195. A newspaper's front page, full of insipid, wretched perspectives, or shallow celebrity spectacles and manufactured non-events — while the true triumphs of mankind (which at the highest levels are all intellectual) go utterly unnoticed and unpraised.


194. What is ultimately to be done about death, misfortune, etc.? A hypocritical question, since all your happiness has come from the unhappiness of others. You don't really care about what can be done about "death", "misfortune", etc., but only about YOUR death, YOUR misfortune, etc.; and whatever can indeed be done about them necessarily results in the increase of the death and the misfortune of countless others. So the answer to their question is "Go screw yourself you hypocritical subhuman scum", and what can be done about it is to stick a loaded gun to their fucking heads and pull the fucking trigger.


193. How unfathomably degenerate the subhuman is can be seen from the fact that in order to help him catch a whiff of the true constitution of reality, you must instruct him to do such an utterly idiotic thing as to stop eating.


192. "Power corrupts." Actually, weakness corrupts, power makes healthy. If you don't believe me just stop eating (food too is a form of power) and then take a look in the mirror after a week. That's what corruption looks like. Puffy cheeks and a well-stocked cellar are health.


191. The neg does indeed work, at least in the short term. But as a long term strategy it's a terrible idea: obsessing about taking value away from others instead of bestowing it on them! As one of the more perceptive PUAs put it, "What are you going do, once she's your girlfriend, neg her every morning before getting out of bed?" Instead of spending your time lowering other people's value you should be building up your own. The truth of it can be seen by observing the highest-value men (or at least the kind of men which women regard as having the highest value — which, though there is overlap, is not quite the same thing) — celebrities of all kinds — who never need to neg: indeed, they never need to use any PUA tactic whatever (or who can even use the opposite of every tactic PUAs advocate and still get the girl, which proves that PUA tactics are ultimately only of value when used as smokescreens by low-value men). The highest value men do not need to spend a second thinking about women, since women naturally flock to them. They only spend time thinking about how to deal with other men — which, my dear PUAs, you should have realized by now, is where the real game's at.


190. The entire evolutionary strategy of the subhuman is, quite literally, to bamboozle you with sound waves. Until you don't know which way is up. Until black is white and white is black. Until you'll gladly bend over and let him fuck you up the ass (it's called "redistribution"). Previous lifeforms used their limbs to get what they wanted; the subhuman can get by with just his mouth.


189. The seriousness with which the slaves regard the scenario of the assassination of their presidents would be hilarious if it weren't tragic, for it is precisely their presidents' complete and utter uselessness which would make such an eventuality a perfect non-event. To assassinate Hitler would be to assassinate the Third Reich, and so it has always been with leaders, who have always been unique and simply irreplaceable — but just ask yourselves what exactly would change if any given subhuman "leader" were assassinated today. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. For it is precisely the secret ultimate goal of the democratic movement to create a society that functions without a leader, ideally without leadership at all.


188. You are never closer to someone, than when you are fucking or killing them.


187. Economist article on scientists trying to comprehend what is the use of religions. Tiny little men who hop around with calculators, trying to figure everything out with them. Zarathustra's last men, utterly barren spiritually, an alien race right out of a bad science fiction novel, no connection with humanity whatsoever. On the one side you've got women and fags with new-age pseudo-spirituality babble, on the other religious fanatics with millenia-old ridiculous beliefs, and on the other the microscientific flatheads and cabbage-heads who view belief as an equation to be solved and the entire past as an error. We are paying dearly for the failure of philosophers to take control of the masses and legislate education. The philosopher-king has been lacking ever since Plato imagined him. Why? But consider the requirements. He is an almost impossible being. A man with the body of Alexander and Nietzsche's brain. The Overman. Our God.


186. Baudrillard: "The world is not what we think, it is what thinks us in return" — gigantic, unforgivable mistakes until the very last moments of his life. For it is obvious that the world is what we think AND what thinks us in return TAKEN TOGETHER. The world is everything! How hard can that be to understand? But Baudrillard, like all the French, was never averse to sacrificing logic for the sake of a good soundbite, and like the rest of them he paid the price, which was to have his books riddled with nonsense. So his formulation sounds cooler than mine, I'll give him that much, only there's this little problem with it — that his formulation's STUPID. But all that needs to be said on the differences between me and him has already been said in The Gay Science §82.


185. There is no death, only life; and everything is life. What distinguishes the two is not a binary opposition but degrees of power. Power, however, as we've seen, is not something you take but something that you give, and death is the means by which you give it.


184. "True stories" means bad art. It is precisely what's not true in it that makes an artwork art.


183. All the hatred against the NSA is contemptible; I would be proud if my country had an intelligence agency as cool as the NSA. After all, what else is an intelligence agency supposed to do than gather information? Everyone does it, and you little maggots are outraged by the Americans because they are doing it better than everyone else. As for your privacy, no one gives a shit about it. You think we WANT to read about the inane ant-like existence that you call your life? Your correspondence makes us DEPRESSED. The only reason we are gathering it is because it's the best way to achieve our objective — not to protect you! but the interests of the nation! And YES, WE are the ones who determine the interests of the nation because we work for the NSA and you, fuckface, do not and never will (because you are a fuckface). Get it?


182. Sigmund Freud once wrote that, "All energy is sexual". So before the evolution of sexuation a billion years ago there was no energy in the universe. Smart man. But that's what happens when the only thing on your mind all day is dildos.


181. The utter seriousness with which the entire Hollywood elite (actors, directors, screenwriters) takes on comic book projects. The best artists in the world, and yet no shame in breathing life into "puerile power fantasies". Nowhere else in the world would this have been possible, because no one else is as serious about art today as the Americans.


180. I like machines as much as I like nature, if not more. This means: I like man-made things as much as I like non-man-made things. To say: "I don't like machines, I only like nature", would mean "I don't like man-made things, only non-man-made ones", which would be as much as saying "I don't like men", i.e. I am not a man — or at least not a very good one. TO NOT LIKE MACHINES MEANS TO NOT BE HUMAN. IT IS PRECISELY OUR CAPACITY TO MAKE MACHINES THAT MAKES US HUMAN. To be shouted at the ears of every luddite.


179. "Do not hate us for our happiness" says the prince to Hippolite in The Idiot. But "Hate us for our happiness" would have been a higher thing to say.


178. Contradictions of the liberal scum: So and so (beauty, for example) is "merely" a social construct — while at the same time extolling social values as higher than individual ones. Slave morality is always self-contradictory, and the time has come for us to understand exactly why.


177. And what does it say about a society that it expects social change to come from children? The only way that children would ever be allowed a say in a society is if there were no more men in it. Which is why the impact of students on the political stage before the twentieth century was exactly nil, whereas everyone today looks in precisely their direction when dreaming of "social change".


176. And why is it that students (i.e. children) always start leftist revolutionary movements, whereas army generals (i.e. men) always start fascist coups? What does that say about the respective systems of beliefs that motivate them?


175. It wasn't Lenin or Mao who were hungry, but the hundreds of thousands of peasants whom they indoctrinated. In Western societies there simply no longer exist enough hungry men to launch a revolution and, as long as democracy is functioning properly, there never will be. For this is indeed the hidden biological purpose of democracy: to keep the machine running, even on auto-pilot, when there no longer exists any individual or group of individuals capable of taking control. The auto-pilot is always less trustworthy than a good pilot — especially in rough times — but in the latter's absence it is preferable to the complete disintegration of the machine (anarchism).


174. All leftist revolutionary movements led by students in the twentieth century were children playing politics, to be distinguished from what happened in places such as Russia and China which were men playing politics. The politics in both cases were ressentiment politics, but the difference was that the coddled Western kids went nowhere (because they were coddled — "one must need strength in order to have strength"), whereas the Russians and the Chinese succeeded because they were genuinely hungry. The Red Brigades kidnapped a few people. The Baader-Meinhof Gang shot up a few banks. But Lenin and Mao massacred millions — and that's why they succeeded. Nothing has ever come out of student-led movements, and nothing ever will. The very fact of being a student — of having enough time to concern yourself with knowledge — means you don't even know what hunger is, you have not the faintest idea of the concept. Consequently all student-led political movements should be automatically laughed at. Baudrillard's elation at the sight of May '68 was pathetic, but at least he eventually grew out of it. To pay any serious attention to what students are saying or doing today is retarded.


173. Why the instinctive support of the underdog may be a noble, bad ultimately a bad idea. If planet Earth were all there was to the universe, this attitude would have been fine (indeed it'd be essential to the continuation of the game), but what if our species is an underdog in the greater scheme of things? Then all your efforts are against us. Condemning American militarism and "imperialism" is stupid but excusable, perhaps, when there are no external threats, but who would you turn to for protection if the aliens were to arrive today, the Swiss?


172. The feminine feelings being idealized and glorified in Twilight are wonderful, because perfectly complementary to the male.


171. I by no means intend to deny the subhumans their philosophy, I merely want to understand it, so as to finally place it within mine, as they have placed me and mine within theirs. Within my philosophy they are and always will be subhuman, within theirs I am... perhaps "evil".


170. A calculation is just another kind of guess. Which is to say, if it's a good one, an educated one.


169. The ultimate insult: a woman calling you a fag, as Alex Forrest does to Michael Douglas's character in Fatal Attraction. The complete contempt in which a woman holds anything unmanly shows up the falsity of both the feminists' pretensions, and the homosexuals' abjectness. For there is, of course, no more staunch proponent of manliness than woman, just as there is no greater lover of feminity than man.


168. The biggest threat today to Western civilization is... fagotry. It's bad enough that half of the population is women — and they are all allowed to vote now — if you add in the effeminate males, trannies, bona fide fags and the elderly, the actual manly count is negligible — and no man actually VOTES.


167. Or: you can kill some people (the combatants), but not others (the non-combatants). But isn't this discrimination? Aren't people supposed to be equal? So why can't I just kill and rape whomever I want?


166. Or "war crimes". It's okay to kill someone but not rape them. Subhuman logic.


165. Not to speak of "war conventions". For war is obviously THE BREAKDOWN OF CONVENTIONS; a war played out according to rules and regulations would not be a war at all but merely another game. The slaves' desire to turn every aspect of life into routine culminates with this insane attempt of theirs to turn even war into a game.


164. The phraseology of liberal propaganda betrays an astonishing level of naivetι. E.g., "The American government is murdering, etc. etc." — it is called WAR you fucking fagots, people are SUPPOSED to die in it. The first who should be murdered is whoever is incapable of grasping this simple fact. Whoever complains about war being murder should be murdered.


163. Ad hominems. Subhumans attack character first and never deal with arguments. We humans attack arguments first and character last, because each argument must finally be shown to have come from the corresponding type of character. Character and arguments are not unrelated, as the subhumans think. Shitty lifeforms have shitty arguments. And subhumans have none (because they are the shittiest lifeforms ever).


162. The only thing more annoying than people's Twitter accounts are dead links to deleted Twitter accounts. How ironic that by wisening up they create even more annoyance than when they were just being stupid.


161. I've no idea what it's like to scribble rubbish that will be instantly forgotten; how could I hope to ever truly understand anyone else? And how could they hope to understand someone whose every word, the moment he has set it down, becomes immortal.


160. Reading journalism is not reading, it is deferring to read. The only good thing that can come out of reading journalism is to realize how bad for you reading journalism is.


159. The relationship between necessity and desire mirrors that between determinism and free will. The best move (and indeed every move) is necessary when regarded at the level of the universe, but from the perspective of the individual who'll perform it (and from those of all his allies and adversaries who are going to feel its effects) it's not necessary at all, but merely what he has chosen and wants to do.


158. Favorite books. People need to distinguish between novels (i.e. artistic books) and proper books. If your favorite book is a novel you are an idiot.


157. A low blow is something unbecoming and distasteful, especially to a tall man. But when you are fighting short people — there's no way around it — you have to hit low.


156. "Freedom this", "freedom that" and then they wonder about universal pornography and the proliferation of all perversions. "Society is decaying" — it isn't really, but what decadence there is in it is, for the most part, all your fault. And even that is giving you too much credit; you are not the cause of decadence but merely its expression. The cause of it, and indeed the cause of everything, is us.


155. A cook, a swimmer, a banker. A person that can be characterized by a single activity — especially if he's any good at it — is Zarathustra's inverse cripple. One exception, a philosopher, precisely because philosophy is not an activity in its own right but the sum of all others.


154. All training, physical and mental, is a gamble, a risk, is dangerous. Aim for more than you have in you, and you'll be broken. Aim for less, and you are wasting your time. Universal education is consequently a great error, and most people would have been better off if no one had ever tried to teach them anything.


153. Chris McCandless living in a bus, the "Grizzly Man" being eaten by his bears, the other dude sawing off his own arm with a pocketknife. Complete evolutionary failures. Incapable of operating so much as a coffee machine, they go into "the wild" (as if there were anything wilder than life on the edge in the big cities) and die by stumbling over the first rock they come across. Utter retards. Precisely because they can't cope with life in civilization they aren't even any good as slaves. They should "win" a trip to a Hunger Games/The Island-type space where they can be quietly and surreptitiously exterminated. Even for them it will be more fun than starving to death in an abandoned bus.


152. "The Life after Death Project" may as well have been called "The Contradictio in Adjecto Project". And that's about where I stopped watching.


151. The object is not something non-living, but simply everything that lies outside the subject. Only with this realization does "knowledge" (and eventually science...) begin, and it culminates when the subject comes to regard even itself as object ("I am my own simulacrum").


150. The Euros have no idea how to make a decent movie: just look at British films. No pacing, no excitement, no flow, nothing. And the ugliness, oh my god the ugliness. Not the faintest clue that your protagonists should be better looking than your fucking neighbors, at the very least. Why go to the movies then? To see ugly people? All I have to do is take the bus. Wake up you fucking eurotrash! movies are supposed to be exciting! "If I want a long boring story with no point to it I have my life." (Seinfeld)


149. A few more years and we'll be growing babies in labs. The usefulness of sexuality will soon be over — which is why it is precisely now that it has become a "game".


148. Not "knowing what you want", at ANY stage of life, is pathetic. Only children can get away with not knowing what they want (because they don't know anything). No wonder women look down on men who don't know what they want. (And no wonder PUAs always pretend to women to know exactly what they want.)


147. Prometheus. It is supposed to contain all these "deep philosophical questions" whereas in fact it contains nothing but a couple of childish, outdated non-questions such as "where do we come from?", and do you "believe in God?" — questions that have nothing to do with modern, twenty-first century philosophy. Where do we come from? — there's not the slightest doubt about that: we come from apes who come from primates who come from single-cellular organisms, all the way back to the Big Bang. As for whether we come from "elsewhere", EVERYTHING comes from elsewhere at some point, so there's no mystery there. Even if something "greater" made us, that greater thing was made by combining smaller things, and so on and so forth. Subhumans have no interest in "deep philosophical questions" but merely in seeing action charades on a big screen, and the entire "did other lifeforms make us?" question has nothing philosophic about it but is merely a pretext, a setup, for a battle of us against yet another alien race. Nothing wrong with that — it's great entertainment — but to take it as a "deep philosophical question" is ludicrous. Same with the retarded questions about "belief in God", and any other such grossly outdated shit, which are anyway handled hamfistedly and awkwardly by the script. Prometheus is a good film, but it has nothing to do with philosophy for christsake — at least not any more than any other film. In short, "deep philosophical questions" are only asked — and answered — in philosophical works, duh, and if you still expect show business people or novelists or journalists or clowns or gypsies or priests or politicians, or your fucking aunt Bertha, to pose, much less answer them, you need to have YOUR FUCKING DNA CHECKED.


146. Science fiction vs. fantasy. Fantasy is an attempt to freeze the past, to turn the ancients' understanding of the universe into art's reality, a nostalgic dream fueled by a distaste for and rejection of science. Hence fantasy inferior to science fiction, which celebrates and glorifies science. Hence why philosophical questions are so generally lacking in fantasy, whilst science fiction's rife with them.


145. From the narrow, restricted viewpoint of the present, you always have infinite choices (= free will), because choice is a mental process we use to imagine and decide upon possible courses of action, and hence can make as many of them as we want — whereas at the level of the universe you only have a single one: the one you'll end up making (= determinism), because the concept universe includes the concept time. Thus does the Overman solve, in a single sentence, problems that have frustrated mankind's greatest thinkers for millennia.


144. The entire tragedy of slave life can be summarized in a single word: "retirement". But for the free man retirement from his goals is not something desirable but something that must be forced on him, and over his dead body no less. To take away from him his "work" one would be obliged to kill him.


143. David versus Goliath. But Goliath lost! He who loses, however, is weak — there's no question about that; that's what weakness is: whatever loses. It therefore follows that the "evil" one in that story is not the one most commonly thought of as such.


142. Politicians, and especially the better, more successful ones, are beings of pure appearance. It's no use trying to discover what they "really" think: they don't think — that's what pure appearance means; thinking is depth. That's why their books are so boring and useless, and why, years after retiring, when nothing is at stake any more, they can still be seen fervently defending their various "stances" on all these little non-issues that "defined" their careers, which no one even cares about anymore because nothing was really at stake in them in the first place. Not one of them ever lets the mask drop and starts going, "Hahaha, I've been fooling all of you all these years! I never believed a thing I said!", for they in fact "believed" in everything — i.e. they believed that by saying these things they were maximizing their vote potential, and never spent a second more thinking about them (for on top of lacking the intelligence and education, they had neither the time nor the energy to do so; democratic politics are exhausting). Finally, the mask became them, and they will defend every last one of the sheer idiocies they spouted through it to their graves. The only thing that matters, that has ever mattered in their lives, is influence, "power" — i.e., the routine administrative function of the slave society which they have mistaken for power — which is why it is perfectly correct and proper to compare and judge them by it — if one can be bothered with them long enough to judge them at all, that is.


141. No argument has yet convinced anyone who didn't want to be convinced. People are people and arguments aren't magic.


140. Susan Sontag's "Against Interpretation" does not mean against interpretation in the strict philosophical sense that a human would use it. In that sense, "against interpretation" would mean "against life", since all life is interpretation. It just means "against all those long exegeses which I don't understand and sound like bullshit". And in that sense, it makes perfect sense. Not that Sontag could grasp this.


139. Police work: for all the (sometimes admittedly justified) claims to bravery, danger, etc., police work is actually the opposite of that. A huge apparatus of repression erected by the herd instinct, but operated and indulged in by cruel cowards. The anarchists, by the way, are wrong on all counts. If cops are pigs the anarchists are the pig masters (for it is only in a society pacified through merciless police work that the anarchist can even exist at all). — High above both of them towers the soldier. A chain of command, hierarchy, the sanctity of orders. Belief in an order of rank, reverence for a leader; with death not anathema, as with anarchists, or an accident or anomaly, as with cops, but part of the job description.


138. (By the way, it is totally natural that women, by and large, are horrified by children's deaths. What is not natural is that men have been feminized to a degree that they effectively feel the same way, and that they have allowed women's narrowmindedness, which in itself, and for the purpose for which women have been shaped by evolution, is praiseworthy, to lay hold of the whole of society and tyrannize it with the values of small and petty creatures.)


137. "But how can you think so cruelly about children?" Listen up here, sister: Children will die, no matter what you do. Children have always died, and they always will die. That is how the world works. Because if children did not die, and there was some magical kind of effect whereby homo sapiens under the age of 18 were invulnerable and invincible, the world would not be so immersive, and those children would think themselves gods. Not to mention what would happen if a bunch of these invincible children decided to attack, say, the US's nuclear installations as a prank, to see what happens "when you press all those red buttons". So it's a good thing that young homo sapiens are not invincible, and a direct consequence of this is that they can, and often do, die. Let us therefore, for once, be glad that children die! Let us thank the gods that we live in a universe where children are not invulnerable! For God help us if they were...


136. Dude mows down 69 "Norwegian" schoolchildren with a machine gun; how to intepret this event? The subhumans start wailing, etc. etc., and clamp down. Their chief question: "How is such an evil act possible, 'in this day and age'?" But it is precisely in this day and age that such an act is possible, since machine guns did not exist before. The subhumans' incredulity at such an event is therefore a result of their low culture, and in particular their complete and utter lack of historical knowledge, as if sudden, brutal, mad events like this had never occurred before. But a little study would reveal that they have always occurred, not only throughout recorded history, and in all the cultures, but with the lower animals as well (the lioness eating her young, for instance, is an even more outrageous event than this, since the shooter was not the father of any of the children). So basically, "evil" acts like these are not new phenomena, but the norm throughout history; their increased intensity is merely a consequence of the increased power of the means that exist all around us. Just as accidents have always happened, whether it was someone stubbing his toe on a rock or falling off a horse, but the huge plane crashes and train wrecks are a new thing. To desire no accidents, no acts of "madness", etc., is to desire a deterministic, ultimately dead world. — The other thing here is how the event is blown completely out of proportion. With the lioness nothing happens; she eats her young and that is that. No outcry from other lions, no clamping down, etc. With earlier cultures there are no media, so the "mad" event remains circulating among a small circle of acquaintances, is accepted as a fact of life, or at most causes the most superstitious to "pray to their gods" or whatever, and life goes on. In the slave society, on the other hand, there is a thing called "the media", which, for purely selfish reasons (promotion, money, competition between media outlets) lays hold of the event and projects it to the entire planet (the entire "social responsibility" talk is just a ruse; none of them care about it, because if it ever became a reality they'd be out of a job). Then those "in power" are practically and psychologically extorted to act, on the one hand with more rhetoric, which merely intensifies the damage, blowing the event out of even more proportion, and on the other leading to the clampdown. Now the clampdown makes things even worse, since the more they restrict people's freedom of movement, the more there are who are either unable to conform (terrorism of weakness), or are not willing to (terrorism of strength). The rate of these "mad" events may therefore be reduced due to the clampdown, but the strength and explosiveness of those that do occur is increased, with the net result in the older case and the new being equal. — And in fact the Norwegian dude may even be said to have failed compared to his predecessors, since a random killing a few thousand years ago, when the population of the earth was in the millions, was comparatively much greater than 69 in seven billion; if anything, one could even accuse the Norwegian of not slaughtering even more annoying little bastard brats.


135. Writer's block is bullshit. I've been writing for close to a decade now, and have not the faintest notion of the thing; it's merely a euphemism for slaves who want to make a living out of scribbling because they are too lazy to do anything else. If a writer has something to say, it comes out by itself, if he doesn't, then what's the point in WANTING to write? — Money, of course.


134. "God doesn't like sex." HAHAHAHAHAHA. The subhumans have no clue.


133. The Ides of March. Hollywood sticks in half a dozen of its hottest stars in a single movie, and they still can't make democratic politics look exciting. Everyone comes across as a petty scheming idiot — not even worms or scoundrels, just shallow nobodies.


132. Fondue sucks. It's just a pot of disgusting melted cheese in which you dip pieces of stale bread. The only reason subhumans are still eating it is because of all the apparatus on the table that makes them feel like children. Its continued popularity has nothing to do with culinary excellence but with subhuman childishness.


131. "Democratic legitimacy." But there's nothing "legitimate" about it, going by the slaves' own definition of legitimacy. For what "right" does the majority have to rule over, and oppress, the minority? And not only when the difference between the two is a couple of percentage points, as in most modern democracies, but even down to the individual person. What right do the millions have in telling me what to do, and throwing me in jail if I refuse to do it? The same exact right as dictators and monarchs of old: they are more, and therefore stronger. As for being "bound by law", I don't remember signing any contract. No one even bothered to INFORM me that I was bound by law, or even tell me WHAT these laws were. "Democracy": in plain words: the fascism of the majority. This is where their belief in the preeminence of numbers leads: the fascism of the majority is stronger, i.e. more fascistic, than the fascism of the minority (i.e. of the dictators and their cronies). If a "fascist" state lacks "democratic legitimacy", therefore, all this means is that, as far as the slaves are concerned, IT IS NOT FASCISTIC ENOUGH.


130. Was Nietzsche a systematizer? The scholars are divided on the issue. But Nietzsche was suspicious of systematizers, and maintained that "the will to a system is a lack of integrity" — why? Because a system's purpose, at bottom, is to refuse the Other its own viewpoint. A complete and total theory of things would be logically binding for everyone; a form of supression, of opression. Besides which, it would be stupid, since no matter what the systematizer may say, the Other will have its viewpoint regardless. This, then, was Nietzsche's system: that there is no "system" — i.e. no complete and total view of things that could cover the needs of every lifeform in the universe. The subhumans will pop up now and bleat, "See? We were right all along in not paying attention to systems!" They were "right", but for the wrong reasons (i.e. they were wrong): not insight in the truth of the matter, but laziness to study. Three levels here, as elsewhere: on the first, and lower level, the subhumans, who maintain a set of utterly contradictory beliefs, precisely because they themselves are contradictory beings: not bothering at all with being consistent or investigating anything and simply adopting any claim that seems to advance their interests at any given moment. On the second, higher level the pre-Nietzschean thinkers: who, having not yet drawn the ultimate conclusions from perspectivism and the flux, believed that a system could be found, and strove valiantly to find it. And on the third, final level Nietzsche and I (and Heraclitus too, actually, if you know how to read between his long-lost lines), who have elevated consistency to the point of total inconsistency, closing the circle at the high point, and therefore the most powerful.


129. The problem with demonstrations. Contrary to popular belief, nothing great has ever been achieved via demonstration. You don't even learn anything through it (any actually useful skills, etc.) The most you can hope to achieve is the exact same thing everyone else who is demonstrating will, meaning countless others. But to become great you must achieve a great deal MORE than ALL others — not the SAME as them! You must achieve these things, in other words, FOR YOURSELF, and how can that be accomplished by spending all your time marching or whatever? Was Ghandi a great man? But what did he manage to achieve? Which of his practices could a young man adopt today, in order to become a great man? None. Same with the Nazarene. That is how you see that there was nothing great about them — aside from great folly and stupidity, that is.


128. The attitude of modern fathers, who hate the idea of someone fucking their daughters, is loathsome and even obviously perverted. Nothing would give me more pleasure if I had fathered a daughter, especially a beautiful, smart girl, than the knowledge that some man worthy of her was treating her the way a woman should be treated — which would of course include fucking her brains out every now and then. In fact I myself would set about finding her a husband worthy of her, and, having exacted his promise to treat her right, would admonish her to obey her husband and be his loyal and loving companion. To be sure, she would have to be a virgin up to that point — I can well understand fathers who are upset at the idea of half the village idiots banging away at their daughter, not to mention the disgust I would feel towards the daughter that would consent to and desire such a life. I would not bring up the village slut — I'd gut her myself before allowing her to become one.


127. Politicians lie, not because they enjoy it, but quite simply because, if they want to remain politicians, they have no other choice, for the subhuman will not tolerate the truth being so much as alluded to in his presence. Nothing funnier than subhumans decrying politicians' lying, when the man who would utter the simplest of truths — that, for example, no lifeforms are equal — would get zero votes. Subhumans see the entire world upside down, so when they complain that politicians lie what they really mean is that THEY DO NOT LIE NEARLY AS MUCH AS THEY SHOULD (i.e. not well enough so that the subhuman will not figure out he's being lied to). The moral for politicians of the future — and I am a hundred percent behind it — is clear: they have to learn to lie better.


126. Nietzsche on translation. "It is neither the best nor the worst in a book that is untranslatable." Precisely, because the best and worst things are ideas, and ideas can always be rendered in a language. What sometimes can't be rendered are puns, figures of speech, grammatical plays, acoustical tones, the rhythm perhaps, etc., i.e. stylistic elements, which are never the heart of the matter, or shouldn't be if there is to be any.


125. If the subhuman leaders are disgusting, it is because subhumans themselves are disgusting, and have the leaders they deserve. They themselves elected them, and have no one to shift the blame to. "The system is bad!", they cry. Well, you are the ones who made it, assholes. Finally, they make God responsible for everything. And I indeed accept responsibility while laughing my ass off at their utter incapacity to understand why I made everything the way I did.


124. Ultimately, businessmen still operate under the imperialist mindset; they order their stores and personnel and vehicles about in a sort of military fashion: toys, armadas, armies, uniforms, etc. The difference is that the day to day running involves juggling numbers instead of grenades and the crucial moments are boring and contain no threat to life or limb — no physical exertion either. Hence they are fat and slothful; soldiers and generals of a debased kind of war.


123. "I don't care what happens, since I'll be dead by then." Typical subhuman sentiment. They don't care about the future. And it is for this reason that the future will not care about them.


122. When simulation is preferable to reality. E.g. it is sometimes better to masturbate with the idea of a beautiful woman, either using the imagination or some sort of simulacrum, than to have actual sex with an actual woman. Because sexual pleasure is physical and mental, there is a threshold of female ugliness past which the simulacrum is preferable. The same with videogames and war or business — or real life. The aesthetic wretchedness of activities, which may be more demanding physically, accounts for people preferring the simulated, i.e. physically debased, but aesthetically heightened, alternative. Sex with an ugly woman is terrible. Past a certain point it's not even physically possible, since one cannot even get an erection.


121. And just as the weak creature inserts God wherever it feels its weakness, the strong creature inserts itself wherever it feels its strength, and ultimately in itself. To believe so much in oneself as to become one's own religion. And people think that I am an atheist. I am not an atheist, I am God.


120. Savonarola's letter to Alexander VI, on the murder of Alexander's son, the Duke of Gandia. In one sentence he claims that God forgives all sins, and barely a few paragraphs later he is foaming in the mouth at the calamities that God's vengeance will rain upon the sinners. Any attempt here to reconcile these two utterly contradictory claims is silly: Savonarola is merely yielding to sympathy in the beginning, bringing God in to allay Alexander's sorrow; and to hatred in the end, again of Alexander's power, etc. He's no better than a leaf that blows with the wind, the winds here being Savonarola's passions: pity at first, hatred later. Any attempt to communicate with him is futile, like trying to communicate with a cat or something; rather, one interprets his behavior and acts accordingly; above all, one realizes that one is dealing with an extremely frail, weak creature, and therefore doesn't take it seriously. As for God, he is inserted everywhere the weak creature feels its weakness, using God to allay Alexander's sorrow in the same way it uses him to allay its own, and then once again, in the impotence of its rage, to exact the revenge which the creature is unable to exact itself.


119. It is precisely the best drivers who cause the worst accidents. Only the terms should here be reversed, for the paradox is only a result of false terminology. For the most spectacular accidents are by no means the "worst", but precisely the best.


118. Voltaire: "Why in antiquity was there never a theological quarrel, and why were no people ever distinguished by the name of a sect? The Egyptians were not called Isiacs or Osiriacs; the peoples of Syria did not have the name of Cybelians. The Cretans had a particular devotion to Jupiter, and were never entitled Jupiterians. The ancient Latins were very attached to Saturn; there was not a village in Latium called Saturnian: on the contrary, the disciples of the God of truth taking their master's title, and calling themselves "anointed" like Him, declared, as soon as they could, an eternal war on all the peoples who were not anointed, and made war among themselves for fourteen hundred years, taking the names of Arians, Manicheans, Donatists, Hussites, Papists, Lutherans, Calvinists. And lastly, the Jansenists and the Molinists have had no more poignant mortification than that of not having been able to slaughter each other in pitched battle. Whence does this come?" — From the Jews. Having lost their country, they had nothing left to fight for than their ideas, their beliefs, a practice they would later bequeath to the pseudo-Christians, all the way down to our own age. But to present also the other side of the coin, which Voltaire missed, it is a much higher thing to fight for an idea than for a piece of dirt, and it is this sort of fighting that will comprise the fight of the future.


117. The Nazarene was indeed free of ressentiment — or at any rate as free of it as any man can be. But not because he was too great a man, but an extremely small one. Which is more or less what Dostoevsky had in mind when he called him an idiot.


116. It's not that God doesn't exist. It's that he doesn't care for the subhumans (or nowhere near as much, at any rate, as he cares for the humans). That's why he leaves their prayers unanswered. For humans and subhumans have always wanted exactly opposite things: We want war, death and destruction recurring eternally; they want "peace", "holidays", and a lot of sleep. We ask for no quarter, and give none; they are constantly begging for handouts and their "equal rights". Even if God wanted to grant everyone's wishes, he simply couldn't, and given that he has to pick a side, it's only natural that he would choose ours over the plebeians'; for as Sabatini points out somewhere, "the gods themselves are all aristocrats".


115. If you want to see what a subhuman really believes in, observe him at the moment of a medical emergency. Who is the first he thinks of, God or his doctor? Where does he first go, the church or the hospital? If he really does believe that his God is above the doctors, why does he unfailingly heed the doctors first in every case of need, and his God only much later, if at all? Therefore he believes first and above all in the descendants of Asclepius and Hippocrates.
   Why asking him is pointless, as regards the truth. What he believes and what he tells you he believes are two entirely different things. What he believes is what he feels will bring him most advantage (hence why he is being smart in believing more in doctors than in his God), what he tells you he believes is ONCE MORE what he feels will bring him most advantage: and this is DIFFERENT from what he really believes — i.e. in this case he wants to seem cool to you and of high morals: "Look, I believe in God", etc. To present all this to the subhuman and try to show him his hypocrisy one might as well try to talk the chameleon out of changing color: that ability is all the poor creature has to hide and accommodate itself in an environment filled with far more powerful creatures; if you are determined to be that cruel you might as well go ahead and kill it. Not to mention that you'd be asking for a degree of consciousness and self-awareness from it that the poor creature simply doesn't have. Does the chameleon know that it's changing color, or is it doing it completely unconsciously, in the same way that a wound heals, the stomach operates, etc.? Do chameleons think about their color-changing abilities, and discuss it among themselves, produce learned treatises on it, etc.? No more than the subhumans think about their beliefs and study whether they are at all consistent with their actions.


114. Jacob Burckhardt: "Only the civilized, Greco-Roman and then European, nations, not the primitive ones, are part of history in a higher sense. The non-Caucasian cultures offer resistance, give way, and die out."


113. There are two kinds of anti-racists: those who act on their own behalf (i.e. who belong to the inferior races), and those who act on the behalf of others. The latter are bored with their lives and want something to do, on top of feeding off the "oppressed" ones' gratitude. The former hate their heritage and want to disappear (since equality is the very last step before the plunge into the abyss of inferiority). Why is there no black, or yellow, or red, etc. supremacism? It would be ridiculous: if any of them claimed any such thing no one would take offence, since it would be patently absurd — it would only form an occasion for laughter. There is only white supremacy; after all, we invented the concept. As for the limited ressentiment kind of racism, seen in Japan for example, this they refute themselves. Who's sitting in chairs, sleeping in beds, and using spoons and forks? Are we the ones wearing kimonos or are they wearing suits? What do they teach in Japanese universities? Why are there even universities in Japan at all? Who has imported thousands of the other's words into their language? Who has the cultural inferiority complex — and deserves to have it?


112. Nietzsche: "What determines your rank is the quantum of power you are: the rest is cowardice."


111. Thought as reduction. Eventually, we were bound to reduce everything to one thing, and from quality arrive at quantity.


110. Rousseau on Machiavelli is the archetype of false interpretation. Rousseau had trouble reconciling Machiavelli's obvious genius and splendid reputation with the ghastly practices the man was recommending to his ideal prince. So he turned this way and that, looking for a way out of the conundrum, and finally, he found it. The solution? It was all a big fat joke, and Machiavelli didn't mean a word of what he wrote! And that's how it always goes with subhumans: You say tomato and the subhuman says banana. In fact the subhuman says banana no matter what the hell you're saying. He will stand there, look you straight in the eye, and claim you meant the opposite of what you said, and, what's worse — and renders any notion of subsequent explanations pointless — he will even believe it!


109. A cultural comparison by comparing roulette types: American roulette is stupid (why not add six zeros, retards?), English roulette is thrifty and mistrustful, and French roulette is laid back, opulent and chic — a real nobleman's and gentleman's version of the game.


108. The homosexual only exists because his parents were not homosexual — but that too is now changing, with the proliferation of the various artificial insemination and surrogacy techniques. Finally, they too can do what everyone else has been doing for millennia. But God has cursed them to create life without passion.


107. The LA gangsters who'd drop all enmities to be in the Tony Scott movie and march together on Santa Monica pier or wherever. Dropping everything for a little dude with a camera who'd jump off a bridge a few weeks later. Enmity is for them a kind of pose. You realize how few men there really are, when even hardened criminals will drop everything to be in front of a camera like any teenage girl.


106. The higher you rise, both physically and spiritually — but mainly spiritually — the more all the creatures around you fade away and slowly disappear. Your parents, friends and relatives, not to mention the person in the street, become dead, can hardly be said to exist for you any more, while all the great figures of the past that all these shortsighted little creatures deem "dead", the philosophers and conquerors, gradually come alive, until one day they are all around you. You play at the higher level, where no one ever truly "dies", and where titanic forces are still waging their eternal struggle in which the pathetic little creatures all around you are not even important enough to be considered pawns; but dirt, atoms, nothingness.


105. All the things the subhumans vent their abysmal hatred on: violence, vindictiveness, pederasty, etc., are precisely the reasons that they exist. Man was the most violent, hateful, vindictive animal. Fetishizing youth is the very reason we exist. Fetishizing beauty, the female form, muscles, etc. By hating the very REASONS THEY EXIST, the subhumans prove beyond doubt that they are degenerate humans, just like the fag who lambasts the "conformist" lifestyle of his heterosexual parents and attempts to foist on society his degenerate condition of a pathological mindless buggery that leads to sterility and death.


104. Consider how refined women's judgement on men is: none of them, and especially the prettier, more demanding ones, wants a man whose life is devoted entirely to them; they want their men to want more. And this makes perfect sense: doubtless the caveman who desired nothing more from life than a woman ended up a bad husband and father. The ideal of woman as the highest prize was thus created by men of the second, even third rank: by lower men, who were not good at finding and securing for themselves good women. Goethe, Schopenhauer, Baudrillard, et al.: all of them lower men in this respect, setting woman (or sex, for the less romantically inclined ones like Schopenhauer) as the highest prize. But women themselves have always known better, that the highest prize must and always will necessarily lie beyond woman.


103. Marianne's behavior towards Colonel Brandon. At last she acknowledges his presence. Was she inconsiderate and cruel to ignore him for so long? This cruelty manifested itself as love towards Willoughby. The same quality that makes them infinitely agreeable to one man, causes them to torture another. In short, it is precisely with her best qualities that a woman hurts, and to hate her for it is a sentiment unworthy of a man. Misogyny is for beta males, fags and feminists. From alpha males there's only love.


102. Why do most people who CAN understand a little bit of philosophy, feel such a strong aversion to it? (evidenced by the fact that they do not tend to go on reading more of it on their own, after someone has initially introduced them to it). Because it reveals to them that, contrary to what they had thought, they are not the center of the universe, and moreover, and which is even worse, there ARE other men who ARE the center of the universe. To be sure, they are the center of THEIR OWN universe, and this applies to all men, and no one can take that away from them, but THE universe is not the same thing as THEIR OWN universe. More specifically, the former consists of the sum of all the latter.


101. Consider America's ludicrous "gun problem". The solutions: either everyone has guns, or no one does. No thinking involved at all on the subhumans' part. And then you have retarded autistic kids getting hold of assault rifles and going on killing sprees. Why did a teacher have a fucking assault rifle at home? The Brits prevent anyone from having a gun, and they even want cops not to have any either. Subhuman stupidity knows no bounds. Meanwhile, noble societies knew what to do ages ago: only the noble caste has weapons, end of story. But since there's no noble caste anymore, while the effectiveness of weapons has blown out of all proportion, you get the subhuman quagmire we are in — which, considering how statistically insignificant deaths from this kind of violence are, isn't even a real quagmire.


100. Ultimately, as the dude in Safety Not Guaranteed correctly points out, time travel has to do with regret, and in this respect it's all the same if you want to go to the past or to the future. It makes no difference where else you'd rather be, the important part is that you'd rather not be right here, right now. There's always plenty of cool, important things to be done, no matter where the here and now may be. Your incapacity to do them is what drives you to wish that you were elsewhere.


99. All attempts at "humanitarian" intervention in Africa have been a disaster. The Western powers occasionally meddle in the affairs of the black continent, playing social engineering for prestige points or to counter Christian guilt-tripping, and when they mess up they take off, leaving behind diseases, guns, wars and decadent ideals.


98. "Above all else, be armed", wrote Machiavelli. It is painful to read a history or a novel set in the days before the slaves took over, and read about men putting on their swords or pistols before going out in the street, as an everyday occurrence. The slaves have completely disarmed us: it is now illegal to go about in any other way than naked. Even in the states, the entire gun control hoopla is much ado about nothing, since it's generally illegal to carry the gun around with you, which after all is what it's for. One step further and the slaves will be removing the nails and beaks from every creature in the street, and the next one will see everyone covered in pillows just in case.


97. "And will your books become movies?" No, they'll become life.


96. There's something pathetic about long friendships. They signify that you've failed to outgrow them.


95. Oh for the days when gentlemen walked around with swords and guns! The often unbearable tediousness of everyday existence could at least be shattered at any moment by a challenge for a duel.


94. Why is the businessman, ultimately, doomed to remain a little man? Because in order to be good at what he does, he has to think of the needs of everyone but himself.


93. They call it Greek mythology, but for the Greeks it was a religion. In the same way, one could speak of Christian mythology, and then the comparison, even on purely aesthetic grounds, finally appears in all its monstrous proportions, to the extent that even a distinction such as aristocratic versus plebeian flagrantly fails to do it justice. In the Greek religion we see the most fascinating and seductive tales of higher beings making war and love and all the rest; in the Christian one some ruffians in a desert praying for bread.


92. The Anonymous/hacktivism, etc. groups. Groups with no goals other than to provoke a reaction, or plain simply retarded goals. Symptomatic of extremely insignificant individuals, who simply have NO OTHER WAY in their normal lives of shaping anything, of achieving anything at all. Utter zeros. That's why they join these groups, and all justifications are attempts to hide this fact, first and above all from themselves.


91. The opposing viewpoints: Everything passes away, so nothing matters. This is nihilism speaking. And the retort: Everything returns, so everything matters. And this is Nietzsche speaking.


90. Neither Pascal nor Kierkegaard can be said to have been in any great measure Christians. Misunderstanding of Christianity — even by them. Nothing but contempt for the "common man", for the subhuman, and they called themselves Christians! Schopenhauer combining pity with contempt. Pity for whom? For those he scorns, lol. If even geniuses misunderstood Christianity, what hope did the subhumans ever have?


89. Somewhere between romantic comedy and hardcore porn, lies the truth about women. Stray too far on either side (by being either too sappy, or too vulgar), and you miss something essential.


88. Time "only moves forward", so it is a special dimension, as opposed to length, for example, which also "moves backward". Flatheaded nonsense. Nothing ever "moves backward", not even in space; the feeling that "I have moved back" is merely a misunderstanding; the reality of that situation is that you have not moved forward enough.


87. The revolutionary crowds in Argo, choking with ressentiment. No essential difference with zombie flicks. The subhuman apocalypse, when it comes, will look a little like that film.


86. The crying of babies is insufferable. And they cry all the time. For this reason if for nothing else we need women, since no one else can stand them.


85. Why is violence always the solution? A solution is a way forward, and the way forward by definition flows. But violence is also flow. The proposition is a tautology: flow is always flow — and if you want to be even more obnoxiously obvious about it you could add, "because it flows". The best solution, because it flows the most.


84. The answer to any problem: from grand politics, to mastering the environment, to combating pseudo-intellectualism and the artfag plague, is always one: death. Violence is the answer to every problem — the only answer. The first and last solution. Everything else is compromise; which is to say retreat, bargaining, defeat.


83. Just as ships have a life raft, and spaceships in the future will have an escape pod — both of whose purpose is to allow the occupants to get away in case of an emergency — so too decadent religions have the soul, and for the same reason.


82. To make fun of stupid people is part of what it means to be intelligent.


81. The realization that we can affect a man's dreams, or desires, or general psychic balance by drugs or electrostimulation makes people uneasy. But what is the difference between this, and say, bashing someone on the head or something with a stone? It is merely a more subtle form of manipulation. Subhumans are getting to the point where they will feel perplexed about their ability to affect the rest of the universe at all. They would rather be causes without effects: mere observers of everything. It is the fact that the soul comes, or should come into it, at some point, that gives them all this trouble, but it turns out it's not needed at all. Where is the soul, if any given scientist can change your entire psychic balance by pressing a couple of buttons? The soul (like the Christian God) is supposed to be "outside" the universe, invincible, impregnable; something that, quite simply, doesn't flow. Which betrays the decadent, reactionary nature of the concept.


80. The retards ask: "Where is the evidence for the inferiority of women?" And I respond: Where is the evidence that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west? Where is the evidence that it takes clouds for it to rain? Where is the evidence that pigs can't fly? It's all around us. Propositions so self-evident that the mere fact that retards question their validity almost constitutes evidence.


79. Early vs. late Baudrillard: more aggressive early, less joyful, less jocular, less sarcastic. Later: less aggressive (has already demolished everything), more tired, more resigned, more mischievous. — He had just about enough strength to demolish everything, but none left with which to build. Building itself he saw as an "illusion"...


78. When the octopus is cornered it sprays ink in every direction to confuse its assailant and, in the utter confusion that ensues, make good its escape. And so it is with the pseudo-intellectuals.


77. I do not understand women and never will; I don't even want to. To desire to belong to someone, to long to be overpowered and commanded — such longings do not seem merely tough to empathize with to me but even absurd. How could anyone wish for such a thing? If I understood it at all it would mean that I am not a man, and by no means constitute a triumph of understanding on the male part of the species. Male and female: this means separate to all eternity, and all touted understanding is merely superficial. The reality, the truth, the essence of the difference are to all eternity ungraspable.


76. To realize to what extent slave culture, genuine slave culture, dominates slave society, and how far feelings have come from the noble days, consider that a mere 200 years ago one was ashamed to admit one was working, and today everyone around you looks down on and pities you if you say you don't work. Women even prefer workers for husbands — they prefer slaves to free men!


75. Thank god we still have Africa. If the entire planet were turned into suburban desert, we wouldn't have anywhere to set our videogames in, no contemporary setting at all — everything would have to be set either in the past (and primarily fantasy) or in the future (some variation of science fiction, either dystopian or post-apocalyptic). The new frontier can't come soon enough. Our urban deserts are useless for art, and once Africa is Westernized so will our real ones. And once the terraformers pour in they'll turn the Sahara into California and we won't even have literal deserts. This also shows up how art works. The exact present is impossible to portray in a good light — however good the present may be. You need that distance vector; and as the planet becomes cleaned up, pacified and wired, distance in space becomes useless and you are forced to rely exclusively on time.


74. Randolph Bourne: "Few people even scratch the surface, much less exhaust the contemplation of their own experience." — Nonsense. Everyone thinks in proportion to the power of their brain and the depth of their experiences (the two of which are, moreover, inextricably related). Potential is a concept that can only be applied a priori, in ignorantia — in the grand scheme of things there's no such thing.


73. On music becoming theatrical. The more theatre in the music, the worse the musicians generally are. Typical band shot — a bunch of pretentious idiots.


72. On catching your woman with another man. Granted that I don't have any experience in this field, I still fail to understand the impulse to beat the man. He is nothing in this entire scene: he did nothing. If you have to beat anyone at all, beat the woman. She is the one from whom you were expecting something. For you were certainly not expecting anything from random strangers. The stranger will always owe you nothing. The woman owes you nothing either, actually — especially given the wretched little sham to which the slaves have finally managed to debase the concept "marriage" — but if you absolutely MUST make someone responsible for something that no one is responsible for, the closest to justice that you can get under the circumstances is to make her.


71. The best thing that happened to the blacks was that they were taken slaves.


70. Russian roulette is not suicide, not even when one plays it by oneself. The question is how far can you go, how many steps can you take, before the inevitable. That is the game. And for the game to exist, the number of chambers in the barrel must be finite. If it were infinite there'd be no game: infinite steps is the same as no steps; in such a game there would be nothing to discover, which is why it wouldn't be one.


69. One advantage of twittering culture is that the sheer volume of petty, idiotic and nonsensical chatter that leads nowhere practically points to the exact opposite direction — which actually leads somewhere. The vast distance between the rabble and the philosopher, the sheer numbers and imbecility of the first compared with the singularity and profundity of the latter, begins to become visible even to weak eyes.


68. People have a vast problem dealing with the notion of the inequality of men. But that the only reason for this problem is envy and resentment is shown by the fact that when it comes to other species, not only is there no problem, but inequality is taken as a given and the mere implication that, for example, a dog may be equal to a man is treated by everyone as proof of madness and cause for internment in mental institutions (and this is indeed how it will eventually be with whoever keeps insisting on the equality of humans and subhumans). And yet a simple substitution is all it takes to reveal the sheer absurdity of the business. Change "men" to "lifeforms" and the deeply reactive nature of the equality lie, the massive incapacity to unblinkingly acknowledge the simple fact that some men are superior, and even vastly superior, to others, stands revealed. For in the end it all comes down to DNA, since species are ultimately fictitious. "All men are equal" means "all DNA is equal". And the only answer that can be given at this point is: O rly?


67. The actor. By continually pretending to be something, you ensure that you never become it. Perpetual pretension. And not pretension as in miming, copying, learning, etc.; i.e. pretension as a means of education — but pretension for the sake of pretension. By continually pretending to be a great man, the one thing you will surely achieve is to never become one.


66. Napoleon and Hitler: two faces of the same coin, with devastation following at the end in either case. Why the extra hatred for the latter? Partly the far greater scale and scope of WWII over the Napoleonic Wars, partly the increased power in the means of war and the ensuing devastation, partly Jewish lies and propaganda. That no one studies history any more and therefore has no clue who Napoleon was and more importantly what he did, is not exactly helping either.


65. To have more fun than the subhuman is a violation of his "equal rights", and it's already illegal. That's what "redistribution" means, and that's why people with sense the world over are against it.


64. The media's predilection for small tragedies (small, because great tragedies only happen to the great, and journalists have not the faintest clue of what greatness is or where to find it) has not yet been explained. So ten kids being killed is news, but millions of kids finishing high school, winning sports championships, learning new languages, etc. is not. If reporting were really representative (instead of merely a reflection of what the rabble wants to see), even the subhuman would realize that the "bad" things are a drop in the bucket (and a necessary drop) and barely even deserve to be mentioned. But good news aggravate the subhuman's ressentiment. Who among them wants to learn of the countless privileged youths who are earning Masters and PhDs, going on skiing trips to the Alps or surfing holidays in Hawaii, etc.? It's the same psychology at bottom that sees tabloid rags running ugly pictures of celebrities to assuage the raging envy of the rabble that reads them. That is how this general impression of chaos and decline is created for a civilization which, in all the essentials, is so obviously flourishing.


63. Getting a woman is very different from keeping her. Here, perhaps, Machiavelli was wrong. Wanting, and doing what it takes to get her, is normal and highly laudable; the expression of a natural desire, etc. Expending any great effort to keep her, on the other hand, is ignoble; a sign that you are dubious about your chances of getting another, perhaps a better one in future.


62. The "Western" canon. As opposed to what? You can see how ludicrous the idea of an "Eastern" canon would be by the fact that no one talks about it — not even the "Easterners". I mean, what exactly would be in it? A couple dozen books the latest of which dates from the Middle Ages? Not to mention "Northern" or "Southern" canons, lol. It was too cold on the North Pole and too hot in Africa to write, let alone think, retards! Which brings us back to the Mediterranean...


61. I travel a lot — but hate tourism. I never travel with a return ticket — I always like to leave open the possibility that I may never go back to wherever I came from. Things are more exciting this way — and I need all the excitement I can get to avoid going nuts from... too much thinking, I guess. This is the curse of thinking. Thinking, basically,consists in predicting the future. This is the sole reason that people think. And the better you get at thinking, the better you get at this prediction game. The problem, however, is that predicting the future is much like watching a movie with a friend who's already seen it, and who is intent on spoiling all the fun for you by whispering in your ear what's going to happen next. The philosopher is basically someone who spoils life for himself in precisely this way. He also makes it better of course, but at the same time spoils it. The stronger and wiser he grows, the more enjoyment he reaps from life, but at the same time the more difficult it becomes for him to actually enjoy this enjoyment. He has to effectively go up against himself: the better his predictive powers become, the more wild and even stupid the things he has to do in order to keep surprising himself — to avoid validating his own goddamn predictions. Which is why Zarathustra says:

...the wisest soul, to whom foolishness speaks sweetest...


60. The three standpoints on fate: 1. My fate will happen regardless of what I do (the average man), 2. My fate will happen because of what I do (the strong man), and 3. My fate will happen despite of what I do (the weak, the desperate man). — A final possibility is God's: "I am fate". But this is merely a variation and upper limit on how the strong man feels.


59. Wittgenstein is — once you have got past "that hocus-pocus of mathematical form", in which, like Spinoza, he encased and masked his philosophy — utterly exasperating. Ethics is transcendental, aesthetics is transcendental, logic is transcendental! — everything is transcendental! But all these things are in the universe, you goddamn brainless twit, how can they be transcendental! The universe is everything, nothing is transcendental! that's just a word imbeciles use to signify that they are incapable of understanding something! — And sure enough, he understood neither logic, nor ethics, nor aesthetics — among a great many other things, practically everything! — partly because he didn't bother reading enough of what his predecessors wrote, but mainly because he was a little man with small experiences and therefore incapable of making any progress in psychology, which is where all these "transcendental" categories begin — and end.


58. Celebrity-worship is a type of self-hatred. The busy man barely has any time for those around him, relatives and friends, never mind for strangers who live half-way around the world. With his absurdly obsessive interest in utter strangers, the subhuman is not only saying that he finds his own life boring, but that he's even given up hope of any improvement in this regard. Celebrities provide subhumans entertainment and escape from the drudgery of being themselves.


57. Which is why I say that true genius ultimately lies, not in proving anyone wrong, but in proving everyone right.


56. Linguistic optics: the time for it has come. The idea is basically that no one (and nothing) is "wrong"; they can't be wrong because they are part of the universe, and whatever is in their brains — in the brains of even the stupidest person — is as "correct" as what's in my mind or Nietzsche's or Baudrillard's. What we need then is an art of interpretation so subtle and powerful that it can bring out the "truth" that's hiding inside even the dumbest person's brains.
   For example, when a Christian says "God created the universe and he loves me", he is not wrong. It's just that the concepts he designates with the words "God", "universe" and "love" are different from the concepts someone smart and educated, like me for instance, designates. For me the word "God", going by the Christian's definition of omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, etc., is an empty word, a non-concept, since the predicates the Christian attaches to it are incommensurate with each other. But when the Christian says "God", he doesn't really mean an "omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being" (since he's so dumb he can't even grasp what these concepts mean, and hence uses them in ape-like and parrot-like fashion); he simply means "a very powerful being". Similarly, when he says "universe" he doesn't mean what I mean by "universe" (i.e. "everything"), he simply means "the earth" — or at most, if he's had a whiff of astronomy, perhaps "the solar system". And finally, when he says "love" he doesn't mean what I mean by "love" (i.e. a desire for possession, in order to shape the thing possessed), but the exact opposite, i.e. "help me" (= shape me).
   So basically, when the Christian says "God created the universe and he loves me", what he's really saying, translated in our language, is "A very powerful being created the earth (or the solar system), and he wants to help me" — which could very well be true!
   All of this stems from Nietzsche's positive theory of language, which basically says that a word means WHAT THE SPEAKER WANTS IT TO MEAN, and has no necessary connection to any pre-existing convention between speaker and listener. Ultimately, each person gives his own meaning to every word, which is only natural since this meaning is to be found inside each person's brain, and all brains are different.


55. "Waaaaaaah, mooooooommy, he swears a lot, I don't like him!" — I don't like you either, fuckface. As for the swearing, Earth to flaming faget: that's how men talk. If you don't like it, go sit with the womenfolk.


54. Journalistic integrity. The journalists are constantly trying to shift the discussion to the issue of integrity whenever their profession comes under attack. But integrity is the very last thing that matters here. For you could be the most honest person in the world and still be a brainless imbecile (and indeed, that is precisely what the most honest people in the world are). The correct retort then here is: "No one gives a flying fuck about your honesty if you are an uneducated blockhead like all journalists ever, asshole. Go screw yourself."


53. I love France. I love everything about it — even the rudeness and the snobbishness. If I could not have been born Greek, I would have wanted to be a Frenchman. Failing that, Italian. Failing that I would rather I'd never been born. The "dolce vita", at least as far as we earthlings are concerned, begins and ends in the Mediterranean.


52. What does it say about democratic politics that in the overwhelming majority of countries there are only two electable parties, instead of, say five or six or seven? That the number one thing voters care about is not the issues but the spectacle of the race — the game — which arrives at its peak when there are only two contenders.


51. "Your banking system enslaves us." But that is merely ressentiment talking. For there were slaves long before there was a banking system, and there will be slaves long after the banking system is no more. It is not the Other who enslaves you, but always you yourself, when you refuse to make the ultimate sacrifice and put your life on the line in order to chase after your dreams.


50. Why do the slaves have an inverted perspective in the taking/giving business? Because of their narrow worldview. They only see what the masters take from them, and disregard what they give them — everything, including, and first and above all, life itself.


49. The popular metaphor that a man "takes" a woman is well-meant, but wrong. For it is obviously the woman who takes, and the man who gives. He who gives, however, is stronger. And since from the slaves' inverted perspective the opposite appears, it has come to pass that popular usage has created this expression.


48. Leibniz said that this is the best of all possible worlds, and Voltaire wrote an entire novel satirizing this claim. But what does "best of all possible worlds" mean, when the existence of "other" worlds is an absurdity, as far as we are concerned, and we'd be in no position to compare them even if it were otherwise? All it means is "I love myself", since in the definition of world the I is included, and is indeed what one refers to when one speaks of "the world", since the only aspect of "the world" that one can ever have experience of is oneself. "This is the best of all possible worlds" therefore means "I love myself", and to deride this means self-hatred.


47. Fate, the way I use the word, is a kind of boasting, while with others it's complaint. Same word, but antithetical concept, with the meaning depending, as always, on the degree of power of the speaker.


46. The word "jungle" has very different connotations to the ears of a hare and of a tiger. To the hare it recalls a constant state of fear and watchfulness, a hostile environment in which the least mistake can spell doom; whilst to the tiger all it means is merely "home".


45. "I want to have his babies." They know exactly whom the babies belong to. In fact there's no other way to phrase it. I want to have our babies sounds weird.


44. Reggae is the most disgusting kind of music there is, more disgusting even than the most miserable, most depressing kind of peasant and folk music. And a look at the smelly rastafarian bastards will reveal the reason why. Ugly, lazy, shitty music for ugly, lazy, stupid people. "Don't worry, be happy." Keep telling that to yourself, dude!


43. To feel resentment is to admit defeat. It's not even a matter of allowing yourself to feel resentment or not — you have no choice in the matter: you've either been defeated or you've not. The winner has neither the time nor any reason to feel resentment; the loser has both a very good reason and all the time in the world.


42. No woman has yet been touched by any genuine philosophical concern whatever.


41. Us versus Them: this is a crucial distinction. Without it there's no war, and with no war no victory. But the slaves have eliminated Them and fancy that we've all become Us now, whereas in reality the opposite has happened: each one of Us is now surrounded by Them.


40. Star attraction, movie premieres, sports events, red carpets and gala openings: the eternal war between depth and appearances. But there is no war at all between them, since the purpose of depth is to create a stronger, and thus more beautiful, appearance; to transform itself into appearance. Those who scorn appearances and evangelize depth are precisely those who are incapable of much, if any, depth: the pseudo-intellectuals, which is why it is by no means an accident that all of them are ugly.


39. Beginners with Ewan McGregor. Heart-breaking gay story. You can always make a heart-breaking gay story about any loser ever, but there comes a time when you need to sit down and go beyond the shallow guilt-tripping and look into realities. No doubt the ants whose entire colonies were flattened when you cleared up the land to build your school or hospital could tell stories a thousand times more heart-breaking than those of a couple of fags, but if you actually stop building schools and hospitals because of them, YOUR FUTURE will become a heart-breaking gay story for lifeforms not dumb enough to fall prey to the sentimental guilt-tripping of losers.


38. Metacritic: the more critics you average over, the more the average tends towards the opinion of the average person in the street, and hence becomes superfluous, self-negating, since it is precisely the purpose of criticism to give you something more than the opinion of the average person in the street. Metacritic here works exactly like journalism, which in its more advanced stages tends towards simply reflecting the rabble's opinion back to it. The most successful journalist is he who has no ideas of his own, but best manages to predict how the rabble will feel, and serves its eventual opinion to it in advance. Even better, to be as average a man himself as possible so that no advanced inquiring, insight, dissimulation will be required on his part, but merely to write down his simple, average thoughts like the simple, average man that he is. The application of democracy to criticism and cultural analysis here has the same effect, tending to either cancel itself out or reinforce its own functioning, depending on how you see it. Metacritic then is no more really a critic than a democratic government is really a government (or public opinion is really an opinion) — and so it is with everything.


37. So how do you find a good leader then? You don't. He finds you.


36. Hitler: "Sooner will a camel pass through a needle's head, than a great man be found by an election."


35. Ultimately, even democracies do not work democratically. The masses elect the leader, but then he APPOINTS his cabinet, etc., which in turn appoint their inferiors, all the way down to the day-to-day running of the most insignificant government agency. For a "democracy" to really function democratically, the masses would have to be consulted on every move that happens; you'd need a plebiscite for every budgetary measure, every foreign action, every hiring and firing of the most insignificant civil servant, at which point the leader would be superfluous, since all his moves would have been made for him. It is precisely due to the fact that all his moves are not made for him, i.e. because he autarchically, tyrannically, unilaterally makes at least some moves, that he is necessary — it is precisely this tyranical dimension of his that one praises when one praises a leader as a "good leader", i.e. a good tyrant. — Representative democracy, then, is not democracy at all, except in the most tenuous sense of the word, and it is for this reason that it is not a complete disaster — as it would be if the masses were asked to vote on everything. It still is a disaster, of course (because the most important decision, the identity of the supreme leader, is indeed decided by the masses), but precisely to this small degree of tyranny allowed, and even actively encouraged, not a complete one.


34. Once you have realized that there cannot exist equal things, order of rank follows immediately.


33. Or, more simply, two different things cannot be equal because then they wouldn't be different.


32. Why there cannot exist two equal things. Because each thing is related to everything else in the universe. For two different things to be equal they would have to be related to all other things in the universe in an exactly equal fashion, including to each other, in which case they would have to be the same thing, i.e. not different things. I believe the mathematicians call this sort of proof "reductio ad absurdum".


31. The shift from classical to quantum mechanics (the latter a misnomer, since quantum mechanics are not mechanics), marks the shift from certainty to statistics — i.e. to uncertainty. But nothing fundamental has changed, since there was no certainty with the classicists' "certainty" either — they merely believed in it, but they were mistaken.


30. Out of all the ideological morons who are peddling their grossly outdated fantasies in the marketplace today, the only ones who should be taken seriously are the capitalists: rich people who can show you how to get rich. They might not know much else about life and the universe, but at least they know this one thing! — compared to all the other penniless retards who know absolutely fucking nothing about anything.


29. Precisely the fact that a utopia is something by definition unachievable proves that God doesn't want it to be achieved. It's not therefore so much "other people", or man's "evil nature", which stands in the way of the utopians' fantasies — as every last one of these utterly unhinged individuals would have you believe — but God himself who is against them.


28. Buddhists, Christians, democrats, socialists, communists, anarchists: Precisely because none of them already have the utopia that they are all so desperately looking for, it'd be ridiculous to take their absurd, incoherent ravings seriously, as ridiculous, indeed, as taking business advice from a homeless person.


27. The writer W.G. Sebold once wrote, "Men and animals regard each other across a gulf of mutual incomprehension". This is wrong. The higher animals understand the lower just fine — as much, at any rate, as it is possible to understand anything. But it is certainly true of the lower animals (of which W.G. Sebold was one), and consequently of subhumans — though naturally enough they themselves think otherwise. For ultimately everyone thinks they understand everything. And they do. Only one's "everything" isn't everything, and everythings are no more equal than anything else.


26. Whether it's chimpanzees hollering and grunting, religious nuts Koran- and Bible-thumping, or philosophers engaged in the most sublime and transmontane abstraction acrobatics, the end result is the same: In all cases feelings have been transmitted and a general course of action agreed upon; the particular forms in which this transmission can occur — whether via grunts, holy-book-thumping or complex and reasoned argument — are merely the different ways in which different species of lifeforms transmit feelings. The relative change in the complexity of the process is merely a reflection of the relative difference in the complexity of the lifeforms; the more complex lifeforms will naturally require a more complex process, all the way up to this book: the most complex book that will ever be written.


25. Baudrillard: "The ultimate achievement is to live beyond the end, by any means whatever."


24. We die twice, once when the last breath leaves our bodies, and again when the last person who knows our name dies.


23. The barbarians never conquered Rome, as is generally believed. They simply became Romans, just as the Romans had become Greeks before them, and everyone is becoming Western now. The greater culture always conquers the lower in the long run, no matter what happens on the battlefield, because there's always been, and there always will be, a greater war than that between nations: that between individuals.


22. A man who has settled down is merely another kind of woman.


21. The theory "of everything". To realize how absurd the notion of such a theory is consider this: such a theory would be able to predict what you would do before you did it. You would have the prediction before you acted. In which case you could do something else and prove it wrong. The theory of everything would end up being a theory that anyone could prove wrong at any time, lol. The purported smartest theory would actually be, as is only fitting, the stupidest.


20. Ideally, one should never ask a woman anything. More: one should never ask a woman for anything — one should only give to her.


19. It is by foregoing all other women and focusing on one, that a relationship acquires the highest degree of meaningfulness. And it is by foregoing all other possibilities in life — i.e. all other people — and becoming oneself, that one's life does likewise.


18. Sψren Kierkegaard: "People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me."


17. Understanding goes from higher to lower, there's no understanding from lower to higher, only misunderstanding — some absurd simplification/falsification/reinterpretation of the signs. I am not talking to you, you just happen to be within hearing distance while I address the ones I am talking to. Moreover, there's no question of you disagreeing — or even of agreeing with me, since you can't even parse what I am saying. We are neither agreeing nor disagreeing; we are not even communicating. You are just flapping your lips; I am the only one here who's talking; and as I've just explained, and you've failed to understand, not to you.


16. The confidence fagotry. "Just be confident", etc. The most they can do is bluff, but a man who's bluffing will react very differently from someone who's the real deal when pushed — and then all your stupid blanket advice will manage to accomplish is to get some poor little weakling's face smashed in.


15. The shallow thinkers — who want moreover to pass to you for "humanitarians" — say: "Don't investigate the people, investigate the system". But the people are the system. Who do you think created the system? The magical system fairies? Investigating the system ends up leading you back to the people; more precisely, to the psychological processes which led them to create it.


14. I have nothing but love for my teachers. To be resentful of and hate your teacher is the first symptom of the bad, the hopeless student. And to envy him of the mediocre.


13. The kingdom of God is inside you, said the Nazarene. But the subhumans are still looking for it, not merely outside themselves, but even "outside" the universe. You can lead a mule to water...


12. How does resentment feel? It feels like unfairness, injustice. It directs the gaze outward, to protect one from dwelling on the flagrant lack of power which led one to feel resentment in the first place. It is not the Other that is causing the resentment, but yourself, and all resentment does is protect you from this painful realization, which would be otherwise added to the already unbearable pain of the resentment's cause.


11. If you say, "it is not fair that his parents are rich and mine poor", you might as well say, "it is not fair that he is tall and I am short". And why stop there? It is not fair that the earth turns around the sun, the sun should turn around the earth — at which point the sheer absurdity and wretchedness of the whole business becomes obvious.


10. The microscientists claim that there "are" 4, or 6, or 27 dimensions, dispute each other's claims and try to "find" exactly how many dimensions there "are". But a dimension is not something that exists outside the brain, but a mere concept that the brain creates and projects onto its environment in order to "understand" it (i.e., as I'll be explaining shortly, predict its behavior with a view to shaping it for its wishes). The microscientists have once more mistaken their models for reality, and have confused the question of the number of dimensions of the universe (infinite — which is to say the same thing as one), with the number of dimensions in their models (the more the better). The more dimensions a brain can resolve, the more subtle, more powerful it is. Which is why the microscientists say that there "are" 4, or 6, or 27 of them — and I say infinite.


9. "Life's too short" means: "my power's too small".


8. Napoleon's tomb at Les Invalides. The feeling of weight here would crush even an Atlas. This is no mere "man's" tomb, is what the architect is saying to you: a superhuman being must lie here. And now compare him with the celebrity nobodies if you want to understand the meaning of the word "nausea".


7. In short, all cultures are equal, but some are more equal than others. The subhumans are the pigs in Orwell's parable, and even Orwell himself was one of them: an eloquent and crafty little pig.


6. "ALL CULTURES ARE EQUAL. WE SHOULD LOVE AND CHERISH ALL OF THEM EQUALLY." O rly? And what about the cultures that practice human sacrifice? Are those equal too? Or how about Viking culture, or samurai culture, or Taliban culture, etc. etc. etc. But what the subhuman means by "culture" is merely some funny costumes and exotic dishes (which, by the way, are not equal either). That's how far his understanding of the concept of culture goes. And so it is with everything. So while hypocritically professing the equality of all cultures, he is hard at work in their destruction, and in the universalization and domination of his own: subhuman culture.


5. The anti-racists say: there are no races. There are no lions, tigers, cougars, jaguars, panthers: they are all just cats. There are no blacks and whites — we are all just people. There are no people and animals — we are all just lifeforms. There are no beings and things — we are all just parts of the flux. Which strictly speaking is true, but which, by depriving us of any possible words and concepts, in no way helps us analyze anything or even so much as communicate — by which fact the will of those who reason in this way stands revealed.


4. The so-called "real" is merely someone else's fantasy.


3. From the Declaration of Independence of a future Human nation: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all lifeforms are created unequal, that they have no rights whatsoever apart from those that the ruling caste deems expedient to endow them with at any given time, and that Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are not ideals to be placed over free men but mirages with which to confuse the weak minds of slaves and lead them to their holding cells".


2. God's secret. Contrary to popular belief, he doesn't like to be "outside" the universe. He prefers to be inside it, where, as he himself has put it, "all the fun shit happens". For the eternal enemy of God is not, and has never been the Devil (for in fact the two of them are one and the same being), but good old plain boredom.


1. And as God once spun the whole world out of himself, so too the time will come for the world to coalesce and fuse in such a way as to recreate God. From which follows...






















He could refract an idea which everyone thought simple into a hundred others, as the prism does with sunlight, each finer than the other, then gather together a host of others to recreate the white light of the sun, where others merely saw disorder and confusion.





















ALEX KIERKEGAARD

ORGY OF THE WILL: A PHILOSOPHY OF THE FUTURE