NIETZSCHE AS AN AWAKENED NIGHTMARE

HEIDEGGER, THE INTIMATE CORRUPTION OF THE SOUL AND OF HUMAN BECOMING.

NIETZSCHE AS AN AWAKENED NIGHTMARE

How Pity finally kissed the flogged horse

Followed by:

Correlative documents: Nietzscheism and America

Paul De Marco

Ex-professor of International Relations (International Political Economy)

Dear Madam, Dear Sir,

I am circulating this refutation of Nietzsche's right-wing and exclusivist theories. While developing his "overman" theory Nietzsche had one question in mind, namely who are the masters of the Earth.

Today these deleterious considerations do not seem to bother many good souls who should know better, nor do they bother many leaders of the allegedly great nations. This dangerous drifting cannot go unchecked. Especially since the forthcoming war against Iraq looks more and more like a true "overmen' aggression".

The following is the first draft of the first section of a forthcoming book dealing with Nietzsche in particular and exclusivist ideologies in general. The final version will probably differ only in details and length. Do you think you could eventually publish this first section as an essay when it will be finished?

Paul De Marco

See also this web site (earlier: http://lacommune1871.tripod.com)

(Note: Since the beginning of October, 2003, I have decided to reproduce on this site the series of short texts entitled "Correlative documents: Nietzscheism and America" destined to complete the First part of the essay on Nietzsche. Are made available here:

Equality before the law (December 15, 2002)

On the desirability of a Jewish "separation" from Palestinians and Arabs (November 10, 2002)

Archaeology, anastylose or ideological war? (September 30, 2002)

Economic solipsism (August 28,2002)

For peace: Open letter to the US citizens and to all the democratic citizens of the world (August 19. 2002)

Rafah and Guernica : Barbarity with an Israeli face, or what I would say to all persons of good will, including American citizens

if I thought I had a chance to be heard. (January 13, 2002)

Do not spoil your victory (11-22-2001) and American Angels of Death at Masar e-Sharif (November 26,2001)

These documents were privately circulated. I believe that they still retain their validity today.

First, American involvement in the Middle East and in Iraq is rapidly turning into a disaster. The Christian and Jewish Zionist Doctrine of preventive wars (i.e. Huntington's long prepared "clashes of civilizations") is rapidly turning into a nightmare. While denouncing it during the Democrats Debate (CNN, October 9, 2003. around 8:45 PM) General Wesley Clark warned that "we are marching toward a new military campaign in the Middle East". In concrete terms this means attacking Syria and Iran and therefore facing the inevitable and immediate extension of an Iraqi-type Resistance to the whole region, from Lebanon to Afghanistan and possibly to the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia! Conscious of the diplomatic and human costs of such right-wing Zionist operations destined to impose Ertez Israel (i.e. Greater Israel) on the Arabs and Muslims, the General added that everything should be done to stop the people in Washington. More than ever before, one feels justified to repeat that no young American lives should ever be sacrificed for such an exclusivist and imperialist global strategy. No young American lives should ever be sacrificed for an illegitimate temple made of stone. Perhaps young Americans should be told that they have an internationally recognized right to refuse to obey inhuman orders. Declaring oneself a Conscience Objector is also a legitimate avenue. Of course, the Southern or Northern borders of the USA could still play their role to protect political dissent as they did during the Vietnam war.

Second, Israel's dangerous drifting toward an openly racist and theocratic State is now being brutally written into a series of dangerous pseudo-faits accomplis such as the Jenin genocidal massacre and the "apartheid walls". All of this is being done with the active complicity and financing of the exclusivist Judeo-Fascist forces within the US and Europe. The State of Israel is now morally and economically bankrupt. Without the complicit aid of the exclusivist forces in the US and EU ( each of which is offering around $ 3 billions in military and financial aid despite their own economic crisis at home) Israel would appear as a pathetically assisted ghetto-State, pathologically enclosing itself inside a walled fortification instead of opening up to the surrounding region. A region which could offer it a sphere of mutual prosperity if only it would withdraw beyond the internationally recognized borders of June 1967. Despite early warnings, the "Israeli elites" have massively chosen philo-Semite Nietzscheism and an amnesic and mercantile version of the Shoah over and above the real history and memory of the Resistance and Deportation, that is , the anti-exclusivist memory par excellence. It seems that demanding that Jews be recognized the right to be ordinarily as good or as bad as any other group on Earth is not deemed to be a just strategy by right-wing Zionists since it would necessarily lead to Jews being considered as equal human beings and therefore would lead to the condemnation of any sorts of pseudo-elitist pretension, be it in the form of Nietzscheism, Fascism or Zionist exclusivism. The present shameful rehabilitation of Nietzsche, Wagner, Ezra Pound, Céline and the likes (especially in Israel) is not a mere coincidence: it is a planned and forcefully implemented scheme in favor of a "return" to a theocratic, sexist, cast society. The openly theorized wish for a "new Pearl Harbor" (1) by the likes of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle et al. , later followed by the 9/11 events and their ultra-rapid instrumentalization, is no coincidence either. This instrumentalization allowed the right-wing American Zionists to disorient the American population and to impose a barbarous trade-off between security and civil liberties (2) copied without any other good justification from a racist and colonial State of Israel. In a few years American citizens will blush with embarrassment when they will read that their country illegally detained "incommunicado" more than 600 persons for more than two years in Guantanamo without proofs, without judgment and without any due process what so ever; they will blush when they understand that the war against the Taliban was illegal, a fact which does not constitute proper grounds to attribute to the enemy a fake status as "enemy combatants" thus depriving them of any legal and international protection and leaving them at the mercy of the same Washington's leaders who did not shy away from the massacre of prisoners of war at Kunduz and Mazar e-Sharif; they will blush when they understand that these leaders did chose the offshore Guantanamo base (and other such offshore bases) as an extraterritorial ploy to escape the reach of the American constitution and the vigilance of its citizens; indeed, they will blush when they understand that manipulated fear made them agree to colored passports, yellow passports being now awarded as negative "stars" to Islamic American citizens! This trade-off between fake security and civil liberties smacks of a right-wing Zionist version of Dostoievski's Grand Inquisitorial Order and clearly serves to launch and maintain a permanent war of civilization directed, in appearance, against Islamic terrorism but in reality aimed against all the anti-imperialist forces in the Western or Muslim world, and inside the United States itself. ( As we know, a "war" against a diffused menace such as terrorism is, per se, an absurdity. The fight against terrorism is a strict function of the collaboration between the various ''police forces" all over the globe. After 9/11 the USA rapidly won the unanimous consent for such a multinational police fight against terror. Nevertheless, the US and its exclusivist mentor and conscience director, Israel, chose "war" simply because only such an artificially maintained state of war could justify the mobilization through fear of the American public and therefore the subsequent legislation of special measures that have the potential to permanently restrict fundamental rights and freedoms. The failure of the American current elites to come clean on their early collaboration with al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia ( in Afghanistan and Kosovo (4) among other places) only reflect their subsequent failure to explain the Norad chain of failures on that same fateful day (Norad is ordinarily able and empowered to intercept any moving object in the North American airspace within a few minutes notice!) or the unwillingness to account for the failure to take early Egyptian intelligence warnings into account or to publicly divulge the well-known movement of funds relating to the twin Towers and associated private societies, or to adequately explain the rapid disposal without proper investigation of the material taken out of so-called Ground Zero (Although the Gulf of Tonkin incident and Watergate should be keep in mind, I am not preaching here in favor of a "conspiracy theory". I am merely saying that when the institutions clearly do not perform the job they are entrusted with, it becomes the role of citizens to hold them to account, especially those citizens belonging to the families of the victims who deserve to know all the facts). The United States is now in danger of concretely drifting toward what some people have aptly called a "smiling Fascism" while still living on the illusions of an established democracy endowed with classic civil liberties. In reality, this "democracy" is now in danger of retaining as much validity as the "perfect competitive market" pertaining to the corner shopkeepers and the republican cheery tree managed to retain after the transformation of family businesses into national and later multinational enterprises (as the great and regretted Stephen Heymer once explained) . This drifting will become worse as the overcapacity and under-consumption which characterize unduly extroverted US capitalism, now victim of its own neoliberal, neocon medicines, evolves into a new "capitalisme sauvage". American citizens who once were able to imagine and implement the New Deal deserve better.

Third, the warnings voiced in my "Archaeology, anastylose and ideological war" were not in vain. Today poor professor Shanks and other like him appear like gullible old fools, at best. The ossuary of James, brother of what's his name?, was proven to be a fake (3). Israeli archaeology unfortunately produced many such instances in the past, in fact too many, simply because this "industry" largely serves the ideology of a State which now openly claims its racist and theocratic definition as a "Jewish State". A State busily trying to forge a national and global exclusivist and theocratic mythology. This "Jewish State" ideological choice amounts not only to a treason of the complex and cosmopolitan history of the Jewish people, it is also a war cry for the establishment of Eretz Israel, that is, a racistly defined Greater Israel that would necessarily be permanently at war with all other States in the Middle East and with all truly secular and democratic forces the world over, Israel included. The whole project is akin to jingoistic dementia: it suffices to take a quick rational look at the antecedents to the Geneses and other biblical texts already present in the Epic of Gilghamesh and other early Mesopotamian documents to understand why. The ransacking of the Baghdad Museum and Iraqi libraries (despite the forceful early warnings by some of us) under the indifferent eyes of the US Occupying forces, which were instead diligently taking possession and protecting the Petroleum Ministry, reinforces the feeling that Nietzschean forces will not shy away from the most scoundrelous manipulations in order to falsify or cleanse any historical (religious or secular) evidence which would destroy their own silly and criminal religious and historical "constructions". Their aim is to destroy the very basis for rational and critical thought itself, simply because rational and critical thought is the natural enemy of any ideology purely based on the weigh of self-selected "authorities" and cultivated cast "mediocrity", both being defended by a jealously preserved monopoly on brute force (including nuclear weapons and other arms of mass destruction) . The bombing and occupation of Palestine, Yugoslavia and Iraq, like the ransacking of the Baghdad Museum, truly amounts to the bombing and ransacking of "libre arbitre" and of the individual and collective rights naturally belonging to full citizens everywhere, including within the United State and Israel. Obscurantism and regression in all their forms should be promptly rejected. The "palestinization'' of the whole world as well. In the end, we know since William Blake that the "devil" is laughing in Milton's Paradise. Trading John Locke and Thomas Paine for the illusory First or Second Coming of the Savior has never been the best way to usher his/her arrival nor to honor his/her example, as the long history of Millenarian movements perfectly illustrates. It is not worthy of the United States of America to become the willing instrument of "smiling Fascism" and exclusivism.

General Clark's warning about the likely extension of war in the Middle East is not an isolated comment. Many recognized observers concur. Many time in the past I have shown that this is congruent with the very project nursed by the right-wing Zionists. Lately, in the October 2003 issue of Le Monde diplomatique the great military analyst Paul-Marie de la Gorce wrote that The USA and Israel are embarking upon a collision course with Iran. Iranian nuclear installations could become the object of a preventive strike like in Iraq in 1981, when Israel destroyed the Osirak nuclear plant, or else it and Syria could face an all out attack aimed at "regime change". Per se, Iranian, Pakistani or any other Islamic nuclear programs or "Islamic nuclear bombs" are no more dangerous than the Israeli nuclear program and the hundreds of nuclear weapons possessed by Tel Aviv. The fact is that Israel is the sole country in the region which harbors colonialist objectives with respect to its neighbors. Some biased or unintelligent Zionist specialists of nuclear deterrence have nonetheless naively argued that absolute non-proliferation in the region would in fact be the only way to maintain peace and stability, now that Israel has its nuclear arsenal. With characteristic simplicity, they detect unstability whenever they are confronted with more than one player! Yet, they managed to convince the USA to think along the same lines in spite of the inherent absurdity of the argument. Hence the post-USSR pouring of shameful demagogy concerning non-proliferation. One problem is that these amiable albeit a bit conceited theorists conveniently forget articles IV and VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This wise Treaty, born from early fears induced by the original bipolar arms race of the Cold War, devised a smart trade-off contained in these two articles: non-nuclear States would renounce their inalienable right to produce nuclear weapons in exchange for Great Powers assistance in the development of their civilian nuclear programs and in exchange for a progressive nuclear disarmament of these same Great Powers. While the Great Powers never respected their part of the bargain, they now pretend to impose "additional" conditions on important countries like Iran! More importantly, there is no proof whatsoever that numbers per se is conducive to instability and confrontation. On the contrary, parity and the weigh of pubic opinion has been shown to lead to detente and therefore to a process progressively marching from institutionalized diplomatic contacts, to confidence building, to arms control and reduction and possibly to potential disarmament insured by mutually intrusive inspections. Moreover, the case of Pakistan and India convincingly shows that deterrence works, even under very tense conditions: nuclear powers are much more likely to behave responsibly just because the nuclear idiom requires them to do so in order to avoid fatal accidents. This was and continues to be the case between the Great Powers themselves with momentary relapses from an aggressive and Millenarist USA dreaming dangerous wars against conveniently fabricated Evil Empires. It was the case between Israel and Egypt since only last ditch US support saved Israel from the Egyptian October offensive through the Sinai which led to peace and the complete restitution of the Sinai to the Egyptians, including the restitution of Taba and the Sinai's oil reserves. In fact, regional and global unipolarity and arrogance remain the most formidable and predictable factors of instability.

The conclusion is clear: unless Israel withdraw behind its borders of June 1967, its nuclear weapons will not buy it any peace nor spare it and the world a regional arms race. Indeed this race is now conducted to achieve just such a result in the absence of a political settlement squarely based on international laws. A settlement that should have been imposed a long time ago by the International community since it is entirely contained in a series of UN Resolutions, particularly Resolutions 242, 338 and 194. Since 9/11 and the subsequent enunciation of the preventive wars doctrine, we all know what the right-wing Christian and Jewish Zionists are really after: permanent wars of civilization, which they dream to fight from a position of asymmetric overwhelming power. This lunatic paradigm has already been debunked by an Iraqi Resistance, which fully shares Paine's ideals of sovereignty and independence. In the end, this Millenarist right-wing Zionist dream will lead to the defeat of Israel and the defeat of its foolish US backers. The United States of America will have mindlessly squandered the post-Cold War opportunity to make the UN work according to its own Charter and therefore to legitimize its still privileged position in the world through this indispensable multilateral framework. At this point my warnings about the pre-rational use of "sacrificial lambs" by disoriented mobs and endangered "elites"will become as useful as my present warning against unjust, colonial and exclusivist aggressions.

My conscience, however, like the conscience of all Partisans resisting any sorts of Fascism, will be clear, if not at peace.

Paul De Marco,

Notes:

1) As we all know, right-wing Zionists like Wolfowitz, Perle, Pipes etc were influential in devising the Rumsfeld Report published January 11, 2001 when the "fear" of a "new Pearl Harbor" was again voiced. (see P.S Golub, America's imperial longings, http://ondediplo.com, July 2001. The French version is freely available in www.monde-diplomatique.fr, juillet 2001)The idea was precisely that such an event could happen and should be anticipated by the strategic planners. The context was also perfectly clear. The Administration was perfectly aware of the intricacies surrounding the first "blowbacks"attack against the World Trade Center. Long judicial proceedings had shown the various plans and alternatives entertained by the imprisoned attackers, including the use of airplanes. The people involved were the first lethal Islamic so-called "blowbacks". They were well known by the American Intelligence services and the Mossad, as were their clustered and loose organizations and most of their personnel since they had been used earlier by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia in their fight against the USRR in Afghanistan and later in Chechnya and Kosovo. History will tell what the right-wing Zionists knew about 9/11 themselves. But history already tells a simple truth: the celerity with which these Zionists capitalized on 9/11 in order to implement their own imperialist and new templar agenda (despite earlier Republican electoral promisses) is without equal, except perhaps for the rapidity exemplified by servile media pundits and public opinion makers in chanting to the same tune with an impressive uniformity! Citizens should perhaps demand that all Presidential candidates unambiguously pledge their willingness to create a totally independent team invested with full investigating powers to carefully look into this matter and leave the task to choose the investigators to Congress and the victims' families.

One might also recall that the most prominent right-wing Christian and Jewish Zionists around Rumsfeld were part or close to the Committee on the Present Danger which was one of the main think-tank of the Reaganite counter-revolution. Their main concept was that the leaders of the USRR, like all Communists, were, at heart, inveterate humanists: if offered the choice between a retreat or assured catastrophe for their people, they would chose retreat. (In fact, these leaders never understood Althusser's clarification of the concept nor much else that this great Marxist theorist had painstakingly clarified). "Containment" could then safely be replaced by "rolling back", with the objective to achieve "victory" upon the adversary. They had gained the psychological battle, despite Stalin's and Mao's analysis! The Harvard School of Administration (remember Graham Allison?) spin on the Cuban Missile crisis seemed to confirm this interpretation since it was said that the Soviets had "blinked first" (while conveniently forgetting Robert Kennedy's role in adroitly choosing between Russian consecutive offers and the trade-off between Soviet missiles in Cuba against American missiles in Turkey). This dangerous game could not have been played with Mao's careful "manipulation of irrationality" and his willingness to defend his country's and his class independence. In the end, what mattered was MacNamara's calculus. The bit was that with a GDP half that of the United States, the USSR could not keep up with the American new arms race (the so-called Star War and the deployment of Euromissiles in Germany). Beside, the still occult 1983 air battle between the US and the USSR off the Soviet's Pacific Coast had revealed the administrative weaknesses of the Soviet military. In a characteristic reverse presentation the right-wing Zionists went on saying that the USSR had to be met with determined force since it was an "Evil Empire" bent on world domination. Unfortunately, Afghanistan, the first and only foray of Soviet troops outside the East Bloc (established at Yalta) seemed to prove them right. But the preventive reverse accusation is still used against a largely illusory al-Qaeda and the whole Islamic world. The fake global "Islamic terrorist threat" being necessary to recreate an artificial "enemy" which could justify the "mobilization" of most national resources by the "industrial-military complex" (in General Eisenhower's apt wording) instead of using them to strengthen the American Welfare State launched by FDR and soon killed by Cold War warrior Truman. Any person sincerely opposed to the development of nuclear weapons under a strict international control should have the decency to demand the disarmament of puny and colonial Israel first and, second, to demand a pointillious respect of articles IV and VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty from the Great Powers. as it stands today the USA refuses to sign on and respect most multilateral negotiated civilizational advances. To cite just a few instances aside from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, this American refusal includes, the law of the sea (killed by Reagan), land mines, the ICC, Kyoto, the FAO (in its attempt to declare a universal right to food).

2) While President Milosevic is unfairly portrayed as a "criminal" by a biased victors' tribunal at The Hague, Madleine Albright and other Nato leaders involved in the Balkan wars and particularly in the last war of aggression against Yugoslavia are allowed to walk free. (for further details, see Class struggles and ideological cleansing in this same site. See also www.icdsm.org and www.free-slobo.org. In reality, President Milosevic only did what international laws (fight against terrorism) and the Yugoslav constitution (protection of the territorial integrity and the multinational character of the country) required of him. He cannot be deemed responsible for actions committed by foreign mercenaries often manipulated by the West (especially around Serbrenica) and by right-wing radicals, as history knows and will soon tell) This is another instance of the proverbial "two weights policy" now shamelessly applied by a kangaroo "international penal tribunal" which is illegal by virtue of not having been instituted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, as strictly required by the UN Charter. A tribunal which further chooses to shut its eyes on the illegality of Nato's unilateral aggression against Yugoslavia perpetrated without a prior specific mandate from the UN. At the same time, Washington refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of the UN legally instituted International Criminal Court (ICC) located in Rome. The US went so far as to pass legislation to protect its own citizens from the ICC's reach, by force if necessary, thus turning its own pretensions to humanitarian ingérence and international penal justice into a ridiculous bully's charade.

As we all know Ms Albright had substantial dealings with Thaci, a thug characterized as a terrorist by the US Administration itself, just before Ms Albright decided to use him at the Rambouillet conference. As you might recall, President Milosevic's offer to the Kosovars at Rambouillet was intelligent and far-reaching. It generously included everything, not the least almost complete autonomy within Serbia. Without Albright and her terrorists thugs, both Kosovo and Serbia might have been spared the ensuing destruction and might have been able to integrate the European Union from a stronger, united starting point. Albright had the last word, though, and, in the process, both the Kosovars, the Serbs and the Europeans have been weakened by the American military presence in the Balkans. This was not without precedent since Ms Albright and the Administration she belonged to had encouraged al-Qaeda networks to help the rebels in Bosnia and Kosovo. This is the same Albright, the very same Jewish refugee from Czechoslovakia who was once sheltered by Yugoslav Partisans during the Second World War and who, nevertheless, was proud of using the little Serbo-Croate she had learned then, for propaganda purposes once she had decided to go to war. It is the same Albright who provoked the mass escape of the Kosovars from their province: indeed, she consciously decided to use Thaci and his terrorist thugs to fuel irrational fears of Serb retaliation in case of a US attack and who used Nato's bombs on civilian infrastructures in Kosovo (and occasionally on disoriented Kosovars' columns of refugees) under the fallacious pretext that they might have been used by the Yugoslav Army. It is the same Albright was used the word "genocide" to characterize this mass escape while refusing to stop the air bombing in order to allow the return of the Kosovars in their homes as President Milosevic had proposed. It was the same Albright who refused to intervene in Rwanda while a real genocide was taking place and could have been stopped. As everyone knows (except perhaps for Stephen Lewis and some of his colleagues) her criminal decision not to act forced President Mitterrand to go it alone and temporarily create a security zone in Rwanda to help stop the massacre.

These are well known, well documented and irrefutable facts. Yet, if you try to say so in forums such as Yahoo's "international-pupil-and studentactions@yahoogroups.com" you will immediately be dropped from the list, since democracy and freedom of expression in a capitalist regime exist only in so far as they are tolerated by private owners holding access to most positions and means of mass diffusion of ideas (as the late Canadian Jew Izzy Asper made clear with his characteristic "editorial policy", foreshadowing a new theocratic era where the Temple would monopolize and dictate all "authorized" information). Together with Homeland security, this absolute control of information flows is part of the domestic planks of the Doctrine of preventive war. It is naturally also part of Richard Pipes's exclusivist and right-wing War on campuses, a new and pathetic rendition of Mccarthyism, that is to say, of generalized, ideologically motivated delation and brutish intimidation. Yahoo's student forum and others like it should be mass-tested by students and forced to be impartial or be permanently discredited. Otherwise preventive freedom and democracy would demand a complete boycott of such corporatively owned forums and the organization of parallel mailinglists outside them and their commercial venues. Freedom of expression is a necessary ingredient of peaceful dissent and peaceful civil disobedience. It has to be continuously defended everywhere, lest we are ready to contemplate the slow disappearance of all "democratic public spaces".

3) See for instance, "Experts say 'James Ossuary' a fake"( June 18, 2003) and "Experts dispute ossuary findings" (June 19, 2003) both intheglobeandmail .com . The "Yoash inscription" said to relate to Solomon's Temple was also declared a forgery. As we all know, at the present date no authentic historical and archaeological evidence whatsoever exits to attest the historical existence of this temple. A good case for a permanent war of civilization? Right-wing Zionists conveniently forget that Solomon had to devise a calculated treachery to kill the High Priests in order to build his venal Temple and thus legitimize the Jewish people's expropriation through the establishment of a Monarchy! Which is a strange (Rabbinical, Jesuitical or Nietzschean?) way to prove one's faith and one's fear of God!

4) It is well known that the CIA, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan conceptualized, financed and trained the Afghan insurgency against the Soviets. The US provided the strategic thinking and the weapons (i.e. Brzezinski et al. on Central Asia), the Saudis provided the financing and the religious fundamentalism and the Pakistani Intelligence services provides the training, contacts and sanctuaries. Each were trying to play the game to their own advantages. Thus the US lavishly offered the Stinger ground-to-air missile, that is to say, they provided the very weapon calculated to change the strategic and tactical balance of forces on the ground, given the physical and social environment of the country and given the nature of the battlefield (something the Arabs and the Iranians have failed to understand since). As we all know, great powers have allies but no friends: the US controlled the flow of Stingers and could stop it entirely at will as, in fact, it has done since. Indeed with bin Laden's help, it decided to destroy the Taliban regime and their now dangerous training grounds (bin Laden's complicity with the CIA is proven and documented beyond any doubt up until the very beginning of the Afghanistan war when he met with a CIA operative in a Gulf's hospital, probably to reassure his masters about the total destruction of the remaining Stingers missiles, thus leaving the Taliban sincere rank-and-file an easy prey to the tactical "killing-box" strategy). Saudi Arabia provided the funds and its Wahabbite version of the Koran with the same zeal that it provided for the building of numerous Mosques in former Soviet Central Asia, with the active complicity of the Yeltsinian Fifth Column (among whom Russian Jews Beresovski and Gussinski) which actively thought the destruction of the Russian Federation by the same means used to destroy the USSR, namely the abject manipulation of the national question, notably in Chechnya. The Saudis probably also tried to control the region abundant oil supply through the diffusion of their own brand of religious ideology and the financing of the extremists social and educational facilities. Pakistan, for its part, had come to think of Afghanistan as its own preserve and "strategic depth" due to its continuing skirmishes with its Indian neighbor over Kashmir, a neighbor possessing nuclear weapons of its one. The CIA was backed by bin Laden loose "base" known as al-Qaeda, the same organization which became active in Chechnya, Bosnia and Kosovo as well as in Afghanistan ( as Izetbegovic, Thaci, Albright, Badinter, Kouchner, Bernard-Henri Lévy and André Glucksmann very well know). 9/11 changed the nature of the strategic game: the objective was no longer the containment of the USSR or the ideological cleansing of socialist Yugoslavia through an "awakened nihilist" manipulation of Islamic fundamentalism but the establishment of the Christian and Jewish Zionist Empire including over Haram al-Sharif, in East Jerusalem. At this point, only Arab and Islamic Zionist second fiddlers could be tolerated. The sincere though misled rank-and-file could be savagely disposed off and could even be killed by suffocation inside "locked wagons", as they indeed were at Kunduz. (while the Western "authorized elites and their servile media were busily transforming the History of the Holocaust into a new venal catechism destined to legitimize the new right-wing Zionist theocratic imperialism!).

Foreword

If you doubt that a determined denunciation of the contemporaneous rehabilitation of Nietzsche is urgently on the order of the day, please switch immediately to the long quotation provided in the Annexe (p 31 below). It represents the heart of Nietzsche's thinking, the nexus around which all other Nietzschean themes are necessarily related, as we will subsequently demonstrate. And consequently, it contains the principal message which today's supposedly philo-Semite Nietzscheans busily try to occult in their pernicious endeavor to legitimize their own hidden, anti-democratic agenda.

I have written this short yet urgent essay in English because no one else had the courage or the foresight to do it. The North American proletariat is largely excluded as such from the universities and from all the other important cultural institutions and finds it difficult to produce enough authentic "organic intellectuals", to use Gramsci's expression. In any case, I will perhaps be excused to think that Pidgin English, contrary to Nabokov's "Caucasian", conceited and academically idolatred idiom, is a matter of substance rather than form. As the same time isn't it a Wittgensteinian meaningful evidence to assert that real pidgin, as opposed to academic and Nietzschean syntaxically belaboured jargon, constitutes a miracle of syncretic linguistic expression - that is to say, a miracle of life itself? When not traditore, traduttori are unfortunately expensive. Besides, who would fail to recognize the historical importance of Marx's own (admittedly correct and innovating) French version of Das Capital? If for nothing else, you can take this essay as an active act of solidarity with the courageous American anti-globalization and anti-war movement. A full-length book in French will eventually follow. It will expand on the essential points made here and take my criticism of Nietzsche's demagogical system, and of the cheap incense lavished by his modern cultist admirers, much further in what should become a definitive debunking analysis.

This is not the place to explain in detail the reasons leading to the betrayal by academics and cultural workers alike of the humanist and democratic ideals as exemplified by their efforts to rehabilitate Nietzsche, or in their studious efforts to avoid taking issue with this deleterious tendency. Suffice it to say that among the main elements adduced as an explanation one will have to reserve a place of choice for the deplorable fact that letters of recommendation have come to replace merit in the hiring process. It is not a coincidence to find Senator Lieberman and many right-wing Americans, including many right-wing so-called "Reagan Democrats", strenuously opposed to the continuation and expansion of affirmative action programs. In so doing their use of universality sounds as totally fake and hollow as it is selective and self-serving.

Although fully cognizant of Max Weber's and others bourgeois intellectuals', among whom Karl Polanyi (1), important and undeniable contributions to the muddying of the waters clarified by Marx's historically and analytically grounded distinctions between alienated social relationship regulated by status (and reified religious and mystical "Traditions") and freely recomposed social communities or between religious alienation, totemism and free individual human conscience, be it an atheist, agnostic or spiritually inclined conscience, it has always baffled me to see universality opposed to gender parity and to affirmative action. This confusion hides an unspeakable agenda more than it reflects conceptual difficulties. The crux of the real yet still unsatisfactorily solved problem is that atheism is mischievously confused with secularity by the religious holders of Tradition whose material and political interests always reside in substituting their reified clergies to communal ecclesia.(2)The joint development of capitalism and liberal democracy had accomplished a worthy revolution: it had replaced social status and its correlative relations of subordination and command with citizenship, that is, it had instituted the free, responsible individual as the repository of human freedom and the necessary mediating link needed to conjugate individual and collective freedom in a simultaneous realization of both. A process with posits socio-economic equality as the aesthetic of freedom, to paraphrase Lenin. In such a process, secularity becomes an imperative, institutionalized process through which individual human conscience is allowed to recognize itself equal to any other individual conscience in the utter respect of the cultural and historical differences constitutive of both. Only thus can religious, agnostic or atheistic spirits exercise their own free will without undermining their mutual equality and their peaceful, cooperative coexistence and cooperation. In such a situation, attained in most Western countries as well as in China and, at least formally, in many other countries such as India or Iraq, opposing Tradition to secularity is a clear sign of cultural and moral "retrogression". The summum here being reached when some unstable and opportunist souls always sitting between two chairs venally insist without knowing what the real issues are, in opposing soul-filled religious conservatives to supposedly soul-less atheists, an antinomy which in itself speaks volume to their own high representation of such "religious souls", as witnessed by a pathetic Havel even while an Alexander Dubcek was indifferently assassinated! It is crystal clear: fabricating a false antinomy between religiosity or spirituality on the one hand and agnosticism or atheism on the other hand is nothing other than a devious frontal attack against citizenship and the equality it supposes. Truly a devastating and scoundrel us philo-Semite Nietzschean "return" or, more precisely, "regression". A good prophylactic exercise consists in drawing all the necessary conclusions from the following "thought experiment": posit an exclusivist (philo-Semite Nietzschean?) nation who believes in its own exclusive divine election or "manifest destiny". Then imagine all the internal and international forceful and aggressive actions the fanatic believers of this divine election necessarily will have to take in order to answer their personal and their nation "calling". Judge these actions against the best ethical and human standards you can come up with - and vote accordingly during the next elections! To add one more zest of misery to the exercise, imagine that the nation in question does not yet occupy all the lands self-attributed to it by an imaginary, exclusivist God or Totem lacking any unambiguous historical or anthropological foundations - except in an almost exclusively self-written, multi-layered and often corrected and adapted mythology. Who can imagine a better scenario for continuous human genuine and Nietzschean tragedies? Upon reflection, don't you think that these same believers might be tempted to declare such thought experiments, though consciously favoured by many from Galileo to Einstein to the famed epistemologist Koyré, to be beyond the pale, as much as poetry which was roundly expelled outside the walls of the Polis by some arch-conservative Ancient Greeks? Remember: Nietzsche is a dangerous councilor when it comes to "noble lies".

It should, however, be noted that the confusion denounced here can cut in many ways. The contemporary (post-Eichmann? Post-1967 and 1991?) Israeli State illustrates the main dangers. My intimate conviction is that the majority of Israelis would spontaneously be in favour of a pulling-back behind the pre-June 1967 borders in exchange for peace and security, that is, if they were not being taken hostages by the various Sharon's and other Obadiah Yossef and their suicidal dream to rebuild an illegitimate Solomon temple at the cost of a permanent war with the neighbouring Arab and Muslim world. Indeed, Israeli polls consistently reflect the confusion. They invariably show a substantial majority backing the most provocative and radical security measures while at the same time desiring peace. Quite clearly the most theocratic and Judeo-fascists elements in Israeli society have, so far, succeeded in confusing the agenda. The ignoble instrumentalization of the Holocaust as the sole genocide in human history, or the most horrible, or the most industrially modern in its cruelty depending on the self-serving version preferred according to circumstances, is opposed to otherwise accepted and enshrined universal values. It thus uselessly and self-destructively serves to intimidate legitimate opponents of right-wing Zionism and theocratic Judeo-fascism. It thus pretends to be the criterion by which human rights are to be judged and to which all other criteria must be subordinated. Yet it is clear that a self-serving exclusivist and selective ideology cannot replace what in reality constitute the best, universal denunciation of the Holocaust as well as of all fascist and Nazi crimes against all ethnic, political and social groups, namely the UN Charter, the UN Declaration of Human rights and the Geneva conventions, to mention only the most obvious and universally respected texts. It is obvious that these texts do not need either the benediction or the approval of any Sharon or any Obadiah Yossef to establish or confirm their intrinsic worthiness and practical utility. Yet these are the same texts brutally showed aside by Israel and increasingly by its unilateral and exclusivist ally, the United State of America. It was specifically the case during the NATO aggression of Yugoslavia and the subsequent illegal "trial" of the socialist President Milosevic by an ad hoc kangaroo NATO court purporting to be an "International Criminal Court". You will recall, the instrumentalisation of Kosovars' fears by Albright/Thaci while they were publicly devising their joint Rambouillet trap, thus directly provoking a massive and understandable flow of refugees when NATO started its indiscriminate massive bombing. Kovosars simply feared possible retaliations; as the first days of the war did show, they feared even more the heavy damages necessarily caused by NATO's indiscriminate bombing itself. You will also recall that Albright, who as a child did find refuge in anti-Nazi Yugoslavia and is said to be of Jewish origin, repeatedly refused President Milosevic's and the Yugoslav Authorities' offers to stop bombing in order to allow a speedy return of the Kosovar refugees. Of course, Albright preferred to continue her shameless kidnapping of the Holocaust rhetoric in pursuit of her war objectives and of the ideological cleansing of Southern Europe, despite Yugoslavia official offers to rapidly end the plight of the refugees. As you might recall, Albright had already shown by her documented refusal to act in order to stop the real genocide perpetrated in Rwanda how much she, and her government really cared for human rights! In fact, it clearly appears that the revisionism and self-serving negationism perpetrated by right-wing (Christian or Jews) Zionists, Judeo-fascists and other theocratic right-wingers, constitute the main offence and the main danger against civilization with its philo-Semite Nietzschean pretensions to be above the law and to use overwhelming force to enforce its own exclusivist choices. Other types of negationism and revisionism can easily be corrected by the education of the public, by historical clarifications and, when needed, by the courts. In fact, my intimate belief is that the great majority of the Israeli citizens and Jews everywhere (i.e. in Nietzschean parlance, the "great number" of the Jewish "rabble") would reject such instrumentalisation of their suffering if they were properly informed, something the mainstream left did not do so far, choosing instead to share war criminal Sharon's Procrustean bed. It is to be hoped for the well being of all that Mr. Amram Mitzna will be able to reverse this suicidal tendency, irrespective of the results of forthcoming election. We should all remember what Prime Minister Rabin said while evaluating the internal difficulties on the way to peace: he clearly saw that nothing less than an Israeli "psychological revolution" was in order to reverse the deleterious effect of earlier propaganda. Leaving the flow of information in the hands of various Izzy Asper and many others like him does not seem the best way to proceed, especially in countries where the main constitutional article refers to what is "democratically reasonable" or to freedom of expression. Internalized, groundless but generalized culpability could be seen as a great Nietzschean "awakened" strategy; it surely can lead to epic witch-hunting and great neo-inquisitorial practices aided by pervasive surveillance technologies thus paving the way for a new "totalitarianism" which would surely fascinate the Annah Arendt of this world. Unfortunately, it is not likely to lead neither to better understanding nor, in the end, to longer lasting social stability and peace.

We should all remember that the human species relies on sexual reproduction, which necessarily implies two types of genetically defined individuals of entirely equal human value, one female and the other male. (Sexual reproduction refers back to the dialectic of nature while sexuality implies human becoming, namely an active free conscience and free social choices.) Using universality to deny this simple, straightforward fact is worse than any blind religious and ideological archaism: in fact it represents a conscious Nietzschean attempt to turn back the clocks of history in favour of selective religious and ideological doxas. The same is true for ethnicity (ethnos is the Greek word for people, as concept far more coherent and useful than the useless pseudo-genetic construct of a distinct race) and for important physical or cultural specificities, which define ethnic groups and national minority. Mendel's little peas have such a pleasantly mischievous way to work their wonders so that surface appearances are not always what they seem to be. For his own good and survival, the same human species is conjugated in more than one ethnic way. Far from constituting the basis for "racist" divergences, these differences intrinsically contribute to the survival of the species as a whole and are therefore to be scientifically understood as the plural expression of the same intrinsic human value. Recent genetic and ethnological studies (see Luiggi-Luca Cavalli-Sforza etc) have demonstrated this truth once more, thus corroborating with new data what Lévi-Strauss had already so beautifully said in his Race et histoire. For instance, a modern European would more likely be genetically closer to some Asian populations rather than to European groups like the Basques; yet the Basque people belongs to the oldest inhabitants of Europe. There is hardly a need to elaborate further, except to raise the question: Why do some people presently shamefacedly try to abuse all the sciences in order to argue directly but more often indirectly against these evidences? Before the fall of the socialist bloc one could have answered: because of the exploitation inherent in class societies and particularly in a capitalist society governed by liberal democracy. While still substantially correct, the answer would fall short of the truth today if one fails to recognize that various Nietzschean interpretations of censitarian democracy are currently accompanying a rampant capitalist globalization process. Among these interpretations none are as deleterious as the ones propagated by Christian and Jewish right-wing Zionism, that is, the belated messianic and fanatic forces who are not content with the Arab and Palestinian recognition of the State of Israel inside its pre-June 1967 borders but who, instead, aspire to the creation of a Greater Israel (Eretz Israel), a creation which necessarily implies the destruction of Haram al-Sharif to give way to the reconstruction of an illegitimate replica of the Solomon temple. Selected Arab and Muslim "overmen" will only receive their ticket for this new philo-Semite Heaven (you know, the heaven located on the other side of normal things, beyond Nietzsche's noon and midnight!) if they accept this destruction and thus recognize their subordinate nature while at the same time insuring their perpetual second rank political status through the implied loss of their national, ethnic and cultural bases. As Huntington, of the clashes of civilization fame, had long recognized, this would necessarily imply a permanent war against majority of the more than one billion Muslim world population who will have to be treated as some sorts of Nietzschean chandalas in order to stabilize a post-Jewish temple "Islamic" and "subdued" world. Unfortunately, what many people do not recognize is that this destructive, inegalitarian and plainly racist endeavour is inherently unstable for at least one more reason: Christian American Zionism and messianism will be as compatible to right-wing Jewish Zionism and messianism as their German and Jewish German predecessors were. The last phase of the European crusaders' dream ended up with the utter destruction of the Templar Order considered by most royal Houses - except Portugal for a little while - as an unbearable State within the State. As elsewhere, the German Rosicrucian order at the time of Nietzsche exhibited extraordinary tensions inexorably leading to its break up in two main parts, one overtly messianic and increasingly rightist, the other remaining attached to its Catholic roots. The "first" and the "second" "coming" never seemed to have been good or courteous bedfellows for long. As naturally, similar dissensions were mounting in many other overt and covert organizations at the time. The dissensions between Nietzsche and Wagner and friends only represent the tip of an iceberg which the modern cultists of Nietzsche, first and foremost the Jewish right-wing cultists, studiously refuse to see and to expose to the public. Rosenberg's advices to a rising Hitler are now part of the "invisible" political and cultural fields as much as the worthy endeavours of the likes of Jobotinski. Worse still, the important fractions of the population belonging to the Bund or to other socialist organizations and movements are now discredited as part and parcel of the same suicidal occultation processes. By some natural perversion, the "last of imbeciles" it seems always likes to see "the last of Man" in the Other especially when he happens to hold different political and religious beliefs!

The inegalitarian spirit exhibited in the modern bashing of gender parity and affirmative action to give only two basic examples are part and parcel of a wider political and cultural anti-democratic and anti-secular counter-offensive led by US and Jewish right-wing forces. They should squarely be challenged on every front and made to explain the rational behind their deeply held belief to be the new "masters of the Universe", in typically Nietzschean fashion. It cannot escape any citizen attention that these same deleterious forces already feels entitled to place themselves "beyond" any inconvenient international law, and to dictate what is "good" and what is "evil". Which arrogantly amounts to say that they already deem themselves to be "beyond good and evil" if they come to judge this compromising conscious posture to be essential to the preservation of their cast-like privileges.

Modern pro-Nietzschean cultists are prone to accuse their critics of not reading Nietzsche or of reading him out of context. They never feel obliged to adduce any proof for their allegations. My contention and my accusation is that they are wasting a lot of institutional money and a lot of institutional time to read Nietzsche in a selective and self-serving way. I therefore am led to propose a basic methodology for reading and interpreting Nietzsche. It holds in three main points and its basic significance will be hard to miss or to misunderstand even for blind cultists. 1) Gather as many books written by Nietzsche as possible (but do not worry too much because a) they are tediously repetitive and simplistic and b) Kaufmann and friends have luckily and perhaps unwittingly made your critical task easier with their news "translations" and useful commentaries). Gather all the paragraphs dealing directly or indirectly with a specific theme. Proceed then by deducing the main logical argument and its main nuances using Nietzsche's own phrases as much and as truthfully as possible. 2) In case a logical conflict arises determine rapidly if it is a real or fake logical contradiction. The surest way to do this is simply to ask yourself: though apparently vacillating, do the various takes on a specific theme concur with the sole Nietzschean criterion of "truth", that is with the viability and sustainability of the conditions of existence of the "overman"? If yes you have just resolved one more of Nietzsche's "brilliant", penetrating and "philosophically daring" enigmatic exposé. If not, in good Nietzschean spirit, rejoice: You have just uncovered a gem, which many other careful readers will have missed! But beware, Nietzsche's diamonds have a disrespectful tendency to transmute into common charcoal. Do not trumpet your finding, yet; instead take another good look: It might well end up that the apparent contradiction is explained by the simple fact that Nietzsche never did understand Hobbes (that is, if he read him at all) and is vacillating like Zarathustra between the needs of his "overman" and that of similar (dare we say "equal"?) "overmen". But at this point you will know that you reached a very important and devastating conclusion on your own! 3) Forget Nolte and others like him and attempt to relate Nietzsche's work to the cultural and political circumstances of the dominant classes at the time. Does Nietzsche's abomination of the Commune de Paris seem importantly symptomatic? And isn't this still an important conclusion today? Upon this renewed conviction, take a brake and do not miss any opportunity to see Renoir's La Grande Illusion if the opportunity presents itself: you will come out of it much healthier and with a reinforced sense of decency and good taste.

Needless to say, I do not find the Nietzschean cultists off-the-cuff criticism of left-wing debunking of Nietzsche and of their own work entirely honest. Their reading methodology is a far cry from that which I have presented above. Theirs spells in one word: selectivity. Nor do they provide any technical indications concerning their own method, except for their pretension to provide better translations and interpretations. Accusing others to read out of context is eminently not a good nor an ingenious argument to make for any person who is in the dubious business of brushing aside Nietzsche's main racist and discriminatory distinctions between equal members of the same human species, in order to selectively retain indemonstrable arguments purporting to make of their "idol" a perspicacious critic of "science", "modernity" and other similarly vacuous themes hoping, in the process, to single-mindedly legitimize an author who basically will always remain an intellectual and a human scoundrel. On the main themes dear to Nietzsche what did these cultists provide that is new, except for their unfounded and temerarious assertions? Ultimately, as the English are fond to say: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating". Unless the cultists, who have access to the first-hand material pertaining to Nietzsche, come clear on the relationship entertained by their favourite author with Nineteen Century Christian and Jewish messianism, and consequently with many unsavoury organizations and personalities who must bear an important degree of responsibility in the subsequent rise of Fascism and Nazism, they will have to be considered themselves as plain scoundrels. There is a definite and vital distinction between defending and/or advocating an author's ideas and academically (objectively?) presenting them with professional objectivity and historical precision. Clearly the ball is in their court. Anachronism apart, does anyone seriously pretend to say that Nietzsche's ideas and actions did not concur to such a rise of political degeneration? Do anyone really dare to pretend that they could produce essentially different results today? Is Manu, in Nietzsche's interpretation, more palatable that Hitler or Mussolini? But if anyone, be he a gentile or a Jew, dares to answer "Yes", wouldn't that be even worse? Adding in effect self-serving blindness to crass ignorance? No! A Nietzschean fascist regime, even without "final solution" for the Jews, is not more palatable that the Hitlerite version. Once more you can count on the Proletariat and on all the chandalas of the world to throw this destructive crap in the dustbin of history. Human conscience and the libre-arbitre it supposes demand that each of us takes his own responsibility. "Once More".

FIRST SECTION

It used to be that young people around the world did not like to spend much time on Nietzsche's work. Its anti-humanist stance is naturally repulsive for young, generous minds. Until the fall of the socialist bloc, the cultural environment acted as an antidote. If I were to generalize from my one experience, one would have read the Twilight of Idols, Thus spoke Zarathustra and Beyond good and evil as a first step. By the time one was finished with these three books, the impression was clearly formed that Nietzsche is philosophically speaking a simpleton who is obsessively repeating the same reactionary clichés over and over again. This impression will later be confirmed each time the occasion presents itself to read more Nietzschean prose. In any case, my guess is that before 1991 very few young minds would have enjoyed studying Nietzsche as should generally be done, when done at all, with pen and paper. Even at that age, time is too precious!

Times, however, have changed. The disappearance of the Soviet bloc, and with it of its substantial dissuasive cultural and political influence, has opened wide the gates of a new "anti-plebeian" and anti-democratic movement on the world scale. Young and old alike can no longer afford the luxury to ignore the "enemy". Knowing Nietzsche in the text, and as widely as possible, is now becoming an necessary prophylaxis - I do not like to speak here in terms of "pre-emptive war" since, as Nietzsche well knew, "numbers" and "reason" are still largely on our side. Nevertheless, the task is urgent. Consequently, I for one surmounted my aesthetic reservations and "nausea" and decided to redo what I had done long ago but this time with pen and paper. The increasing amount of devout flagornerie around Nietzsche can no longer go unchecked. Just as yesterday, today's supporters of Nietzsche have to be made accountable for their anti-democratic and exclusivist (3) open and "subterranean" actions and propaganda. A full book will eventually follow. I nevertheless deem it an urgent task to rapidly present and debunk the main ideas spun by Nietzsche's diseased mind in this preliminary essay. My hope is that it might assist the younger readers to see through Nietzsche's poor art and, above all, to see through the abundant sycophantic literature which often abuses its academic mantle, poorly hiding behind the fact that Nietzsche conveniently died before both the first and the Second World War. Using a fake accusation of historical anachronism they pretend to shield Nietzsche from many obvious and deserved accusations. If we were to follow them, Nietzsche himself could not be responsible for a marked change in the "psychological world view" of the "elite" on the right side of the political spectrum in Western democracies. Ideas would indeed be of little worth if their predictable consequences were limited to the life span of their original authors! As we will show later, the vital argument to consider is quite different from theirs. The real issue is this: could Nietzsche's ideas and "system" of thought have produced different results than they did, including in their relation to active anti-Semitism? As we will show, it is a suicidal illusion to believe that they could. In fact, yesterday as today, Nietzscheans everywhere are aiming at nothing less than an "overall" (pardon the poor pun) elite change. In a new guise, the present Nietzschean project still arcs back to the original project to recreate a "cast" society.

As has been said before, Nietzsche's overriding concern is straightforward: " Who will become the master of the Earth" (4) His thesis is really a simple one. Indeed, once it is stated in its stark and naked entirety, it immediately appears to be so derisively plain as to make "the gods" (and, I am sure, many students) "laugh their heads off ". The main thesis is as follows: Modern societies are essentially plebeian societies whose cultural, religious and political becoming inexorably leads them to a greater democracy. Because the dominant classes have largely adopted these plebeian values, they simply risk being erased altogether from history. The Commune de Paris (1871) was indeed an ominous sign of things to come. Nietzsche is intimately convinced that a more egalitarian democracy can only produce more "mediocrity" and, in the end, alter "life" itself which, in the Nietzschean "state of nature", is sustained by the cultivation of Dionysian "orgiastic" impulses and the forceful preservation of naked inequality as the necessary precondition for the "overmen" very social and political existence. Nietzsche's "a-moral" project naturally follows from these premises. In order to reverse the egalitarian historical trends, one has to imperatively recreate a "new race" of "masters" who would literally stop at nothing to re-establish a cast society of masters and slaves. In this context, the unleashing of very destructive forces have to be welcomed even if they become so destructive that they are preventively deemed by Nietzsche to be beyond both good and evil. In fact, with his Thus spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche cold-bloodedly and hyper-consciously undertook to forge the complete initiation process designed to favour the emergence of this new, a-moral cast of "Ubermenschen" (i.e. "overmen").

Notwithstanding anything which is nowadays said about Nietzsche, neither Machiavelli, nor Burckhardt nor Schopenhauer nor anyone else is Nietzsche's real inspiration but Manu. Even Indou "Vedanta" and Buddhism or, for that matter, Islam, are unacceptable systems of thoughts to Nietzsche, simply because they "smell" of humanism, if not of egalitarianism, although they draw some passing praise for what Nietzsche takes to be their harsher, more archaic, sides.

For Nietzsche then, the egalitarian wheels of history have therefore to be immediately stopped and their direction reversed. This "retrogression" is presented as an "ascending" "return" to a presumed golden age of nature, although Nietzsche is Nietzschean enough to contemplate the possibility that this golden age never existed at all and would have to be reinvented from scratch to serve the overmen' needs. Nietzsche is very suspicious of Darwin and his "selection of the fittest". As he sees it, the "rabble" is not deprived of "cleverness" or even of "intelligence" as shown by its numerous religious and philosophical standard-bearers. As the "fittest" in Darwin sense might not coincide with the "fewest" in Nietzsche's sense, in characteristic fashion Nietzsche retroactively redefine "true" "nature" as the necessary biological and "physiological" precondition to support the previously axiomatically given "overman" as a "noble blond beast" proudly placed beyond any naturally defined good or evil. In other words, if it were necessary to destroy egalitarianism all together, Nietzsche and his cohorts of silly Nietzscheans are ready to march like a "herd", not only beyond good and evil but also "beyond man" himself. Ontologically speaking then, Nietzsche's return is but a willed monstrosity: It either embodies a wish for the creation of some sort of "Golem" or it posits, without the slightest order of proof, be it ethnological, anthropological, "psychological" or whatever else, two distinct human species, a dominant one incarnated in the overmen and their armed "warriors", the other represented by the chandala/plebeian "rabble". In brief, the supposed Indonesian (Aryan?) social trinity including the figures of the priest, the warrior and the plebeian but duly revised by Nietzsche for no other reason than his impulsive dislike of "priests" anywhere! Dumezil and Danielou would, by far, be more ethnologically instructive here, were it not for their unfortunate (or fortunate?) failure to suspiciously pander to the philo-Semitism displayed by contemporary prospective overmen's lackeys.

My one thesis is also very plain: Nietzsche can only be objectively understood when his ideas are tracked back to this unique and obsessive "idée fixe", that of a "return" to a state of nature beyond good and evil which is so vital for the emergence of his cast of "overmen". My firm contention is that, contrary to what so many Nietzschean pundits falsely and consciously pretend to demonstrate, no Nietzschean theme whatsoever can properly be understood unless it is first put back into its proper "context", namely Nietzsche's obsession with the creation of an environment conducive to such a desired "return". This is true of Nietzsche's conception of the alleged and problematic "ring of perpetual recurrences", of "modernity", of "science" and "truth", of "religion", of "psychology" and the Nietzschean conception of the "ego"(5), of "tragedy", of " misogyny" and so on and so forth. It is, of course, true of Nietzsche's conception of "Judaism". Unless it be plain ignorance, pretensions to the contrary represent the sheer intellectual dishonesty of a herd of people, academics included, who are attempting to legitimize Nietzsche's work and sulfurous fame as a paradoxical mask to further otherwise philosophically, socially and politically uncontestable objectives, all aimed at subverting free and objectively grounded thought in order to pave the way for a new "cast" society.

Among the persons who must bear full responsibility for the present tendentious rehabilitation of Nietzsche one finds Jason Epstein, Walter Kaufman and few other dogsbody like Peter Gay. With obvious inadmissible after-thoughts, all do their best to defend two main theses on Nietzsche. The first, feeding essentially on Nietzsche's rupture with Wagner and on a few other half-digested remarks here and there, purports to transform Nietzsche into a kosher phyla-Semite. The second attempts to exonerate Nietzsche from his sumptuous reputation as a direct precursor of fascist and Nazi ideologies. As we will see, these theses stand on mere affirmations, which we are supposed to accept as irrefutable demonstrations. Nietzsche's cultists also rely on a well-known trick and straight-facedly accuse the unsympathetic readers of their master's indigestible prose of "dining off a few scraps that Nietzsche had thrown them in a careless mood" (Gay, in Kaufman II, up ix). Then, acutely feeling that their far-fetched and intellectually temerarious assertions cannot really carry the day, they resort to yet another known trick and simply ask the dubious readers to suspend his judgment. Thus Kaufmann himself writes: " No doubt, many relevant documents will appear in years to come. What is called for in this introduction is merely an attempt to forestall snap judgments about Nietzsche" (Kaufmann II, p xxi). It would be simpler and more Nietzschean in "spirit" to ask the prospective rabble to suspend judgment until such a time when the new overmen, some Jews included, will have succeeded in firmly establishing their cast society over the rest of us.

Obviously these pundits are claiming too much for their own good. Kaufmann for example makes quite a great deal of his own sentence-by-sentence translations. In principle he cannot be wrong and one can only admire his uninhibited use of the word "overman" instead of the connotation-laced "superman". Kaufmann parti pris to minimize any betrayal of the author's meaning while translating is admirable. Transposing the dilemma into another language for instance, we could readily see that a "gentilhomme" would definitively be a figure likely to be found in La Rochefoucauld's works, never in Nietzsche's who is happy to make do with his "surhomme". There will never be enough praise lavished on a good translation. The real question is: Why do Kaufmann and people like him "sincerely" think that their own translations and criticisms can unilaterally change the quasi-unanimous interpretations of Nietzsche derived from earlier translations in multiple languages, namely English, French, Italian and Spanish to stick to languages accessible to me? Or in any other set of languages for that matter. On all the main points at issue even Kaufmann's translation does not change the only possible set of interpretations of Nietzsche's work as a furiously anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian thinker who was intellectually instrumental in the subsequent development of Fascism and Nazism, as was already demonstrated above and will be demonstrated again in more detail in what follows. However, what can be said of the new translations cannot be said of the unabashedly tendentious interpretations hazardously derived from them by Nietzsche's cultists. The conclusion is plain: when the new pro-Nietzschean interpretations can be shown to be gratuitous, they should frankly be denounced as deleterious and demagogical ideologies. Without suspending judgment, in fact. At this stage, most of what is to be known of Nietzsche's intellectual elucubrations is already well known. On the main points at issue, unless Nietzsche were to contradict his painfully constructed "system" of thought up until the outbreak of his folly, only nuances can be affected by new, ether to unknown first hand documents. The only notable exceptions would be Nietzsche's relationship with various unpalatable"personalities" and organizations not acknowledge so far. Unfortunately, because of the pro-Nietzschean biases of Kaufmann and others like him, this is the area where censure, auto-censure and spin, far worse than those inflicted by Nietzsche's sister, are to be feared. Let me just challenge here Kaufmann and all the modern pro-Nietzschean "herd" to come clear on Nietzsche appurtenance, relationship and sympathies for certain known secret societies and unsavoury characters, some of whom played a substantial role in the development of Fascism and Nazism by consciously interpreting Nietzsche's truly precursor work! Already, some elements of Wagner own family courageously lifted part of this shameful hygienic curtain. As the proverb say: Either put up or shut up (which you will no doubt agree is the first principle of honest intellectual analysis and objective literary criticism, even if some people obviously would prefer to rephrase it in "bridge" friendly language).

Similarly ludicrous yet overconfident assertions are found elsewhere: "...Nietzsche wrote too well for his own good" write the inimitable Peter Gay "He coined memorable aphorisms and seductive locutions that have been used against him - by and large unfairly. Even if (indeed, especially if) we do not know much about Nietzsche, we are likely to remember his terms: "the blond beast", which can easily be taken as an Aryan megalomania, or the "Ubermensch," usually translated as "Superman,"thus awakening images of Clark Kent donning his cape. And what of his heartless, condescending observation, "Everything about woman has a solution: it is called pregnancy"? Does Peter Gay pretend to demonstrate that on these and other similar issues Nietzsche, contrary to his detractors factually substantiated opinion, does not mean what he so laboriously says and so profusely repeats in all his published works and in all his writing forms? Apparently this other quiet American is content with his own affirmations and simplistic idiosyncrasies. He adds: " Though such Nietzschean views have an unpleasant aftertaste (sic!), most can be satisfactorily (sic!) clarified by the context and the dominant style of thinking that pervades his thought. But this means that one can judge Nietzsche only after reading him, not before". Of course you would expect Peter Gay to do essentially the same job on Nietzsche's comments on Judaism, which apparently is always taken "out of context". "Thus, says Peter Gay, his infrequent anti-Jewish remarks, normally surrounded by declarations of admiration for Jews, could be stripped of this praise, so that they could misdescribe Nietzsche's philo-Semitism as anti-Semitism" (Peter Gay, in Kaufmann II, p x and xi) Ridicule is said to kill. But, obviously, by the new Nietzschean standards, Peter Gay is safe. If the reluctant acceptance of some Jews among the announced "overmen" were a definite proof of philo-Semitism then, naturally, sincere non-racists, anti-anti-Semitics and civil-libertarians all over the world, among them the vast majority of the Jewish "people" itself, would rapidly have to accept the unconvincing idea according to which any direct confrontation of the "overmen'" ideology anywhere in the world, be it propagated by pro-Nietzschean and suicidal Jewish pundits or by closet fascists and neo-Nazis, has now become an intolerable sin. Not a sacred democratic and egalitarian duty.

Let us now look at some specific issues in order to demonstrate how ludicrously out of context this pro-Nietzschean readings can be. Although the Nietzschean cultists themselves seem to have no immediate clues about it, reading is indeed a preliminary step; thinking critically and honestly in order to grasp what was read is another thing all together. To prove this point, we will now discuss some contentious Nietzschean issues at some length, namely Nietzsche's philo- or anti-Semitism, his relationship and responsibility with the subsequent rise of Fascism and Nazism, his relationship to dialectics and logic, especially as it pertains to the conception of "nature" and of the alleged "ring of perpetual recurrences" and finally to Nietzsche (and Nietzschean) as persons beyond "good taste".

A) Nietzsche's devastating alleged "philo-Semitism"

A careful reading of Nietzsche's published work yields this unambiguous conclusion: Nietzsche admires the "Jews" for their alleged stubborn ability to lie and deceive in order to preserve their peculiar cast society, the greatest good in Nietzsche's conception of the world. Yet, naturally, this admiration does not extend to all Jews. It is reserved to the non-nomadic, non-egalitarian "Jews" described in Kings, according to Nietzsche's characteristic selective conceptual constructs. It does definitively not extend to the Jewish society dominated by the much-despised Jewish Priests. Aside from this, Jewish culture is uniformly and "logically" despised as the very "soil" out of which the abomination that is Christianity, in Nietzsche's own eyes, was born. The deduction is immediate and unequivocal: If one desires sincerely to recreate a "noble" cast, to create pure "overmen" then a double cleansing process is necessary, the first among non-Jews, the second among Jews. While it is true that Nietzsche's conception of the overman is not univocally racially based, little comfort can be derived from it. Nietzsche, as a self-alleged "good European", forces himself to express his views in "universal terms", compatible on the surface with the emergence of a multiethnic dominant cast. However, who but the pro-Nietzschean cultists can fail to see that, at best, his conception of the overman entails a prior renunciation of one's own culture and background, including religious background, simply because such a prior renunciation is one of the main attribute of the overman? Nietzsche is, in fact, consciously co-opting the much despised Christian prophesies for his own manipulated use. These predicted the conversion of some Jews (and naturally the elimination of all the rest) as an accompanying event of the Parousia, the Second coming of Christ. The Middle Ages abounds with contra Jews and Adversus Iudeos pamphlets predicting and describing such an event. Do the Nietzschean cultists really expect us to believe that Nietzsche's directed use of philology is at a par with their own "modern" use and understanding of it, and that he actually took the pain to write an Antichrist and a Contra Wagner innocuously"? Who is reading out of context? As a matter of fact: Who is actually reading with minimal intellectual honesty - not to speak of the necessary prior historical and cultural background? Jews, as a religious community or a "people", could indeed have better friends than Nietzsche and many Nietzschean sycophants!

Furthermore, Nietzsche is not without his conceptual vacillations (if not his intimate contradictions). Contrary to his cultists, he sometimes admits to it himself, always when he feels the need to become even more critical of every thought and attitude, which might impede the emergence of his cherished "overmen", his personal, lunatic Parousia. Nowhere is this clearer than when he looks for prospective worthy candidates and thus confronts his peculiar "universal" values with national traits. Although, because of the universal rational adduced above, he temporarily envisaged mixed marriage between (male) Junkers and (female) Jews, this engoument lasted shorter than Lou Salomé's interest in him. The important point here is twofold: First, Nietzsche vacillation on this very point could not lead to anything else than nationalist competition and exclusivism. Secondly, this same intimately necessary internal drift is in fact partly accomplished by Nietzsche himself despite his oft quoted yet misunderstood criticisms of Wagner, of his brother-in-law and few others like them. Pro-Nietzscheans like to unequivocally present these coherent if crude criticisms for an alleged Nietzschean hatred of anti-Semites. We will elaborate on greater length in the forthcoming book. Suffice here to recall, Nietzsche's dislike for the Teutonic Christian heritage and his parallel hope in the more remote Junker. When Nietzsche attacks Germany, it is for being the creation of Catholic priests and princes and the creation of Luther, that is to say, for being the very embodiment of all the despised Christian values and all the other despised humanitarian values destined by Nietzsche for a "complete revaluation". Yet when asked which German author the "good European" Nietzsche prefers he unhesitatingly answers "Bismarck" and avoidably runs away - not for shame, as you might think, or out of a sense of embarrassment, but for fear of being entirely understood by unfriendly ears. Nevertheless, his conception is crystal clear on this issue: France cultural greatness is an unmistakable sign of decadence, ineffective cultural "squandering" being an superfluous ornament like a peacock's resting tail, as profusely beautiful as it is useless. Germany's alleged cultural "mediocrity" and Bismarck's forceful actions represent the converse, much desirable state of affairs for Nietzsche. Nietzsche states the matter quite clearly in the preface of his unfinished book The will to power: "It is precisely among Germans today that people think less than anywhere else. But who knows? In two generations one will no longer require the sacrifice involved in any nationalistic squandering of power and in becoming stupid" and for good measure he adds: "(Formerly I wished I had written my Zarathustra in German)" (in Kaufmann III, p xxiii). Again we are witnessing here the full extend of Nietzsche's methodology: Anything acceptable has to square off with the necessary emergence and sustainability of the overmen as a cast even if, and one is led to add without pun especially if, this is done ex post facto. Could one then safely deduce from this that in so far as the German Reich of his time is criticized it is only because it was still culturally the heir of the old Christian German Holy Empire, whereas Nietzsche's preference clearly goes for an universal new world empire copied on the pre-Christian roman empire. A pagan empire where reborn (born-again?) Germans, shaped according to Zarathustra's initiation process and Nietzsche's other unscrupulous advises, would hold a place of choice, if for no other good reason than the historical default of mild-mannered France and shopkeeper England? Notwithstanding the cultists intellectual and ethical falsifications, Hitler's German Reich is far closer to Nietzsche's dream than anything else that is historically known. It, too, was ready to accept allied overmen as convenient Gaulieters and guard-dogs. If it were not for the lack of armament and poor propensity for vast scale blitzkriegs, Mussolini's regime, adequately "philo-Semite" until 1936-38, would qualify as an acceptable form of Nietzsche's utopia! But does the adoption of Gobineau's crudely racist theory and their industrial application against all "inferior races", Jews included, constitute the sole damnable criticism of Nietzsche's universal Reich as implemented by the Nazis? At the end of the day, Wagner and his heros Parsifal are guilty of a simple Christian "relapse" in Nietzsche's eyes, crude anti-Semitism being a mere aside in his system of thought. Indeed, you would not have to stretch things beyond the reasonable in order to come up with an acceptable, typically Nietzschean version of the Nazi "Thousand Years" regime: Just allow for a very few specimen drawn from Jewish stock, preferably useful bankers in spite of base prejudices (but by definition not Jews anymore), convert them to the overman a-moral psychology and behaviour and send the rest of the Jewish "rabble" in the same labour camps where the Polish and other East European "rabble" was sent by Hitler's regime which was truly Nietzschean in this respect. Some improvement! Especially when compared to the fate awaiting the "socialists and anarchists"! Dares anyone exclaim: Pity! here? And thus happily become a new Nietzschean cultist of the kind currently cultivated and adored along with Wagner in the USA and in Israel? In the end, Nietzsche conception would probably be more efficient as far as eradication (of the Jews as Jews) is concerned though morally dirtier than the Nazis' own "final solution". Dirtier because more covert and insidious than the repelling Nazi brutish version. But apparently the cultists want us to believe the opposite and expect us to blindly trust their unsubstantiated and shameful assertions.

In the end the problem comes down to the natural antagonism of what I have called exclusivist conceptions of the world. (See le lit du neo-facsisme et Annexe: aux racines du nazisme, below). Two competitive claims to either the status of divinely "elected people" or "masters of the universe" can never peacefully coexist for long- and the Americans have already shown how inhibited candidates to this hegemonic status like themselves can irrationally risk undermining the status quo inherent in any nuclear dissuasion regime through a forceful rolling-back of the adversary, over and above any determined containment policies. A trend which is likely to become especially true against a prospective rival who years after years pitifully relies on more than 6 billion dollars of external aid and other hand-outs to barely survive while idiotically antagonizing all its immediate neighbours! History has already shown that unless a strict secularity becomes a cardinal social and political praxis, that is to say, unless "divine election" is relegated to a strictly private level dealing exclusively with the development of the Self, not even decent Agnostics will be able to cope for long with more theocratically inclined members of different obediences, not to speak of other more overtly religious tendencies. Even the evolution of mainstream more or less esoteric societies is fraught with similar exclusivist tensions. Especially those which insist on the revelation of one's own soul to oneself in a mixture of kabalistic, and even older astrological and alchemist thought and practices. These can be shown to have directly influenced Nietzsche's own perverted thought and, in fact, their approach pervades, albeit in a twisted fashion, the initiation process as laid out, for instance, in Thus spoke Zarathustra, including its alleged philo-Semitism.

We should, therefore, be well advised to heed the premonitory signs: With Nietzsche the Jew even as an "overman" remains the "Ugliest Man". And the matter gets worse when the initiation process of these types of societies is integrated as the 7th or the 18th rank in other obediences exhibiting the same basic tensions, for essentially identical reasons. For instance, the European Rosicrucian fraternity around Nietzsche's time could not satisfactorily reconcile its kabalistic and esoteric practices with the Catholic leaning of some of its members. And we are only talking here of mainstream tensions. Similarly, the higher echelons of the established Churches and the dignitaries of the Nazi regime could well collaborate on some social and political (Nietzschean) issues but, in the end, they could only envisage their permanent submission to the Nazis with the same horror with which they could envisage their moral and political submission to the "Jews". Despite the "good European" ideology entertained by some, consecutive to the forging of a renewed Sainte Alliance after the defeat of the Commune de Paris, Nietzsche's half-backed and insincere universalism could no more cope with the reality of the Balance of Power than it could with its internal conceptual latent contradictions. The socio-democrats à la Kautsky and many members or sympathizers of the Bund leaning toward Martov and the Mensheviks succumbed in their own renegade ways to their insincere and half-backed conception of universality, a fateful error which the Bolsheviks, armed among other things with an adequate theory of "the national question" did not commit. But apparently, the lessons of history are only visible to those who are willing to see!

To conclude and out of fairness to Nietzsche's sycophantic modern cultists, we should briefly addresses two questions: The first relates to anachronism, the second to the feasibility of Nietzsche's system. Given what we just said above and given a straight forward reading of Nietzsche's heart-felt praise of Manu provided in the Annexe below, who could dare to pretend that Nietzsche's conception could have produced anything other than what it actually produced that is the rise of Fascism and of Nazism, that is undemocratic and utterly totalitarian regimes? Furthermore, given what has been said on exclusivism and the national question could any political implementation of Nietzsche's overmen blueprint produce anything else than permanent global war and bloody racism? How confident would then one be to make of Nietzsche a philo-Semite instead of what he really is, namely the seducing Sirens' song of anti-Semitism in any of its forms, be they secular or theocratic? In other (plain) words: If right-wing Americans can, in typical Nietzschean fashion, conceive themselves as unquestioned "primus inter pares", can the right-wing Jews be for them anything else than the morally "Ugliest of men", that is, acceptable "Jews" for the sole reason that they are said to have long refined the necessary traits of the overman who is not shy to place himself "beyond good and evil", thus becoming, in effect, a Nietzschean "ego" who remorsefully renounces his own Jewishness together with his humanism? And what can be said about feasibility? Nietzsche's has come to believe in his own inept understanding of the master/slave dialectics: The "nature" of the "overman" is such in his eyes that he would be looked at with admiration by the chandalas and the plebeian slaves! Yet, Nietzsche would not swear on this unilateral adulation and therefore, with unabashed realism, he ends up advocating a complete separation (segregation?) of the two worlds! In typically inept Nietzschean fashion, he simply forgets that the plebeian rabble can do without the "overman" superfluous cast in his difficult task to perpetuate his survival and ensure a decent livelihood whereas the opposite is definitively (and ontologically? Economically?) not true. The old panem et circenses tactic is a poor illusion in a world characterized by an historical dialectic based on the social relationships spun by capitalism especially when the exploitative nature of these relationships and their fragility have already been revealed by both the Commune de Paris and the long and valuable experience of the Bolshevik revolutions and "real socialism" experiences. In the end, even panem et Circen (bread and Circe) (Kaufmann I, p 468) ends up being a dangerous lunatic conception of "nature" for Nietzsche as was vividly shown by the desperate "hug" who fittingly marked the end of his awakened philosophical career! Believing and following Nietzsche's initiation process would seem the best way to rediscover one's own intimate Self as an idiotes in all senses of the word! When declaring an open class war, it would seem bad strategy to assume the love of your prospective victims, especially when they have developed "une conscience malheureuse" over the fact that their own surplus value is what feeds you and keeps you alive! This point needs to be repeated since many Nietzschean adepts of the "technetronic" society have already envisaged plain Nietzschean solutions to what they see as a surplus labour force resulting from the continued increase of productivity, achieved thanks to ever new and sophisticated labour saving technologies. History and the plebeian "reserve army" might still teach them in non-ambiguous terms that "inflation and monetary phenomena" are not the only aspects of reality they so dangerously misunderstand! Nietzsche had more foresight when he vividly expressed his intimate fear in numbers: Given the choice, the rabble would prefer the sharing of work and a truly egalitarian redistribution of wealth rather than their enforced re-enslavement. And in the end, numbers effect the changes in democratic and undemocratic societies alike. This reality can be summed up with one simple phrase " the political consciousness of the proletariat". Notwithstanding Nietzschean lunatic dreams, after The Communist Manifesto the historical clock cannot be turned back any more, especially not in a crude Nietzschean way. Beware! The (human) spirit usually brooks no fools. Belated and perverted "ricorso" are more likely to translate into previously experienced "riscossa".

B) Nietzsche's un-natural rigmarole.

By attempting to single-handedly suppress any "dialectics of nature" Nietzsche dances a grotesque dance and, like the serpent of old, ends up biting his one tail in a vain tentative to illustrate a logically shaky "ring of perpetual recurrence". It is at the same time easy and crucial to realize the central role played but Nietzsche's pseudo-concept of "nature" in his whole system of thought. Once more, it is nothing else than a teleologically fabricated construct aimed at creating the possibility of the overman's existence by an act of will and subsequently at legitimizing the return albeit an a-morally ascendant return to such a state of nature! As always with Nietzsche, the demonstrations (or what purport to be such) are predetermined and ex post facto. Avowedly he does not have any other choice. He cannot accept the old philosophical notion of a state of nature such as can be found in Hobbes or Locke, let alone in Rousseau since this notion, closely related to the ideological necessity the nascent bourgeoisie felt to undermine the feudal society, still politically dominant at the time, argues in favour of a basic albeit formal equality of Man. Nor can Nietzsche find any solace in Spinoza's double concept of nature, which leads to the same ethical conclusion perhaps in an even more determined fashion. But, what is more, Nietzsche knows that he cannot even trust the otherwise undisputable scientific conception of natural evolution as conceived by Darwin and all of modern science after him. Nietzsche has a pathological fear of cleverness and of intelligence to the point of sickly forgetting his basic notions of arithmetic (if not of probability): The worm, he says, has developed a definitive rabble-like strategy since when, stepped upon, he splits into two viable parts in order to increase its chances of survival (presumably in a new (Hitlerite?) overworm's world where one does not run the risk to be stepped upon again!). Yet the rabble and its numerous "priests" have shown over and over again their ability and propensity for intelligence and cleverness, all used indiscriminately to support a pitiable world which incessantly stultifies the orgiastic Dionysian impulses of Nietzschean life! Though proudly claiming descent from great apes, Darwinians, in Nietzsche's penetrating though half-blind eyes, suddenly become strange and dangerous monkeys and chandalas! Having in a characteristic Nietzschean fashion eliminated the real world and the theories it produces about its own existence, Nietzsche is therefore forced to invent a plausible one from scratch. If, through incessant repetitions, he succeeds in establishing this plausibility he knows he will be spared the impossible task of actually producing a coherent demonstration. The forceful and bullying "fewest" are therefore put in the place of the "fittest" and their cleverness and intelligence dependent "survival".

Nietzsche's ploy is a simplistic yet necessary trick. From the beginning he misunderstood Schopenhauer at the same time that he misunderstood and hated all the philosophical theoreticians of historical becoming. The "truth" flashed before Nietzsche's eyes thanks to the panic caused by the Commune de Paris, aggravated by personal humiliation since Nietzsche's own experience as a warrior was reduced to the role of a nurse and an imprudent one at that! In fact, the cultural context was such that Nietzsche had a better view of the crucial issues presented by the past, present, and foreseen future than any pro-Nietzschean cultist has today. Historical becoming especially in German culture was directly tied to the long tradition, which passed to Hegel mainly through Herder and Vico and Feuerbach, and before them Luther and Thomas Muntzer in particular. But it had taken ominous tones with the vocal so-called "young Hegelians" now political emulated by the socialists and superseded by Marx and in practice by the Commune de Paris. The subjective philosophy of Schopenhauer could therefore be of no political immediate use unless reformulated in a purely predetermined and voluntarist practical way. The "will to power" is not a mere Nietzschean notion but a very central one. It in fact provided Nietzsche's way out of his early quandary: If becoming leads to the increased demise of class society, "what could be done" to reverse the trend? To radically eliminate the sheer possibility of historical becoming Nietzsche chose to be Nietzschean enough to see and accept the fact that the "dialectics of nature" itself had to be eradicated first. In fact, eradicating the dialectics of nature would spare him the need to refute the overwhelming thesis of historicism and historical materialism and of their early predecessors, the early pre-communists and the millenarian believers in the Age of the Spirit, the so-called and multi-facetted subterranean movement of the Eternal Gospel. Nietzsche accepts that the proponents of becoming, especially the "socialists and anarchists" he fears most, are basically right but his conclusion is diametrically opposed to theirs: Man evolves towards ever greater equality and democracy; therefore Man is a lost cause and should be overcome by an act of will, the will of the true overmen. Since there is no objective basis for this project either in nature or in history, Nietzsche's social and political blueprint is the perfect recipe for the creation of social and political monsters. For those who would be inclined to still grant the least benefit of doubt to Nietzsche, let us recall the philosophical and historical inanity of his two supposedly operational Archetypes: the Apollonian and the Dionysian. Let us recall that Nietzsche's conception of Dionysus and Dionysian cult are totally alien with anything recalling Ancient Greece. It is a mere ex post facto fabrication, and a scoundrel fabrication at that. The Ancient Greeks, indeed all Ancient cultures, despised the destructive impulse which the Greeks conceptualized as hubris. Especially the Ancient Greeks, who conceived of themselves like social animals who should even resist the will of God's to defend their beloved human civilization, would never dream in their wildest and drug-induced dreams to emulate Nietzsche and to posit hubris as the highest good. They had enough good sense to understand that doing so would destroy any possibility to sustain social life, let alone human civilization, in a more drastic way than the transgression of other priced social rules such as the abhorrence of parricide! Consequently the Greeks like all ancient people, and perhaps with an even clearer conscience, looked for the appropriate religious, social and political mediations. Greek tragedy so grotesquely misunderstood and instrumental zed by a pathetic Nietzsche was specifically designed to play such a (pedagogical) mediatory social and cultural function. It celebrated the human spirit stubborn reluctance to give in against overwhelming forces be they induced by gods, demons, destiny or other more natural causes. Dionysus was invoked for the same functional reasons, which make of this otherwise luminous and helpful god the antithesis of the grotesque and monstrous figure devised voluntarily and with appropriate philosophical pride by Nietzsche and his silly cultists. Who on Earth can miss the meaning the Ancient Greeks attributed to Aristotle's reaction when confronted with the hubris of Alexander the Great suddenly dreaming himself to be the King of Kings even for Macedonians and Greeks and the subsequent grandiose tragedy, which necessarily ensued? In fact, despite all appearances to the contrary, by singing the praise of a brutishly orgiastic Dionysus, Nietzsche was not celebrating life: On the contrary, with half a century advance, he was singing the known fascistic paean of death "Viva la muerta". He, in fact, was his own "will to the negation of his negation". Fittingly he had come back full circle.

This, yet again, pitiful Nietzschean destiny was already announced in his shaky conception of the "ring of perpetual recurrences". Here Nietzsche shows that logic itself, this ("feminine" or "queer" ?) queen of science can follow the same regimen as "nature" did in Nietzschean murderous hands. The problem is that, in Nietzsche perspicacious view, there is really nothing decent enough to return to! All is irremediably and ineluctably polluted by "Pity" and its servants! The Holy Ghost is sure to be a greater pro-rabble scoundrel than the Son was. As for the Father, like the Proverb and many holy and un-holy scriptures are wont to say in typical Nietzschean reverse fashion, like Son like Father! The usual "soil" of all "ugliest" men in every époque and every age is painfully visible anywhere. And, upon careful consideration, Darwin could well turn out to be the ugliest and cleverest of them all! Therefore in your return make sure to simultaneously ascend, so as to avoid unpleasant encounters! Here Nietzsche would draw a round zero for originality but a perfect note for consistency: He is in fact simply (and voluntarily) reversing the ascending historical spiral with which thinkers like Vico, after Gioachino di Fiore, envisaged the advance of humanity, even though old schemes could be replayed in a different form, because, after all, we are always dealing with the same, invariable (as Balibar would say) human history carried out by Man himself. In the end, Nietzsche cannot escape the contradictions into which he voluntarily cornered himself: For if his "ring of perpetual recurrence" has any meaning at all, that is if the return of his "blond beasts" is already written why would he have to bother at all with an idiosyncratic and out of tune conception? But if he has to finally resort to an ascending return why bother at all with a conception of nature if not as a conscious albeit dangerous scoundrel occultation of Nietzsche's consciously instrumentalized metamorphoses of Man in something radically different, overtly said to be "beyond Man" and "beyond good and evil". Aren't the dark shadow of doctor Mengele's "scientific experiments" already foreseen here? Nietzsche writes "Morality of the physicians: The sick man is a parasite of society" (Twilight p 536); and again praising Manu's description of "Aryan humanity": "The chandalas are the fruit of adultery, incest and crime (these necessary consequences of the concept of breeding" (Twilight p 504). Aren't, then, such experiments an intrinsic necessity of Nietzsche's idiosyncratic conception of "nature" as much as an SS or a Son of Salò kind of education would be part of the emergence and formation of the overmen - practices which are all, in fact, anticipated in Thus spoke Zarathustra? But perhaps this is not acceptable because Nietzsche is said to be philo-Semite. Well then, who invidiously lurks at the "prospect" of modern genetics to radically transform the genetic foundation of the human species cum human species and takes issue with anything, which would minimally smell of precautionary principles? Could perhaps modern genetics -forgetting everything known about the distinction between brain on the one hand and mind one the other, let alone forgetting all that is known about the necessary interrelationship between dialectics of nature and history, - be marshaled to recreate the genetic make-up of Ancient, and "legitimately" anointed but brutally murdered, or otherwise disposed of, High Priests? Would not even modern (philo-Semite) Nietzschean cultists denounce such a project as a scandalous scoundrels' "supercherie". Would they honestly swear though that, to the best of their knowledge, such lunatic dreams are not enthusiastically entertained by some of the most exclusivist, theocratic and fascistic fringes of philo-Semite and non-necessarily philo-Semite yet much concerned modern "Nietzscheans"? But if a cautious and self-interested mantle of silence is drawn over this and related problematic, what is left of intellectual honesty? What is left of the meaning of democracy? Indeed, what is academic freedom worth in a pre-Nietzschean society which would publish apologetic Nietzschean rehabilitations and other such devious rubbishes without a blink - expecting, of course, no institutional criticism, the mediatic auto-censure doing the rest of the job in silencing the egalitarians' justified protests?

C) Nietzsche as the deconstructed man of poor taste.

If the "overman" can be said to be the anti-thesis of the "gentilhomme" and of the Renaissance "honnête homme", indeed of the post-revolutionary citizen as the social fulfillment of the human hope invested in the earlier partial forms, admittedly through no direct fault of Jacob Burckhardt, it can similarly be affirmed that Nietzsche is the anti-thesis of the man of good taste (indeed of the "man of reason", as the ideal of European Enlightenment). Fads are fads. But could you even imagine a non-Nietzschean American reader not shrugging in shocked amazement at Kaufmann's suggestion that Nietzsche importance to the history of philosophy far surpasses that of Descartes, Pascal, Voltaire, Rousseau, Bergson and Sartre not to speak of Kant and Hegel! Kaufmann probably still under the nefarious influence of his sentence by sentence translations - an unfortunate process in this case since it implies the total emotional and intellectual investment of the translator - can in fact write confidently and without a trace of shame or self-esteem that : "One may actually be led to wonder whether in philosophy there is an inverse proportion between profundity and importance on the one hand, and clarity and excellence of style on the other" ( Kaufmann II, p xix) Presumably the good professor appreciates Sartre's syntaxes for its effortless prowess rather than its quasi-clinical precision and sustained endurance. And, perhaps, he is easily fooled by Bergson's charming style, the same style that explains his success among Parisian, especially feminine, crowds! Trading a single Lettre provinciale for all of Nietzsche's works would indeed be groundless Nietzschean economy! (At best it would be extortion by the unproductive overman even though the modern Nietzschean cultists have not yet told us why "autodafés" should be thought to be alien to pure, unalterated Nietzschean logic). Be it as it may, who in his or her right mind would be ready to voluntarily follow Nietzsche in his artificial fakely ascending return at the cost of sacrificing, Socrates, Plato, all those already cited above as well as a great many others, including Schopenhauer and Dostoevsky? American authors themselves would be promptly purged. Emerson, differently appreciated by a José Marti, scores some points for a pun found useful when writing Zarathustra, although it bears mentioning that, in this initiation book, Emerson's "Yo me sucedo a mi mismo" is carefully rephrased to entice the overman to risk his one life only after he has made sure to leave an heir. Courageux mais pas téméraire, this Nietzschean blond beast! For the rest Nietzsche liked the gaillardise of a comment concerning power and lust, though clearly taken out of its characteristically Emersonian context. Similarly, Nietzsche believes he can instrumentalize James's "flow of consciousness" to substantiate his own vacuous "psychology" of the (inflated) "ego" but, in the end, one is forced to admit that his expressed admiration, like the admiration he expressed for Joyce's use of "ricorsi" (taken straight from Vico) is based on a total and childish misunderstanding of these authors' artistic and social intentions. For the rest Thomas Paine, Jefferson, Thoreau, John Brown, Sweezy, Edgar Snow, Paul Robeson and many like them, including the young anti-war folk singer Bob Dylan would have to be considered as mouthpieces of the "rabble", an issue on which the American (philo-Semite or not) Nietzscheans should peremptorily be asked to come clean: Are these authors, in the Nietzschean cultists comprehension of things, irremediably un-American, are they alien to the "spirit of America"? Or do they represent the best that the Republic has to offer in cultural and political terms?(6) (Conversely, which fascist or Nazi philosophers, asides from Nietzsche and Heidegger so useful today for the prospective Semitic and philo-Semite "overmen", did history remember? Does even Gentile's "pur act" merits anything other than an historical analysis concerned with the true "trahison des clercs"?) Following Nietzsche in his sadistic destruction of the cultural environment characteristic of Man as a species, who would be left standing? Thucydide? Raphael? Cesare Borgia? Even these do not entirely meet the syphilitic brain's criteria! Goethe himself is to dangerously close to his "Roslein auf der Heiden" to qualify and his Faust is decidedly a utter monster, a rabble standard-bearer too easily touched by grace and, God forbid, by "pity"! Once again, what remain is Nietzsche's own figments of a diseased imagination, namely his utterly "monstrous" and so poorly extra-ordinaire, in the Ancient Greeks' understanding of the word, own idiosyncratic constructs: Dionysus, Julius Cesare and, of course, Manu. The Buddha himself is too much of a Buddha and the thirty bodhisattvas of some Buddhist schools (pointing to an earlier Asian common ancestry) definitively exhibit a much too pronounced Promethean-like dominant tendency to be entirely palatable despite the unacknowledged common heritage with the expurgated kabalistic Zephirots much esteemed in Nietzsche's rarefied and conceited (exclusivists?) circles! Islam itself is naturally suspicious in Nietzsche's eyes given its egalitarian main message despite the much liked archaic elements it finally retained in its (commentated) doxa. Since one does not actually go without the other, can real good taste and reason be reduced to the conscious a-moralistic instrumentalization of a human demented hubris, even at the cost of a strict ascetic initiation? Who but an overt fascist would ever find Nietzsche's overman world livable or simply tolerable? A puritanical environment can perhaps partly explain the receptivity of Nietzsche's apparently anti-conformist and anti-clerical fakely outrageous reactions. But in order to criticize the suffocating influence of a Cromwell would a man of good taste and reason flank with Milton rather than Winstanley and later William Blake? Or with Oscar Wilde and Thomas Mann? Everything is so irremediably fake with Nietzsche: A true anti-conformist would see his "freedom space" augmented and assured only through a general human liberation and emancipation, including that of women. Are we to believe that truly liberated mores can only be attained through the subjection of the majority of the human race, previously dehumanized? Even Sade would not have gone so far since, contrary to Nietzsche, he had some practical idea, albeit a perverted one, of un-inhibited pleasure! Similarly Nietzsche's presumed chocking anti-clericalism is truly pathetic when and in the manner he expresses it, even in Switzerland! The great anti-clerical battles had already been won and a descent understanding of secularity (let alone its filiations with the religious and secular conception of becoming) would have spared him many ridiculous and truly conformist postures despite all appearances to the contrary! It turns out that even his grandstanding lacks any class and is as convoluted and fake as his German syntaxes is said to be by the most truthful critics. To form a decent idea of authentic anti-conformist and anti-clerical laugh, just compare the vitality of decadent Picasso and his rabble entourage in the Bateau Lavoir époque with Nietzsche's diseased and sublimated own ressentiment. Here is the stuff, which a Prévert could appropriately and sympathetically render, not in far-fetched, pretentious and repetitive aphorism but in "vers libres" and in proudly proletarian "Paroles". While Alfred Jarry had prophetically allowed King Ubu to self-destruct through an un-inhibited public exposure, Nietzsche's diseased mind had already been busily working on the vulgarization of his archetypal overman, assiduously trying to legitimize him as the dominant classes' Saviour. Nietzschean cultists nowadays do feel free to emulate their master, until they meet with their own prescient Jarry, I suppose. When everything is said and done, it is patently clear that Nietzschean and neo-Nietzschean rubbish cannot be recycled and should be thrown into the garbage dump where it properly belongs while restituting to hubris and to Dionysus their Greek and Rabelaisian therapeutic meaning: "Notez amis que de vin divin on devient" said the good Montpellier doctor thus summing up, with lapidary wisdom, his understanding of the initiation to Dionysian mysteries. As Bacbuc explained, "laughing" and "drinking" are the determining attributes of Man (Cinquième Livre, La Pléiade, p 834). Compared to a Rabelais, Nietzsche is but a sickening "pisse-vinaigre"!

Against Kaufmann's et al. criteria of cultural and philosophical worth, perhaps the useful determining intellectual criteria of judgment should consist in comparing Nietzsche's tediously repetitive prose expounding a forceful "return" to a modern barbarity as a celebration of "life", with the sparkling, courageous and truly revolutionary Lettres provinciales written by Blaise Pascal. If all involved would not concur that both works adopt a diametrically opposed conception of the worth of human conscience and of libre arbitre which amounts to a definitive condemnation of Nietzsche's cultural and political project, then one would have to conclude that the "intersubjectivity space" which intellectual workers should always aspire to find, is being irremediably undermined by the pro-Nietzschean cultists bad faith, independently of their pretension to be or not to be philo-Semitic (that is, when it pays to pretend being so.) At this precise juncture, it would be on obvious waste of valuable time to continue an instrumental zed "dialogue de sourds" and it would be much healthier to let the people (the "rabble") decide in his "âme et conscience": After all, despite all horse talk to the contrary, the future is still in his hands. Nietzschean cultists and above all Nietzschean Jews (!) should meditate Pascal's admonition before it, "once more", becomes to late: " Et s'ils ne jugent qu'il est temps de s'élever contre de tels désordres, leur aveuglement sera aussi à craindre que le vôtre, mes Pères, puisque et vous et eux avez un pareil sujet de craindre cette parole de saint Augustin sur celle de Jésus-Christ dans l'Evangile: Malheur aux aveugles qui conduisent! Malheur aux aveugles qui sont conduits! Vae caecis ducentibus! Vae caecis sequentibus!".(Pascal, Lettres provinciales, in Nouveaux classiques Larousse, p. 108) Ernst Block would have had little difficulty to find the same admonition in the egalitarian earlier Prophets; and at least one great and penetrating painter of the "rabble" has had the "bon goût" to turn this universal message into yet another universal chef-d'oeuvre!

General conclusion

I have already shown that Nietzsche's conception of historical "becoming" and of "nature" are mere ex post facto, self-serving and mystifying assumptions. They amount to saying that the earth is flat and to organize society (and secret societies) in such a way that anyone who would pretend the opposite is rapidly pushed aside and excluded. From a scientific point of view one could argue that the best minds of all times had come to trust arduously and patiently collected facts over and above religious opinions and social prejudices. When a ship mast goes down on the horizon, it could irrevocably demonstrate that the earth is not flat, except for frequent shipwrecks. Yet, once ordinary occurrences incite to doubt, true philosophy and science is born. Even Neolithic men were doing their astronomical (and calendar work) more honestly and methodologically than Nietzsche and most of his blind followers. Eclipses were avidly waited for and examined. Soon some one derived an appropriate method to find truth "at the bottom of the well" (and Hipparcos would oblige with a refined, typically Greek, demonstration.)

Unfortunately scientific and political truths differ in a different way. A way, which did no escape Nietzsche given, among other things, his long-standing fixation with the intellectual domination of the church. Only the Calabrian Thomaso Campanella dared say a word in defense of Galileo, but the courageous author of La Città del sole was already in jail! Fear and political subservience kill science more surely than ordinary social prejudices largely based on the partial testimony of prima facia human senses, as the non-Nietzschean Montaigne had brilliantly exposed long ago. His friend La Boétie had gone even further with is vanguardist Contr'un (Discours sur la servitude volontaire) and his passionate work amounts to claiming that political theory should be treated with the same scientific rigour than the most established sciences of the time, human equality and worth being here the undeniable starting point without which any discourse on human matters would fail for lack of a proper subject matter. One can elaborate at will on the various concrete or utopian ways to organize society, yet this starting point remains, from Gioachino di Fiore, to La Boétie, to Machiavelli, to Hobbes, Thomas More, Kant, Hegel and Marx etc. To all these and similar genuine political theoreticians this same starting point unmistakably remains the vital dot which "creates" and orders the inherently human space in the whole universe. Denying it was always recognized as a clear-cut way to negate humanity itself, certainly not as a form of god knows what type of debilitating "pity". It amounts, in the process, to the negation of any truly scientific investigation of human matters. To simplify, the real bothersome problem is that the dialectical interplay between the realms of human necessity and human freedom or, more precisely, between the dialectic of nature and the dialectic of history, endows the dominating class with extraordinary means of perverting this essential human characteristic in order to sustain various tyrannical regimes. Nowhere do the dominant classes invest more than in their complete control of the ideological field, especially the ideological dogmas destined to control the subservient classes. Marx has already dissected the process at play: The dominating classes succeed when they convincingly entice the dominated classes to confuse the class interests of the dominant classes with their own, that it, when they mistake them for universal values. Recourse to brute force signals failure and is never a permanent viable option. No system of dominance before Nietzsche's diseased "awakened" nightmare could have contemplated the perpetual use of brute force by the overmen cast as a necessary "evil" given the fact that total "separation" is all but impossible! Yet to accomplish this feat of barbarity and obscurantism, Nietzsche painfully toils with the relationship of the overmen themselves with the necessary a-scientific "psychological world view" they have to convincingly dispense to the rabble. As Zarathustra says at times he too was afraid to become an ass! The truly Nietzschean scientist and especially the Nietzschean political scientist is therefore, by virtue of an arduously cultivated nature, a scientific pervert, one who would secretly pursue science in order to consciously subvert the scientific spirit and its egalitarian conclusions. He is the ultimate totalitarian social engineer.

Once in place such an Orwellian system of continuous intellectual occultation and of perpetual social domination would be hard to question especially because modern technology seems to hold the promise of an historically unrivalled "control of the flows of information". Nietzsche looking at the Catholic church (and at what he admiringly calls stubborn Jewish "lies" throughout the centuries) was quite clear on this issue. The real tragedy is that many modern Nietzschean philo-Semites (real or self-serving exemplar of the self-made new species!) have come to believe in this same scoundrel's credo. The shaky "new alliance" between American Christian Zionists (or more precisely right-wing "messianic zealots") and Israeli and Jewish Judeo-fascists who naturally seem to take a new Solomon temple as the main controlling "hub" of the new globalized Nietzschean information temple, gives them the military and political means to attempt, "once more", the crazy adventure aimed at the establishment of cast domination over the whole world.

To succeed they must assert an unquestioned control over "values" and first and foremost "scientific" values. They must succeed in dramatically perverting the inherently human cognitive process. Wittingly for some, unwittingly for the most sheepish kind, the terrain was already laid out by the post-modernists who a few years ago still found necessary to masquerade their destructive and "deconstructive" mystifying enterprise and (good grief!) vacuous discourses under badly digested and poorly used Althusserian and Lacanian second hand jargon. Since the fall of the Soviet bloc, the new crew feels entitled and perfectly free to push their good luck further and to bring the whole obscurantist enterprise to port. As Nietzsche is the Grand Daddy of both, it should be easy to deconstruct without any undue "pity" the old and modern Nietzschean social construct scaffolds which always happen to rest on shifting sands and which is dangerously prone to crumble, if only the "plebeian rabble" would care to notice. When they pretend that the earth is flat, they should unceremoniously be summoned to make a public demonstration, to be intellectually judged accordingly and publicly be expose to the ridicule they deserve.

The device fabricated by Nietzsche and after him by the post-modernists and the new Nietzschean cultists is really like a ticking bomb destined to explode in their own hands in more ways than one. Nietzsche was acutely conscious of this inherent instability and non-viability of his system although he tried to hide it through a renewed surge of "will to power" to dispel the inherent solipsism of his thought. As I have said previously, all the themes he tried to develop, sometimes obsessively, are but mere tentatives to voluntarily work backwards from his "idée fixe" exemplified in his "archetypal overman", in order precisely to dispel such inherent solipsism. As we have shown with our comments on Nietzsche's twin concepts of "nature" and "ring of perpetual recurrences" the negation of the dialectic of nature specifically instrumentalized to negate the dialectic of history is not convincing in the least, except for monsters loving adepts of fiction novels - and prospective Mengelean "overmen" crackpots. The whole system is based on a self-destructive illusion derived from a desperate perversion of the theory of human becoming, namely that "man makes himself". Hence, Nietzsche will conclude that man can indeed use his own will to remake himself, to recreate himself beyond present depraved humanity. In his diseased despair, he was only forgetting what Marx had so brilliantly summed up in the beginning sentences of Le 18 brumaire de Louis Bonaparte, that is that the past weighs on Man's history like the Alps, so that Man indeed makes his own history but not entirely under conditions of his own choosing, a quandary that can only enhance his political consciousness which is a reaction diametrically opposite to the diseased Nietzschean "will to power". Marx's remark constitutes in fact an anticipated utter refutation of Nietzschean and post-modernists desperate ways to escape their self-inflicted solipsism. In concrete terms, Nietzsche is necessarily almost mute on relations of production though one clearly feel that his hatred of the "rabble" represent his acute conscience of the fact that the "rabble" with its workers' councils, its soviets, its communes and even its democracies can do away with any useless (idiotes) casts whereas the opposite is hardly true. It used to be that the young Marx could trace the "conscience malheureuse" of Friedrich List in the failure of the German bourgeoisie to assert its own Being on an equal footing to the well known nation of shopkeepers; each in his own partial and overdetermined fashion both Kierkegard and Nietzsche will try to solve their own exacerbated "Listian" chronic neuroses by positing a convenient human Being which they themselves fabricated for the occasion, naturally in total abstraction from the evolution of the productive forces and of the social relations of production. Who cannot see that this initial (cultivated) blind spot renders their systems utterly contradictory and non-viable? Their usefulness can therefore only be as demagogical right-wing ideology - and increasingly as the intellectual green pastures destined for unhesitating Buridan academic asses. Paraphrasing Zarathustra: "Modernity": Yea-Yuh! "Post-modernity": Yea-Yuh!; "Nature": Yea-Yuh! "Overman": Pouah! Beg your pardon: Yea-Yuh! "The ring (sic!)": Yea-Yuhhhh! And so on and so forth. When these lunatics' black "sun" voluntary goes down to its "midnight", does it really matters if it rises again? Unfortunately it does: Which is reason enough, in a democracy, to force the publication of all the name of persons belonging to secret societies, especially when they pretend to be benevolent societies and to force the publication of their "secret" rites and rituals - even if this involves the use of infiltration and hidden cameras and other "modern" means. Determined political initiatives must also be taken at all levels of government to force the publication of membership lists and initiation practices. In particular, referendum initiatives should be launched at the State level to create a critical mass capable of changing federal laws in this crucial area so vital for the perpetuation of an authentic democracy and open society.

Normative conclusion

Suppose you were put in charge to devise a program, which would help right-wing American Presidents and their Judeo-fascist (Nietzschean?) Jewish allies to establish a Nietzschean society. What would you have to consider as necessary steps? This is not a rhetorical exercise. Doing it carefully awakens your political consciousness and simultaneously allows you to see clearly through the manipulating ploys contrived to use borderlines social, political and moral cases to turn the clock of social progress back and to further the neocon, Nietzschean agenda. You then are better able to resist this instrumentalized demagogy and to negate this Nietzschean arch-conservative but carefully devised and patiently implemented agenda. I have already attempted to do so with my "Le lit du neo-fascisme" and its "Annexe: aux racines du nazisme". These essays mainly dealt with the social issues closely related to the rehabilitation of a fascistic theocratism, including Judeo-fascism and the political assertion of a Huntingtonian and trilateralist "deference to authority" (or more precisely deference to a reified "Tradition") destined to change so-call "permissive" and libertarian social and political "mores". Here I want to expand the field of vision but at the same time aim for a very succinct and parsimonious summary of the prospective program alluded above.

1) Dismantle the welfare State and any idea of a meaningful redistributive system. To legitimize this attack you will oppose a fake libertarianism to an alleged culture of dependency, which, in characteristic Nietzschean double talk, is said to stultify individual initiative and life itself. Labour organisations be they unions or parties or pressure groups should become the focus of the main attack, as Reagan's did show when dealing so "overmanly" with U.S. air controllers. Note that the historical extension of taxation power went hand in hand with the development of the welfare mentality and the development of the so-called "Just Society". Taxes, most of all progressive taxes, must therefore go. But woe on anyone who would recall Thomas Paine's insistence on inheritance taxes as the mandatory measure capable to permanently insure the "equality of opportunity" of every American citizen and to liberate the much praised "individual initiatives" and individual creating power, in a structural effort to insure the perpetuation of liberal equality. Better a partial and liberal-utopian Rawls than a well-intentioned practitioner like Paine! The new Nietzschean technetronic society is one which dares replace social assurance with social assistance through means-tested charity work: In short, replace social safety nets as popular conquests. with Reagan-Friedmanite panem et circenses but do not forget to entertain the new domesticity with appropriate Nietzschean and philo-Semite panem et Circen abundantly produced by Hollywood and all US and associated media!

2) Use every conceivable overt or covert means to undermine secularity, the clear distinction between Churches and State, in a continuous effort to reinstaure theocracy and to definitively subjugate human conscience to the diktats of established theocratic authority and its numerous Temples. Subdue libre arbitre everywhere, divest it of its ultimate human sense of responsibility and self-respect and, as Dostoevsky presciently illustrated with his Great Inquisitor's parable, established self-appointed personnel and their rituals to take care of the burden of individual conscience! If Man is born free everywhere, the overmen' tranquility demand that he be everywhere chained "once more". Publicly financed multiconfessionalism dispensed preferably by private institutions will seal this universal brotherhood of the Overmen and its ensuing class alliances. Always prefer a catechism (or religious teaching) which instills "voluntary servitude" in pre-puberty and adolescent minds, instead of teaching them non-religiously inclined anthropology and the history of religions and mythologies, for these will naturally exhibit many "concordances", all dealing in their specific ways with the same human fundamental questions and problems and will dangerously enlighten the mind.

3) Forcefully proceed to the "revaluation" of culture and education. First and foremost remember that the overman cast and its philo- or non-philo-Semitic members are the most vulnerable of all minorities and naturally the most deserving of public protection. Consequently always make sure to eliminate entry exams or at a minimum ensure that they are appropriately weighed with class-conscious and kosher letters of recommendation. Cleverly use formal "universalism" against Universalism itself and, by furthering multiconfessionality in schools, pave the way for the utter destruction of libre arbitre by suppressing in every day reality the constitutionally enshrined distinction between Churches and State. Likewise suppress any thing else that smacks of "secularity". As Senator Lieberman - or even an Elisabeth Badinter - has perfectly understood it, do not let demography and probability ( woe on the non-Nietzschean law of great numbers!) fool around with self-conferred "meritocracy". Having confined egalitarian, "rabble-inspired" affirmative action to its proper place, confidently proceed with the complete privatization of all institutions of learning. Remember, even the Marxist Harry Braverman noted that modern capitalism does not need all that educated surplus labour profusely churned out by democratized schools and universities when average grade 9 would do for the majority of them as far as the vital needs of capitalism are concerned. Palliate the difficulty in dismantling the public system of education by first taking control of its biting heart, that is by first privatizing the curriculum: Some charter schools have already shown the way and Wall-Street workers and other pundits have already demonstrated the superiority of memorizing some second-hand Black/Shooles/Derman et al. formulas to make the national piggy-bag savings grow instead of getting an adequate, rabble-inspired solid general education. Since the Mighty Dollar has proclaimed it Himself that "In god we trust", have children all over the land of the braves sing songs of praise to thrift just after the morning prayers, and enjoy Allan Bloom's and Jeremy Siegel's characteristic laugh! (see Economic solipsism, below) Libre arbitre is the enemy of thrift as it is the enemy of the established Authorities, including the Priests from the various Temples! In short, run the schools of the nation like you already learned to run the media. Orwellian-Nietzschean "drunken songs" will wash more easily! Model all other selection processes on this one, because it obviously is the "overman's way" to achieve greatness at the expanse of the multitude and their own socially dangerous "intelligence". Then, with deserved self-satisfaction, pause to admire supreme witless "Beauty" with authentic Nietzschean eyes. For similarly to the mythological Orange Juice jars of far-gone post Hells Angels Hippie Days: here is "Beauty" and here is "Mediocrity".

4) Undermine egalitarianism especially in social and political mores. Feminism, students' movements, French 68's liberating planned and spontaneous movements, all these and similar endeavours have, as is well known, a major problem which can only be cured by "labour" or "pregnancy", namely the birth of more egalitarian societies. Therefore be ready to throw the baby with the bathwater if you cannot abort the gestational process. Implement Huntington's and his Trilateralist program aiming at a reinstitution of due "deference to Authority" but be ready to be as forceful and as devious as possible, because Nietzsche's insincere belief in the rabble's innate, "feminine" admiration for the "overman" is but pure legitimizing demagogical propaganda. Although you may know little of Durkheim's analysis concerning the legitimizing and disciplining function of punishment for anything society considers dangerous anomies at any given time in history, you have learned to instrumentalize borderline cases in order to turn the clocks backwards. Your class-conscious perseverance will exercise it guardian duties especially when Nietzschean-Freudian "psychology" and a long practical accumulation of half-understood clinical cards lead you to believe that the borderline cases in question will "automatically" trigger a "universally" held and "latent" sense of "culpability". Indeed, what could an adequately philo-Semite Nietzschean learn in this respect from Simon Wiesenthal's irremediably confused concept of "forgiveness" which at best attempts to substitute personal grief for universal (necessarily collective) justice and at worst creates the premise for the much abused and instrumentalized new catechism of culpability behind which all philo-Semite Nietzscheans and various other Judeo-Fascists pretend to hide with both arrogance and impunity, easily forgetting in the process the very real responsibility of philo-Semite Nietzschean Jews in the Holocaust tragedy with the same good conscience with which they happily skip anti-Tradition class analysis and honest non-aphasic history. Subsequently, this new catechism of culpability, this modern original sin fabricated and abused by all philo-Semite Nietzschean, allows many Jewish "historians" and "theoreticians", usually from the right, to argue in favour of the collective guilt of the German people while ignoring the sad fact that Elie Wiesel who contributed so much in forging this debilitatingly anti-historical catechism has said publicly that, he, himself, ignored the extend of things and was therefore choked when he arrived at Auschwitz - at sixteen years of age, an age often corresponding to veteran status in the Vercors maquis. Remember that the idea of the necessary complementarity of "individual forgiveness" and real "collective justice" are suspiciously dependant on egalitarian debilitating practices (including Christian but also Buddhist, Islamic, religious and secular variations of egalitarianism or, more plainly still, all cultural and moral evolutions away from archaic tit-for-tat "legally" enshrined practices). Unless you instrumentalize it, do not spend much time on the Nuremberg Trials lest it would force you to deal with the quick rehabilitation of SS operatives by the free West and especially Free America; besides it is bad for the wide diffusion of useful modern philo-Semite Nietzscheism. Consequently, do not hesitate to use your Nietzschean social "hammer" to pound heavily on already socially victimized persons (of rabble stock - don't mess up with presidential, and Establishment sons, daughters, nieces and nephews): pedophilia and pornography bashing seem the perfect candidates to implement such a repressive and practical "revaluation of all values", especially in a puritanical society whose media cannot distinguish between eroticism, art and pornography, simply because art does not sell well and has an adverse effect on Nietzschean authentic "good taste" and "life". Consequently raise the age of consent for every normal activity, repress socially engineered social deviance and make sure to provide the culturally-pornographic venues necessary to the prospective "overmen" as vital "soupapes de securité". As right-wing "philosopher Kriegel said in a recent report: You can have access to pornography if you are ready to pay for it - I suppose, to each according to his/her own means and networks! The return to Tradition and Overman-friendly moral order is preferable to the trouble it would take for instance to develop socially authentic and liberating good taste and Rabelaisian bonne humeur or to insure both the condemnation of predators as their social rehabilitation, a two-prongs process necessary above all for the human recovering and the becoming of victims. In short, abuse statistically marginal cases to further your own political and cultural agenda! The same gratuitously culpabilizing reasoning can be applied to homosexuality, to immigration (legal or not), to conception outside "marriage" and to all other similar fields of social activity where the personal, social and "psychological" realms are necessarily intertwined. For instance, beating on single mothers and on deadbeat fathers has the added advantage of transforming a social responsibility into a social "burden" and consequently helps legitimize its financial transfer on individual unequally dotted shoulders. Publicly financing the enticed "wedding" of single mothers will both shift the financial burden from welfare programs and insure that the inherent violence to be expected in poor and impoverished households will guaranty the speedy "return" of bruised but submissive "wives"! (as seen by some first "lady" or other or by Nietzsche in Twilight p 544) With the accrued advantage of the "feminization of wages" going hand in hand with the downward evolution of the buying power of the primary cell responsible for the reproduction of labour power embodied in the modern nuclear family, you will ensure the competitiveness of your industry although not necessarily its long term viability! In fact you are well advised to replace any progressive talks of straight "equal wage for work of equal value" with a decently Nietzschean version of feminism: Always replace token women with prospective "overwomen" of the kind who would previously have shown their complete internalization of Tradition and their precise understanding of the maneuvering space this leaves to their own class-biased specific freedom. Use legalized euthanasia and the soporific "death with dignity" to salvage a two tiers health system confronted with an increase of old age population, instead of instituting innovative high-level job-creating geriatric services and an universal, publicly financed and cheaper Medicare system, ideally including publicly financed pharmacare etc... As experience shows, your social position will be better preserved if you cleverly pander to the needs of private health and insurance institutions by happily "squandering" some 15 % of your GDP for a shamefully inefficient and inequitable system, instead of the 9% needed on average by any other modern capitalist society to insure an efficient universal health system. In every case, cold-bloodedly hammering the victims spares you the trouble of finding decent, socially liberating way to what essentially remain at bottom problems of social exploitation and alienation (see the second part of my Pour Marx, contre le nihilisme on this set of issues) If we sheepishly follow these a-moral neocon drifts without determined résistance, it will soon turn out that the most obscene and most socially reprehensible behaviour will be to dare think critically. Nietzsche would have won.

5) Undermine any sense of "humanism" and brotherhood of Man and replace it with an appropriate Nietzschean cultural breeding of the "overman" cast. This extend to any religious humanitarian concern, be it expressed by the Jewish Priests so despised by Nietzsche for having prepared the "soil" of Christianity, or by Sartrian "humanism" and especially by Althusserian anti-humanism, a philosophical stand which obstinately continues to see exploitation where others self-servingly prefer to see poverty, and legitimizing class processes where others are content to merely see human "charity" ("pity"?). At this juncture, you can stand "proud and tall" yet mistrustfully watch for incoming menaces and organize accordingly by substituting the rabble's cherished civil liberties with the overmen's vital security needs and draconian measures.

6) Use every overt or covert means to substitute everywhere a determined censitarian democracy to contemporary formal political democracy. Above all oppose by all available means any development in social, industrial and participative democracy. This would necessarily mean the establishment of collective rights to the par with individual rights (among them property rights) and would, furthermore, entail various structures of democratic control (such as workers' and neighbourhoods' councils, interactive indicative and incitative State planning etc...). To reach this lofty censitarian goal do not shy away from using all available demagogical instruments. For instance, exacerbate group-exclusivist identities and then proceed to substitute self-serving security to rabble's cherished civil liberties. If need be learn from war criminal Sharon and his right-wing Nietzschean Zionist friends: They certainly have developed an impressive, if inefficient, expertise in the area including targeted provocations (like the criminal stroll on Haram al-Sharif) and timely massacres (such as Sabra and Chatila, where Israeli storm commandos had entered before the Christian Lebanese militia were allowed in to finish the work and take all the blame, or like Jenin, where the respected Le Monde diplomatique referred to secret evacuation of corpses by the Israelis without it being investigated by the UN nor by partial US so-called human-watch organizations).

7) Use every overt or covert actions to undermine the multilateral institutions and regimes presently governing the international system. Unless they are co-opted, exclude all civil society groups and other NGOs as subversive or terrorist organizations. In this respect make guilt by association the rule instead of the exception. Cultivated suspicion is one of your most efficient tools of domination. Replace the international ideals embodied in the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions with an unilateral apology of instrumentalized self-serving values and demagogical ideologies such as the Manifest destiny of American values, the Holocaust (understood in isolation from the complex history of Deportation and from the world-wide Communist and Resistance led struggle against Fascism and Nazism.) Above all, in order to achieve the instauration and preservation of a philo-Semite Nietzschean American and right-wing Zionist Empire, insure the utter disarmament of all defensive military and economic capabilities possessed by your real and prospective rivals. Meanwhile do not lose any precious time to launch your own nation into massive rearmament program including the ludicrous Anti-Ballistic Missiles Shield of Reaganite Star War fame, at the cost of a renewed and destabilizing arms race. ( Hope that Robert McNamara's ploy continues to hold true and that your alleged rivals will ruin themselves in a quantitative arms race instead of a targeted qualitative one!) In particular, use any devious, overt or covert aggression (including political assassinations) to implement this military unilateral supremacy. Free the world except for Israel and the United States of all nuclear and other weapons of mass-destruction. Insist on non-proliferation without any consideration for the legally binding trade-offs envisaged by Articles IV and VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a first step, and then proceed to actually disarmament your rivals including through massive armed aggression. Attempt to take the moral high ground by calling your adversary "rogues" and war criminals while at the same time sheltering your Sabra and Chatila, Jenin, Vietnam and Mazar -e-Sharif hardened forces from any possible prosecution from a non ad-hoc International Criminal Court, peremptorily relegated to the selective role of designating the rabble's leaders and prosecuting them. Use all media, including Hollywood productions, to wage an efficient and officially sanctioned disinformation campaign aimed both at the enemy outside and at the rabble within: Enshrine the practice in a publicly founded Homeland Security Department - then, preventively censor Animal Farm, and 1984 given their originally intended (and paradoxically prescient) Anglo-Saxons overtones! Preventively forbid any production alluding to Nietzsche and Orwell passionate final kissing of the fabled horse, as it would shade a cruel light on the grotesque nakedness of philo-Semite Nietzscheism.

The new anti-Nietzschean "Tablets"

Like at Stalingrad, You Shall defend square inch by square inch all your Democratic Conquests. Having exposed the main planks of the new Nietzschean (philo-Semite or not so philo-Semite) program, you can now proceed with the formulation of your own new anti-Nietzschean "Tablets". Here is my version of the much needed solidarity commandments:

1) Do not allow any State to usurp the functions of the United Nations System and the legitimacy of its founding Charter. Demand parity between the UN Security Council and the UN Social and Economic Council.

2) Demand that formal political democracy by concretely flanked by a much-delayed social, industrial and participative democracy and all the structures of democratic control it entails

3) Demand that collective rights be constitutionally recognized at a par with formal individual rights, including property rights. Gender parity and affirmative actions should be enforced by law as the only way to correct historical and structural inequities and to fulfill the promises of full universal citizenship.

4) Demand total political respect for the sanctity of human conscience and of individual privacy. In particular reject any doctrinal or political instrumentalization of the human psyché. Demand that social mores and institutions be congruent with free and responsible human individual consciences.

5) Demand the utter respect for secularity, the strict separation of churches and State and the non-confessionality of public (and where it unfortunately exist, private) education.

6) Demand the establishment of the most extensive economic and social redistributive system possible based on the right to work, that is the right to identical economic and political dignity, including for those, which the system reduces to the status of "reserve army".

7) Demand the utter respect for true meritocracy doing away with self-serving, incestuous and class-based letters of recommendations, which only serve vested interests. Given unquestionably similar human endowment and the normal operation of the law of great numbers, it might well be that this democratic, long-overdue practice, will naturally lead to a demographically based proportionality: This is to be welcomed as a simple matter of equity. Moreover, this democratic practice will force some groups who selfishly defend their community-based privileges through the instrumentalization of a fake universalism, to work for what is the only acceptable human and democratic solution to this fabricated quandary, that is, the structural redistribution of social wealth and the reduction of the acceptable revenue scale to a maxim ratio of 1 to 5 (or even less) between the lowest and highest net revenue, so that the whole society might finally be able to operate according to the principle which states that "who has in him to become a Raphael should in fact socially be able to become so". Only thus will society be able to make the best use of its human richness and potentiality - and concretely pave the way for greater, aesthetically induced egalitarianism.

Annexe: Intended as an awakening call

It seems imperative to quote at some length from what Nietzsche admiringly says of Manu and his "Aryan" cast society. After having read it, ask yourself how a certain academic and political camarilla can reconcile this rubbish with their own mandates and positions. In fact, confronted with such shamelessly exclusivist regression, you might rightly conclude that the time has come to use all available critical and conceptual machetes to remorselessly hack down and forcefully deconstruct these putative neo-fascists, be they philo-something or not. My own advice is to imitate the good Bolsheviks of old: Whenever dealing with fascists and Nazis, be they Jews, urgently go for the jugular and assiduously work with pen and paper in spite of your understandable aesthetic revulsion. It is a human prophylactic duty not to be shy while we are still in time.

Quotation from Nietzsche:

Let us consider the other case of so-called morality, the case of breeding a particular race and kind. The most magnificent example of this is furnished by Indian morality, sanctioned as religion in the form of "the law of Manu." Here the task set is to breed no less than four races at once: one priestly, one warlike, one for trade and agriculture, and finally a race of servants, the Sudras. Obviously, we are here no longer among animal tamers: a kind of man that is a hundred times milder and more reasonable is the condition for even conceiving such a plan of breeding. One heaves a sigh of relief at leaving the Christian atmosphere of disease and dungeons for the healthier, higher, and wilder world. How wretched is the New Testament compared to Manu, how foul it smells!

Yet this organization too found it necessary to be terrible - this time not in the struggle with beasts, but with their counter-concept, the unbred man, the mishmash man, the chandala. And again it had no other means for keeping him from being dangerous, for making him weak, than to make him sick - it was the fight with the "great number." Perhaps there is nothing that contradicts our feeling more than these protective measures of Indian morality. The third edict, for instance (Avadana-Sastra I), "on impure vegetable", ordains that the only nourishment permitted to the chandala shall be garlic and onions, seeing that the holy scripture prohibits giving them grain or fruit with grains, or water or fire. The same edict orders that the water they need may not be taken from rivers or wells, not from ponds, but only from the approaches to swamps and from holes made by the footsteps of animals. They are also prohibited from washing their laundry and from washing themselves, since the water they are conceded as an act of grace may be used only to quench thirst. Finally, a prohibition that sudra women may not assist chandala women in childbirth, and a prohibition that the latter may not assist each other in this condition.

The success of such sanitary police measures was inevitable: murderous epidemics, ghastly veneral diseases, and thereupon again "the law of the knife," ordering circumcision for male children and the removal of internal labia for female children. Manu himself says: "The chandalas are the fruit of adultery, incest, and crime (these, the necessary consequences of the concept of breeding). For clothing they shall have only rags from corpses; for dishes, broken pots; for adornment, old iron; for divine services, only evil spirits. They shall wander without rest from place to place. They are prohibited from writing from left to right, and from using the right hand in writing: the use of the right hand and of from-left-to-right is reserved for the virtuous, for the people of race".

These regulations are instructive enough: here we encounter for once Aryan humanity, quite pure, quite primordial - we learn that the concept of "pure blood" is the opposite of a harmless concept. On the other hand, it becomes clear in which people the hatred, the chandala hatred, against this "humanness" has eternalized itself, where it has become religion, where it has become genius. Seen in perspective, the Gospels represent a document of prime importance; even more, the Book of Enoch. Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, of privilege: it is anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity - the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of the chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favored, against "race": the undying chandala hatred as the religion of love.

The morality of breeding and the morality of taming are, in the means they use, entirely worthy of each other: we may proclaim it as the supreme principle that, to make morality, one must have the unconditional will to its opposite. This is the great, the uncanny problem which I have been pursuing the longest: the psychology of the"improvers" of mankind. A small, and at bottom modest, fact - that of the so-called pia fraus (i.e. Holy lie) -offered me the first to this problem: the pia fraus, the heirloom of all philosophers and priests who "improved" mankind. Neither Manu nor Plato nor Confucius nor Jewish and Christian teachers have ever doubted their right to lie. They have not doubted that they had very different rights too. Expressed in a formula, one might say: all the means by which one has so far attempted to make mankind moral were through and through immoral.

What the Germans lack

Among Germans today it is not enough to have spirit: one must arrogate it, one must have arrogance to have spirit.(...)The new Germany represents a large quantum of fitness, both inherited and acquired by training, so that for a time it may expend its accumulated store of strength, even squander it. It is not a high culture that has thus become the master, and even less a delicate taste, a noble "beauty" of the instincts; but more virile virtues than any other country in Europe can show. (...) One pays heavily for coming to power: power makes stupid. The Germans -once they were called the people of thinkers: do they think at all today? The Germans are now bored with the spirit, the Germans now mistrust the spirit; politics swallows up all serious concern for really spiritual matters. Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles - I fear that was the end of German philosophy.

"Are there any German philosophers? Are there German poets? Are there good German books?" they ask me abroad. I blush; but with the courage which I maintain even in desperate situation I reply: "Well, Bismarck." Would it be permissible for me to confess what books are read today? Accursed instinct of mediocrity!"(in Kaufmann I, 1982, Twilight of idols, p 503-506.Underlined in the original text as translated by Kaufmann who therefore can hardly have missed the prominent and focal theoretical meaning of this crucial passage for his beloved master, the syphilitic Nietzsche. Perhaps Kaufmann will belatedly admit that it is hard to "improve" (admittedly from a strictly Nietzschean point of view) on this sanguine theoretical piece and, fortunately no doubt, Mein Kampf is said to lack the much praised Nietzschean style who can so easily seduce some would-be intellectuals and even perhaps prospective "overmen"!)

Heureux les simples! Could I humbly yet strenuously propose that any rehabilitation of supposed philo-Semite Nietzscheism be treated on the same footing as the worst revisionist and negationist theories and, naturally, that Jewish proponents of this shameful theory be treated with strict equality and not in any way be singled out as specifically Jewish scoundrels or blind and ignorant idiotes? Not forgetting all those simpletons who fancy themselves to be convinced Nietzscheans and "nihilistes éveillés" and who often end up believing that they can learn to play violin in the most unlikely places, until the rabble saves them from assured murder and from shame.

Epilogue in the form of an aphorism

"I have learned to think against myself" brags the "clown" asking for public admiration. He now thinks of himself as an "awakened nihilist" oblivious to the Enemy laughing in the shadow.

NOTES:

1) Karl Polanyi reproduces essentially the same retrograding confusion in his Great Transformation first and in his subsequent considerations on redistributive "modes" (It goes without saying that, like a P.P Rey, I also believe that no one can fail to be sensible to Polanyi's groundbreaking and "decentrating" (to use Piaget beautiful concept) field work, for instance on Ancient African civilizations (Dahomey) or on Meso-America.) The concept of disembodied human relationships produced by capitalism, starting with the repeal of the Elizabethan laws concerning the poor was a very partial and regressive take from Marx's exposition of the capitalist revolutionary and liberating contribution in extirpating society from feudal personalized rules and its pitiless, cold-blooded nature in consciously implementing the most productive ways to extract surplus value from labour power thus implying at the same time the ultimate negation of capitalism itself in order to freely recompose human relationship on the basis of the abolition of the root cause of all social alienation, namely through the desalination of human work and the reappropriation of Man by himself. Similarly Polanyi's redistributive "modes" are a far cry from Marx's groundbreaking work on the comparison of modes of production, from the Asiatic mode of production, to the feudal, the capitalist and then the socialist modes of production. Polanyi never succeeded in grounding his redistributive modes in a proper productive base. For instance, while he tried to reembody the notion of "market" in its historical concrete forms of expressions (from the Roman emporium to the Dahomeyan market place) he never succeed in giving a good and coherent explanation for the exchange values of goods, not even the internationally traded ones like priced shells or gold acting as obvious means of exchange; nor did he attained a good understanding of the labour wage which he approached at best by his (Bible derived) interesting but half-backed concept of "ration". It is not surprising that Immanuel Wallerstein, much influenced by Polanyi's work, copied the same "historical" vagueness with for instance is conception of "bullion" and its role in East West trading reality and dare I say "logic"? (A Wallerstein who, like Joseph Nye and EmmanuelTodd , unfortunately does not always deem it necessary to acknowledge his sources of inspiration or possibly even ignores the original sources. This is exhibited, for example, with "their" new "discovery" that, despite their earlier understanding of the Asia-Pacific Rim growth dynamic and US strategic position in this commercial and economic nexus, Eurasia was now growing endogenously to the point were the American "interdependence" was far from being efficient in monopolizing high value-added productions and employment.) As I have tried to show Marx's concept of absolute and relative value, his concept of "productivity" together with the concept of historical époque within a same mode which has not yet exhausted its means of expression is far more useful. I have attempted to show that the extension of Marx's concept to what I have called "social surplus value" is the only way to arrive at a coherent quantitative theory of money (understanding inflationary and deflationary phenomena in concomitance with the relative importance of the "reserve army of labour) and of conceiving the various efficient ways to effect a revolutionary or reformist and revolutionary transition from capitalism proper toward a greater post-capitalist redistributive system gradually transforming itself into a free socialist society or into a socialist leap forward which could implement all the socio-economic, political and cultural mediations to preserve its own legitimacy with the greatest majority and enhance its "human face". (see both my Tous ensemble and Pour Marx, contre le nihilisme) At best, Keynes, revised with a good dose of Beveridge, would satisfy Polanyi's social embodiment requirement. Yet Keynes trough Sraffa knew what he owed to Marx circulation cycles (M-A-M' and A-P-A') while Polanyi, in spite of the old Petofi Circle influence on him, might not recall or might not even want to. It necessarily must therefore be found desperately wanting!

2) Early socialist experience was led to constitutionally distinguish with as little ambiguity as possible between private religion and spirituality on one hand and public, political secularity on the other. However, the ferocious defense of their class interests by the various established religions who then acted as the main legitimizing ideological Apparatus of the bourgeoisie, led the socialists to adopt an uprooting strategy aimed at their social and political power, at the same time propagandizing unilateral atheism to reinforce their anti-clerical fight. While they can hardly be faulted for their social and political emancipatory contribution, history shows that they insufficiently recognize the necessity of the reestablishment of strict secularity as soon as this political fight was over. Nevertheless, the problem was understood in theoretical grounds. From the Bolshevik understanding of the French Revolution dealing with an essentially Gallicized Catholic Church to Antonio Gramsci enlightening analysis. Later, both the Sandinistas and the Cubans have shown in magistral ways how socialism can cope and flourish by adapting a strict secular policy which allows a dialogue with the best that spirituality (and its non-ecclesiastic original egalitarianism) can offer, be it in the guise of a "theology of liberation" or even of Santeria. If nothing else a genuine dialogue forces the various religious institutions to deal with their own intimate contradictions opposing their worldly, historically bound, missions and their non-worldly contributions in understanding the duties of human conscience. From this internal contradiction springs forth hermeneutics and then, slowly, the ideal of secularity going hand in hand with the ultimate individual responsibility over and above any clerical teachings. Eventually a genuine dialogue does not lead only to a peaceful and widely supported separation of churches and State; more importantly, it leads to the substitution of qualitatively refined ideals over dogmatic or political prejudices. Both camps are then winners and perhaps not too far apart as far as ultimate human objectives are concerned while the road to achieve them are necessarily non-antithetic yet different. A genuine aggiornamento is still the order of the day.

3) on this concept see my essay "lit du neo-fascisme" and my book "Pour Marx, contre le nihilisme" where I assumed some prior knowledge of Nietzsche and stuck to the main democratic concerns. I obviously had underestimated the increasing intellectual damage caused by numerous and strategically positioned pundits. A lacuna, which I am now starting to suppress.

4) Having reread the perceptive and elegant introduction written in the 1970 édition of Par delà le bien et le mal, signed G.B. and published in the collection 10/18 by Union Générale d'Editions, I do not see that Kaufmann's and friends more recent pro-Nietzschean elucubrations have refuted a single thesis enunciated there. In particular, with great intellectual honesty, G.B. writes: "la question qui se pose pour Nietzsche avec insistance est celle-ci: Qui sera le maître de la terre?" (p 11) My sole criticism would be that in his tone, and even in substance when dealing with Nietzsche's cultural and political filiations, the author concedes too much. Obviously he was writing at a time when Nietzsche was still widely considered a dangerous pathological case worthy of Nuremberg. Times are a'changing, ain't they?

5) A few remarks on Nietzsche's "psychology" are in order here. As we know, Deleuze played an unfortunate role in legitimizing Nietzsche in France and outside the "Hexagon". Yet, Deleuze could obviously not properly distinguish between psychological analysis on the one hand and paraphrenic symptoms on the other. Thinking to do the first task, he was candidly attracted by the second type of phenomena. Why did he fail utterly in his endeavour? I have dealt with this type of "analytical" failure in the second part of my Pour Marx, contre le nihilsme. Neither Nietzsche nor any other similar paraphrenic figures (Antonin Artaud?) could ever provide any useful therapeutic clues on their own mystified terms. Simply because they instinctively destroy the basis for a rational and active conscience capable to proceed with one's own "objective" self-introspection without prejudging about good and evil (and the more so if the surrounding society does not culpabilize human conscience with absurdly repressive mores). At best, Nietzsche did historically provide and continue to provide the initiation process through which criminals come to accept themselves as criminals and live happily thereafter thus replacing their idiosyncratic a-moral will for ethics and for "socially" acceptable behaviour. "The criminal type, he writes, is the type of strong human being under unfavourable circumstances: a strong human being made sick" (in Kaufmann I, p 549) Freud has hinted to his debt towards Nietzsche's "psychology" and it is, in fact, plainly visible in his ludicrous idea of "hierarchy" and his conception of man as essentially "riff-raff", an expression he picked in the same source even as Nazism was gaining ground in Germany! (It is also visible in his deeply held intimate and idiosyncratic desire to be recognized as part of the "elite", including in his own profession - to the extend that he will sometime falsify clinical evidence and continuously reformulate his "theories" always with the same subjective forcefulness. For the rest, the kabalist crackpot Zweig was a greater "bridge" between Nietzsche and Freud and between Freud and the Bible mythology.) Contrary to what Deleuze thinks, there can be nothing inhibiting, liberating or mildly emancipatory - individually and collectively - in the whole of Nietzsche's theoretical and artificial apparatus and even in Nietzsche's approach except for "le criminel endurci" simply because Nietzsche utterly negates the becoming of man. In so doing he forestalls any possible, socially meaningful, cure or any reappropriation of man by himself except as a lost soul or a criminal shifting towards a form of "overman's a-morality". Guattari, as a devoted practitioner, fully cognizant of the vanguard experiences of the psychiatric movement in Trieste (Italy) never committed such a facile misinterpretation. On the contrary, just before his death Guattari yet again showed his deep understanding by pointing to the deleterious impact of neo-liberalism as a direct explanation for the increased psychotic symptoms visible in society at large. An impact feeding on itself, since these symptoms will then be adduced as an excuse for increased repressive measures against the "dangerous classes". Guattari had a more enlightened conception of the "ressentiment" of the rebellious rabble, to express it in crude Nietzschean parlance. But then Guattari was first and foremost an honest practitioner. Deleuze was already becoming a French post-Althusserian "Nouveau Philosophe".

6 ) The American right, be it philo-Semite or not, has a clear vested interest in "phagocyting" the democratic republican messianism of its Revolution in favour of its own exclusivist imperialist messianism. The first type of messianism as eminently exemplified by Thomas Paine is egalitarian and democratic. In its practice, it is as beautiful as courageous solidarity of Pétion and his impoverished Haiti with Bolivar's hemispheric liberation movement. Its rallying flags are freedom and equality of all the peoples on earth. It therefore stands for national liberation and independence. Though, at the beginning it associates free markets and formal political democracy, this is but a means to an end. Later the internal crisis of the capitalist system will force the same messianic project to adopt different forms of social, political and economic organization to reach and fulfill the same objective. The new forms can comprise internal Keynesian redistributive policies and the setting up of a United Nations System including the Social and Economic Council, which originally was to rival and even surpass the Security Council in importance, or a national socialist planning organization inserted into a truly egalitarian division of labour. The search for adequate forms is still actual and require the practical imagination and will of the masses and their "vanguards" or at least of their "organic intellectuals". For its part the human finality remains essentially the same: Grounding an authentic political democracy in an adequate industrial democracy. The second type, right-wing messianism, is a dominant cast messianism: Its final objective is to implement a self-assigned "manifest destiny" for the benefit of the masters of an established imperial power. Cast messianism will strive to establish through sheer force its domination over its immediate region as a stepping-stone to world domination.

As can be seen, both messianism hold diametrically opposed conceptions of Man, of human "values", of the interstate world order and of the role of civil society (NGO, social movements etc) in international relations. In practice, cast messianism may well wish to sincerely co-opt the dominant class among the subjected people it annexes to its empire, but the heart of the empire can only rest with the dominant cast and the dominant nation on which the vital (military and cultural) strength of the empire relies and which naturally self-appoint themselves to the status of "primus inter pares". The history of applied fascism, particularly in Italy, also shows without any ambiguity the uneasy relationship which this cast messianism entertains with liberalism on one hand and liberism (see note on Croce below ) on the other (as Benedetto Croce so perceptively and shamefully showed through his own practice, relying in extremis on a conviction derived from Vico concerning the realization of the Spirit in world history and therefore the ultimate triumph of "freedom", albeit in Croce's own experience a very compromised one!). In short, as the relationships between the capitalist upper crusts and the Fascist and Nazi dignitaries have shown in both Italy and Germany, the "overmen" and the grands bourgeois do have many points in common but also many important divergences: If for no other reasons than the fact that the bourgeoisie has a well-thought out economic and political economy whereas the "overmen" only rely on Nietzsche's "scientific" insights which are as impressive in this domain as in any other and therefore ultimately rely on their own arbitrary and impulsive cast overwhelming interests. History also teaches that the philo-Semite or not so philo-Semite cultist, similarly to the grand bourgeois or to a Benedetto Croce, are quite blindly wrong when they simultaneously sustain and propagate the "overmen's values" in an effort to subdue the "dangerous classes" while secretly hoping to firmly hold in their expert hands all the ropes of the instrumentalized but suicidal game. Once the Pandora's box is opened, only the organized rabble can quickly shut it down again - that is, if they still can rely on their own Soviets and their own "bases arrières". Woodrow Wilson exemplifies the silly situation -described in Zarathustra - where part of the capitalist and dominant classes come to fall themselves prey to the self-serving confusion of both messianism since they both pretend to unite "universal values" and purely "national, patriotic values". International "isolationism" conjugated with regional imperialist activism was the result of this confusion. But before that Teddy Roosevelt and his "politique de la canonnière" had clarified the real issue. It is now urgent for both the American and world masses to denounce cast messianism and to extirpate revolutionary and egalitarian messianism from the suicidal Wilsonian confusion. Worse still from Chamberlain's confusion.

Note on Croce: In his article Nello zaino di Guevara, in ilmanifesto.it, 20 November 2002, Gianpasquale Santomassino recalls this Crocian distinction between liberalism and liberism together with its modus operandi that is Croce's distinction between moral and vital forces; unfortunately he mistakenly seems to attribute to them more validity and theoretical fruitfulness than they in fact deserve. It should be obvious that Benedetto Croce's forma mentis is constitutionally incapable to conceive any possible abstraction of both (secular) liberalism and (vital) liberism from private property and the social relations of production which they imply, as much as he is utterly incapable to conceive of the law of value as something other than a process primitively grounded is the simple duration of the labour day. No more than Bohm-Bawerk can Croce conceive of any possible distinction between Smithian "simple labour" and Marxian "abstract labour"; and things get even worth when dealing with structural labour intensity not to speak of Marx's concept of "productivity". (See in particular is 1900 Matérialisme historique et économie marxiste) But isn't this overdetermined systemic blindness the Althusserian symptoms of the impossibility of any real bourgeois historism when it comes to the apprehension of the exploitation of labour, the modes of production and the forms of social relations of production this supposes? Nietzsche as we have seen, and as is generally well known, is doubly blind in this respect. The idealism brand might differ perhaps but it always stands on its head.

Cast messianic America would do well to meditate this lesson. Having the impression to steal the secret fire and to unilaterally define the moral high ground does not automatically, cybernetically put the economy on the right track nor does it insure that fundamental dynamic equilibriums are maintained. As emergent economies develop and modernize the American relative share of world wealth is bound to diminish. This does not mean that the average American standard of living should diminish either in absolute terms or in qualitative terms. But external imperialist aggressions will not help achieve this result. The days when developed capitalism could transpose its internal crisis on the back of other dominated modes of production is for the most part definitively over. Any crisis is now an internal crisis of capital and the present crisis due to the failure of the much hyped so-called (speculative) New Economy is exhibiting a characteristic, albeit new, dominant trait, namely the increased synchronization of capitalist crisis on a global scale. This bring us back to Lenin diatribe against the Narodniki and others: As the crisis of capitalism are increasingly internal, as external "sorties de crise" become more and more illusory, even internal technological exit become impossible to summon at will! Any viable solution must therefore reside in a systemic adaptation. Depending on class power relationships, this can mean a change of capitalist époque, but it always demands a readaptation of the social redistribution of wealth in order to solve capitalism main contradiction, namely its impossibility to affect by its own means a viable adequation of its productive and consumption capacities. Clearly no system can afford for long a wealth distribution as inegalitarian as the American one where the top two deciles of the population now control some 83% of the national wealth (G&M, Dec. 13, 02, p A 10) and where the current accounts are permanently in the red. This social inequality is sure to bring the American and world economy to a grounding halt -with perhaps China as the exception, if Chinese leaders are smart enough to rely on domestic growth and to sustain it through strong egalitarian redistribution and educational policies. World imperialdom cannot be a viable solution to American capitalism systemic contradictions. Declaring social equality as the New Frontier worthy of the American Republic is the only economically viable and morally acceptable alternative. It alone can extend American influence worldwide without the moral and financial burden of military adventurism. And without its attendant risks.

GENERAL REFERENCES:

All my citations from Nietzsche are derived from Kaufmann's useful and compact translations. Usually I just cite characteristic sentences, which are easily recognizable. Since Nietzsche is so tediously repetitive they or similar phrases can be found in almost all his work in almost similar style.

The portable Nietzsche, edited and translated by Walter Kaufmann, Penguin Books ed, 1982 (referred to here as Kaufmann I)

The basic writing of Nietzsche, translated by Walter Kaufmann, 2000 Modern Library Edition (referred to here as Kaufmann II)

The will to power, Vintage Books Edition, 1968 (referred here as Kaufmann III)

See also the intelligent and beautiful introduction by G.B. in Nietzsche, Par delà le bien et le mal, Union Générale d'Editions, dépôt légal 2e trimestre 1970

XXX

HEIDEGGER, THE INTIMATE CORRUPTION OF THE SOUL AND OF HUMAN BECOMING.

Prophylactic comment on the forthcoming publications announced by the interesting article entitled « Heidegger, the proof of Nazism by the ''Cahier noir''». http://laphilosophie.blog.lemonde.fr/2013/12/05/heidegger-la-preuve-du-nazisme-par-le-cahier-noir/ 05 décembre 2013

A recent article on Heidegger entices me to intervene in a prophylactic fashion. The article can be summed up by the following sentences: « Are we at the dawn of a new '' Heidegger' s controversy ''? A document will soon allow the evaluation of the importance of Nazism on his theories, with proofs in hands. » (...) « (Hadrien France-Lanord contests that) the author of Being and time has ever been infected with any sort of anti-Jewish prejudice aside from some remarks harvested here and there in the private correspondence of the master. (...) The coming publication of three volumes of around 400 pages each dealing with the fatidic years 30s, the most prolific, should provide more than one clue about certain inclinations, notably the anti-'' Judeo-Christian '' tendencies with which the philosopher is said to have impressed his thought.» (translation mine.)

Of course, this starting point underlined by the author of the above quoted article is a very bad omen. It quite simply raises the Heidegger question in a wrong fashion and it furthermore ignores the implacable logic of exclusivsm. On this central concept the English reader will want to take a look at my Nietzsche as an awakened nightmare, available in the Books section of this site, as well as at the other articles in the section Fascism/Racism/Exclusivism of this same site.

There is simply no before and no after when dealing with Heidegger; no more than when dealing with Nietzsche, Wagner, Chamberlain, and Rosenberg or with Mussolini and many others. Except that, as accomplished pitres, they themselves will fall prey to the logic of exclusivism. They truly are their own victims. Emblematically, Nietzsche will eventually lose his mind and die after having « pitifully » suspended himself on the neck of the wounded horse. These characters are all deeply regressive and anti-human.

Thus this publication presents us with another very likely doubtful operation, one that is already perceptible here in the approach adopted by some quoted authors. Indeed, how can anyone pretend to defend what is not defendable? What is reproachable to Nazifascism as a crime can in no way be merely summed up by its long ambivalence over the Jewish question. Such an attitude harbors, in and by itself, all the germs of the exclusivist peril.

The real question is: Which kind of « philosopher » (etymologically in reverse, naturally) is Heidegger? Or again: Does he deserves to be treated as a philosopher at all or even as a theoretician or, on the contrary, is he not merely an ideologue in the full sense of the word? One, moreover, who went astray more than is ordinarily the case in his milieu, an ideologue in the sense given to this word by Destutt de Tracey, before this term was reformulated by the (bourgeois) sociology of knowledge founded by Karl Mannheim? We are, in fact, witnessing a premeditated return to the Fascism of philo-Semite Nietzschean inspiration. This long-term political strategy is now dominant. I have already denounced it in various places freely accessible in my site www.la-commune-paraclet.com (1)

This strategy aims at the destruction of the liberating anti-Nazifascist compromise forged within the Résistance and later embodied in the constitutions of the modern Social or Welfare State, as well as in the initial UN Charter and its accompanying Universal Declaration of Fundamental Individual and Social Rights. Its ultimate goal is the rejection of the sharing among equal citizens of socially available work and wealth. This sharing is now made necessary by the accelerated development of productivity which liberates ever increasing masses of workers and employees who are thus reduced to endemic unemployment and life-long precariousness. Instead of it, the new regressive camp is trying to impose the sharing of misery within the ranks of the proletariat and of the lower so-called middle classes now being increasingly downgraded and pauperised. In turning back the clock, they already have returned Western societies to an almost unprecedented unequal distribution of revenues and wealth (see my books as well as in proper English: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-17/jim-grant-slams-steve-liesman-fed-can-change-how-things-look-not-what-they-are )

To do so successfully, one must forge a narrative and work for what Karl Popper called a « social engineering », although he wrongly imputed this method to the Bolsheviks, the latter holding, at the very least, very different objectives. Necessarily any new narrative must rewrite History because its legitimacy cannot rest merely on bribes of irrational and negative aphorisms, arranged according to one's peculiar mood. Such slogans might be useful at times especially during demonstrations and torchlight marches involving fanaticised masses. But, ironically for these pitres, they fatally shock cognitive coherence when they are not adequately masked by a pseudo-logical and plausible reversed reconstruction of the past. Esclusivism as the strangler of truth, which it laboriously attempts to « deconstruct », rests on the fabrication of plausible ideological construction destined for mass-consumption and for the consumption of the subaltern watchdogs of the regime.

We are dealing here with true « pitres » in the deeply thought-out conceptual meaning that I gave to this term. Guillemin, who was not a dupe, already talked in his times about « intellectual acrobats »; others, without the benefit of the elucidation contributed by Marxist psychoanalysis (2) spoke of « acted » beings. It remains that they are often paid as professors, in my understanding a great dishonor to the profession; and, what is more, they are paid as such in republican, secular and public schools. Yet, they laboriously hush the essential philo-Semite Nietzschean aspect of this question. They do so more often than not in a calculated fashion, sometime with a cynical premeditation aggravated by crass ignorance. Indeed, these people are prompt to mouthwash themselves with Nietzsche while ignoring the lesson imparted by his Zarathustra; in so doing they end up believing themselves in their own crafted ineptitudes. In such instances, as an ironical falsifying grand master (sic!), Nietzsche had his Zarathustra exclaim didactically: Hi-Han! Hi-Han! As a matter of fact, History demonstrates that these fanatics like to mislead themselves, even as they fancy being « awakened » masters, or, even better, to be the salt of the Earth. In this self-righteous guise, they are much more dangerous than the so-called « militant nihilists » who, for their own part, always maintain a modicum of human feeling without which their manipulation would be worthless. Some of you might remember the monstrous ignominy of « Manhattan».

We thus already know what to except as far as this new attempt of salvaging Heidegger is concerned. It just looks like the previous one that had been conducted to salvage Nietzsche under the cover of his « philo-Semitism» (sic!), an infamy which I had already denounced then ... by « devoir de mémoire », that is to say, out of respect for Memory. Would Fascism be acceptable on condition of becoming again philo-Semite? As you might recall, the Italian-Jew Margherita Sarfatti or the brown-shirt wearing father of the rogue Zionist war criminal Netanyahu did wash profusely about her « Duce ». This can be quickly verified from her apology with the same title. He was turned into her pitric personal lover whom she contributed, with many others of her kind, to finance and to present as the « Great Protector of the Jews » up until ... 1938! This being recalled again out of respect for Memory.

To my knowledge, no one, above all not even Primo Levi in his time, has yet presented the required apologies to the Italian This was done with the general philo-Semite complicity of all the bourgeois democracies, including those under the leadership of Western social-democracy. It has become so bad that today everyone feigns to ignore Article XII of the definitive and transitory dispositions of the Italian Constitution born out of the armed Résistance to Nazifascism. Despite the fact that this Article XII declares all forms of Fascism illegal, a series of Casa Pound are opened and financed in the Peninsula. This occurs in the midst of the most general indifference, particularly that of the guarantying instances of our Republic and, of course, that of the leaders of the Italian Jewish Community. Today like yesterday this minute community is nonetheless again overrepresented everywhere. To that must be added, of course, the ignominious foreign financing or even State financing of exclusivist and calculatedly censored Shoah museums which hide the long complicity of leading Jewish circles with Nazifascism while ignominiously ignoring all the other victims of Nazifascim in the most premeditated exclusivist and illegal fashion. Thus Schindler is finally made into a Just among the nations and his Jewish accountant Stern is praised while Communist partisans are now denounced as « evil »! Clearly, this can have only one rational, namely that which transpires from the infamous, racist and inegalitarian so-called Schindler list itself. Thus only victims from the self-elected divine race are worthy of worship by the gullible Gentiles artfully infused with a fabricated sense of guilt! Then the sordid confusion between anti-Semitism and anti-philo-Semite Nietzscheism or anti-Zionism is entirely manipulated in a new inquisitorial vein which flies in the face of our democratic, antiracist and secular constitutions. These remarks should be recognised evidences but, in the midst of the general cowardliness and betrayal of the new clerks, they sadly need to be underlined. The only such museums acceptable are those which are rigorously respectful of History and totally exempt from any exclusivism. The must be common museums of the Deportation and of the Resistance, which means that they would not criminally focus on one single group of people represented as the only true victims. Especially in countries that were dirtied and destroyed by these philo-Semite Nietzschean forms. And sadly this is only one single example.

So, what about Heidegger? The issue is crystal clear, as much as it was for Nietzsche or for Carl Schmitt or, for that matter, for their own rogue professors and Masonic grand masters of which we all know.

We will go straight to the point in order to preventively close an ill-intentioned discussion. In truth, it should never have dared pretend to exist. To analyse the role of Heidegger is one thing, to attempt his rehabilitation by playing on chronology and on his presumed philo-Semitism is quite another thing altogether. We know that Heidegger himself tried very hard to hide his role during the Nazi regime; for instance, he reduced his autobiography to a lapidary phrase pace Vico! one which he had borrowed from others: « I was born, I lived and I will die. » To continue with the borrowing he could have added: « When one errs, it is better to err importantly », that is to say with the experimental scientific and ethical objective to amend oneself for one's own benefit and for that of the collectivity. Needless to say, the honesty of a Schopenhauer who recognized at the end the failure of his attempt to oppose « will » to ineluctable historical becoming was not in the nature of a criminal forger like Heidegger.

Quite simply Heidegger upholds again the old right-wing rabbinic project allied to the manipulating anti-egalitarianism devised by Nietzsche, which was holding the day yesterday in Germany as it does everywhere else today among the dominant circles of our Western and Muslim leading classes and in their institutions. It deals with the same business stock familiar to the rabbinic brand that harassed Marx even more than the Prussian police.

Heidegger added to it his own stuff. What exactly? Very specifically a falsifying method for ontology and methodology. This is something he developed before he became the Nazi Dean in competition with the cabalist jurist Carl Schmitt. This fact alone should dispose of all and any demented comments one hears today with the sole aim to save the honor of this scoundrel. Especially, as this is now being done with the help of other scoundrels saved from the Nazifascist inferno, which they themselves contributed importantly to create. Although their salvation came out of the determined struggle waged by them, today they even dare publicly characterise these Communists as having been worse than Hitler. However, they do so while laboriously hushing the role played by the Sade of the Bolshevik revolution, the Soviet-Jew Yeshov whose crimes were later conveniently attributed to Stalin, through the implementation of the usual calculated erasing of Memory and rewriting of History, in order to substitute to it a self-serving narrative!

(Symptomatically, this started with the illegal proclamation of Israel in 1948, a step that would never have been possible without the help of the philo-Semite Stalin who passed the necessary weapons through East Germany, a backing which was repaid for by his murder just because he refused any exclusivist logic. For Stalin the Jewish question could be treated like that of any other nationality, nothing more and nothing less, within the USSR itself or outside it. This regressive post-1948 loyalty shift was later aggravated by the failure of the Hungarian counter-revolution of 1956, which occurred at the same time as the Suez Canal Crisis ...The Hungarian counter-revolution was the philo-Semite Nietzschean end point in the Eastern bloc of the betrayal by Beria and others which had led to Stalin's assassination: Beria had been promised US support as the new master of the Kremlin in exchange for his abandonment of Eastern Europe! What failed with Beria and others succeeded later with Gorbatchev and Yeltsin and many others among the over-represented Soviet-Jews. These were the same who have made a trade in accusing Stalin of all crimes while never speaking about Yeshov and too many others like him, including themselves.)

Without a doubt those who would pretend to rehabilitate Heidegger ignore « once again » the infernal logic of exclusivism already denounced by me, following in the footsteps of Marx see his crucial Jewish Question. In so doing, they seem to be wanting to repeat History with contemporaries similar to Max Warburg and to Rosenberg but without the Wannsee Conference; or with the help of some other Margherita Sarfatti, that is before 1938, and of course not before 1936. Ethiopia did not count despite the ominous warning of the Haitian Ambassador in the SDN! We underline these two crucial dates because History is here much sinister than was prudently alluded to in the « Giardino dei Finzi-Contini. »

Very specifically the manipulating maneuver implemented by Heidegger can be summed up in the following fashion. Giambatitsta Vico founded the theory of modern history on the science of human becoming. He thus completed the secularisation of the Spirit previously elucidated by the Pythagorean Abbot Joachim of Fiore. The Calabrian Abbot had benefitted from the Pythagorean and Greek heritage which had never been totally forgotten in his Magna Graecia. Having travel to « Syria » during his youth, he equally benefitted, long before the Second Renaissance writers Pico, Ficino ecc. from the rediscovery of Plato and other Ancient texts by the Arabs. These were very close to Calabria and Sicily, above all during the Reign of King Roger which marked a turning point in the History of the Western World. Joachim had been employed in Roger's court in Palermo during his youth when it was the most sumptuous and most brilliant court in the Western World.

In it were elaborated many crucial civilisation pre-requisites, among which the separation of temporal and spiritual powers leading to secularity as a liberating evolution well fitted to a regenerated humanity now accountable to its own consciousness. In his Divina Commedia, Dante, who was well acquainted with Joachim's works and with Ancient authors see for instance his reformulation of Plato's myth of Err Pamphylian will stage the long struggle unfolding between Guelfs and Gibelins, a struggle which was nothing but a phase in this long civilisation struggle. Joachim himself had been the end result of this first but advanced synthesis; he operated it in the perfect Pythagorean syncretic spirit that had already guided the reforms implemented by Pope Gregory. Joachim would go as far as developing « figures » - see his Liber figurarum for the education of the masses, along with the establishment of his new monastic Order of Fiore. It had a specific organisation, because the new Order had been meant to insure the formation of the social and intellectual vanguard in charge of preparing the general emancipation, when the Spirit would in fine enlighten everyone in equal measure. (The Rule of the Monastic Order of Fiore is said to be lost which is strictly impossible because the Order was for a time the most prosperous in Southern Italy; this meant that aside for the Vatican, which approved it, each member monastery had at least one copy. We are here asking for the release and translation of a copy together with the pertaining texts.)

Vico added philology as a source of the objective knowledge of the past. Before him History was considered an entirely subjective discipline, at best worthy of the knowledge available to Descartes's servant. His philology was labeled fanciful; it was made the object of calculated sarcasms by the opponents of the new world vision announced in his Scienza Nuova. Nonetheless, Vico, being well-versed in Latin literature, drew from it an evolved « natural law of the people » (« diritto delle genti ») founded on class struggle. Posterior studies dealing with Ancient History and particularly with Roman History owe him the essential, as much as the modern comprehension of religions and mythology. Vico's « diritto delle genti » was a very different theory compared to Leibniz's sanctimonious clichés on the same subject.

With his philological method Vico gave a new lustre and, above all, a new scientific method to dialectics applied to the study of historical becoming. It will suffice here to mention his discovery of the « true Omer », that is to say the Greek people understood as a collective Subject; his reformulation of the Three Ages of Humanity staged by Joachim, and which Vico intended, among other things, as a critique of the necessarily static taxonomy of political regimes offered by Aristotle etc.; he intended it also as his reformulation of the historical correspondences illustrated by the Calabrian Abbot in his Concordia mainly which led to his famous ascending « ricorsi ». These were later reformulated in an inverse fashion by Nietzsche with his cloudy regressive and manipulating « returns », and his own, in truth more astrological and obscurantist than astronomical, marches « towards midnight ».

When everything is told, it is clear that Marx reformulated in an historical dynamic form the scientific method of I. Kant, who had himself been greatly inspired by Vico. Thus, he insisted on the method of investigation and on the method of exposition carefully underlying the fact that History produces, in practice, the same elucidation process by revealing the relationships between the universal, the general and the particular through its own march forward. History and the exposition method work in opposite directions; Marx sums this up by pointing out that the scientific understanding of the anatomy of Man opens up the road for the scientific understanding of the anatomy of the apes and other animals. Similarly the understanding of exchange value was not possible, even to a great mind like Aristotle's, before the advent of capitalism offered its concrete clarification through the «free » labor contract. This reified freedom revealed the universal equivalent needed as a measure standard to rationally compare commensurable merchandises between themselves. Marx will naturally substitute to Vico's philological method the modern method of scientific investigation. Philology became just one discipline in the complete scientific toolbox now in his possession, including political economy, a new discipline to which he himself had conferred an irrefutable scientific status. This toolbox evolves in a cumulative manner: Hence, today it is possible to think of a biological history, of a history of the cells and of ADN, something that was technically impossible not long ago. As a matter of fact, the great Marxist Paul Lafargue underlined the role of Vico in the development of Marx's historical materialism (see in www.marxists.org).

According to my theoretical restitution, Marx was able to scientifically distinguish between the dialectics of nature the domain of distincts - and the dialectics of History that of opposites conjugating both in the overall dialectics embodied by the Subject, Individual or social classes. The Subject operates the essential link between these two specific dialectics in a « contradictory identity », simply because Man is inherently both a natural and an historical product. One must therefore be careful not to confuse this concept with the irrational « unity of opposites » engendered by Hegelianism. In less worthy hands, such as those of Kautsky for instance, this cloudy «unity » quickly becomes a muddled gobbledygook beyond any possible rescue even with recourse to Michelet's drastic, if syllogistically inspired, simplification in the form of thesis-antithesis-synthesis...

Incidentally, this Marxist conception does away with the usual distinction between natural sciences and social sciences. This distinction was similarly derived from a misreading of Vico's ontology (verum-factum, to simplify. Thus God having created nature can understand it; Man having made history can likewise understand it whereas Man can only approach the knowledge of nature through indirect experimentations.) It was also derived from the paradigmatic imperialistic illusion entertained by modern physic, a discipline which nonetheless remains unable to account for more than 90 % of its own object of study! (despite the Cern and its «boxons», in French in the text, bosons in the plural, far from being the Leibnizean derived « particle(s) of god » (!) proved merely to be the variable result of the input level of energy used!)

There is only one scientific method but it applies to different disciplines and thus to different objects of study. It does so by taking great care in insuring that the method implemented remains congruent with the object of study. This is because, to provide one single example, the experimentations carried out in so-called hard sciences cannot be the same as those carried out in social sciences, if only because Man as an individual or as a group cannot be considered merely as an unanimated object and in fact Man does transform his environment by apprehending it. Nor can Man be reduced to pure Ideas, Mind working on itself, round and round, in abstraction of the interactions it necessarily entertain with the World. Thus, historical materialism takes great care in unifying the analysis of productive forces the material and institutional structures with the analysis of the relations of production (social processes): This constitutes its superiority. By referring to the finally elucidated overall dialectics to which we have pointed above, note should be taken of the fact that it does so in an organic fashion without resorting to any formalistic reflection theory, an approximation at best. For a more detailed exposition see my Synopsis of Marxist Political Economy in the books section of this site. (Extending the work of Wittgenstein one demonstrates that this remains true for mathematics, in the plural. They are thus adapted to their specific object of study, contrary to the failed unifying project entertained by Peano and Russell. In his Republic Plato already had explained that numbers are nothing but techniques, they do not have the same status as Ideas, or, as Kant would call them as « a priori » concepts. Marx called them « concretes in thought ». Their own « concrete in thought » is the « unit », the basis for any formalised quantification, and thus the transition from one unit to another in a coherent fashion in a given « universe » according to the treatment afforded by logic see, for instance, the revealing problem of the doubling of the cube. Arghiri Emanuel summed it all up beautifully in the most lapidary manner when he noted that mathematics are only a shorthand for logic.)

This Human becoming shed lights on human equality, because any discourse supposes the existence of an « inter-subjectivity field » to borrow Hegel's expression. Hence, an inter-subjectivity fields that is necessarily egalitarian because otherwise no discourse, no dialogue could be possible. This incidentally explains the irrefutable dialectics of the master and the slave, namely the class struggle for the individual and general emancipation that will lead to the plenitude of the Spirit or, in secular terms, to the plenitude of emancipated consciousness. This process is conceived according to the emancipation triptych exposed by Marx in his Holy family to which belongs his Jewish question, namely religious, political and general or Human emancipation. For Marx, bourgeois secular democracy was merely the Prehistory of Mankind because of its inability to bring the emancipation process to its logical conclusion.

Thus Heidegger's project was very simple. How to reverse this undeniable and ineluctable logic of Historical becoming in march toward the fullest realisation of equality? And thus encompassing, among other things, the ending of elected races' pretences, and of slavery as had been announced by the Pythagorean Socrates when he led the slave to the discovery of the doubling of the square (in Plato's Meno for instance), a demonstration which foreshadowed the possible revolution in the architecture of the Ancient Polis, indeed of the Ancient World etc ...)?

In his attempt to reverse this « March to the Guiding Star » of Equality, Heidegger will attack what constitutes, in the very intimacy of consciousness, the « contested terrain » of the accountability of each consciousness, the sole real temple according to Joachim. Heidegger attempted to forge a new phenomenology of the Mind placed under the control of putative masters. His Dasein ontology is a fabricated product deprived of its own processes. Thus Heidegger's ontological attack is far from original: It simply tries to sell narrative as substitute for verifiable facts and processes, perceptions and credos for reality. Heidegger shares the pathological psyche of Dostoevsky's Great Inquisitor who naturally informed Orwell's work: They all ^pretend to construct and control the people's souls. Modern cognitive science knows better having demonstrated how such illusions always end up shattered by incremental contrary facts or by the brutal confrontation with reality.

Thus Heidegger wanted to eradicate the desire to be acknowledged as an equal, which Marx had specified as the concrete rejection of alienation. In effect, Heidegger rightly saw in it the propulsive force behind the general movement of Human emancipation. Since Sun Tzu we all know that the best victories won without having to wage war. And so, Heidegger intends to operate at the root-level, without having to wage rear-guard battles, always lost in advance despite the massive use of the Nietzschean Hammer, including during preventive wars, which are criminal by definition. Heidegger sees himself as an engineer or a demiurge of the personality of these new beings that Nazifascism attempted to fabricate for its own needs. Not surprisingly Sectarian religions, Fascist propaganda and capitalist marketing as techniques can relish on Heidegger's ontology and methodology: Their job is to fabricate an alienated humanity in the same way that the system fabricates captive consumers and the products they are trained to consume. (Similarly, see the late Imperial intellectual and practical failure of the attempted « control of authorised flows of communications », as well as that of the return to « deference towards Authority », that is to say, to a self-conferred authority based on scientifically unacceptable narratives, etc.)

How then do you preventively suppress the natural drive to equality? The rogue Heidegger or better the Nazi Dean under which guise is he more acceptable? -, answers this question: In surreptitiously falsifying etymology. This is because Man, a Being in continuous becoming,

is also a creation of language. (Gramsci said an « historical bloc », a concept which Roland Barthes reformulated as a « millefeuille»; Plato had already touched upon the subject, for instance in his Cratylus.) The method remains always the same: That of inversion. Hence fraudulently redoing Vico in reverse, usurping historical becoming to reverse its egalitarian consequences. It is only slightly less idiotic than Derrida and so many other deplorable so-called « nouveaux philosophes » with their « deconstructions » and their « specters ». Of course, these were obvious humbugs that only impressed those who did not know how to read but loved nonetheless to mouthwash in public with an oral cultural veneer. Especially during prime time shows in the medias and other mediums destined for mass consumption.

Yet, the exclusivist logic of his entirely forged Heimat well fitting his fake and mutilated Dasein, soon became criminal. That is, before his adhesion to the Nazi regime. In effect, after the great scientific revolutionary lesson imparted by Kant one of the founding father of the secular Universalist and egalitarian revolution that unfolded in France Germany will relish for a time in her great exercise aimed at cultural and civilisational « clarification». To simplify, there were Herder and Goethe. Herder initiated in historicising Kant. The latter, the notorious Father of the egalitarian Categorical Imperative, had conceived « becoming » only as a natural process (child, adult, senior for instance). Herder developed the concept of « species » on the bases of the new pluri-disciplinary data available to his epoch which he himself had superbly summarized. He foresaw the evolution and the mutations of species as well as of language. The great Marxist Paul Lafargue, who was a doctor by training, will provide a magnificent introduction to the dialectics of nature emphasizing among other things the importance of Saint-Hilaire with respect to Lamarck, Cuvier and Darwin etc and to the dialectics of History. (3)As had been demonstrated for History by Vico, one could now have both becoming and the concretes forms of this becoming but without changing species.

Goethe for his part will save his Faust from damnation taking him to Greece and to Italy. And thus to the best known formalised sources of universalism, which he, like Herder, equally documented in German, thus contributing to the evolution of this language. He did so without having to resort to the kinds of inversed forgeries of which Nietzsche, Wagner and many others similarly exclusivist will later prove guilty. (As evidenced from his travels, he himself loved Italy despite the advanced decadence of the Peninsula already then. In his trained eyes, antic ruins had retained their most profound signification. Needless to say the German Reformation, that of Luther of course but more profoundly that of Thomas Müntzer and of the Peasants' War in Germany so magnificently illustrated by Dürer's drawings and analysed by Engels and Marx, would not be comprehensible without reference to Joachim ...) Marx and Engels will definitively draw the logical and historical conclusions.

How does one mystify the Universalist and methodological foundations of this scientific approach? By falsifying etymology and history, creating a narrative of the origins and of the Dasein and its Heimat, thus negating human equality. Because of certain usual practices within Western Masonic circles, this specifically forged Heimat was inspired by the long biblical operation continued in successive layers. This cumulative process has already been shown since the very beginning by hermeneutics and later by modern philology. Ibn Ezra's early contribution was essential to Spinoza, the great theoretician who was naturally excommunicated by the rabbis of whom he had already denounced what he called their « delirium ».

In effect, with the biblical narrative, we are dealing with an imperial colonizing operation of the Palestinian marches then disputed by the main African and Mid-Oriental empires. A vanguard of colons was sent from Ur with a half-totemic genealogy fabricated for the cause, taking great care in so doing to dissimulate the Sumerian origin of these founding myths. Later, as the situation became militarily and socially increasingly more difficult other detachments of colons will eventually be sent as witnessed by Ancient and Roman History as well as by the New Testament , a theocratic fanaticism was created from scratch staging a divinely elected race. Then a rigorist monotheism far from Socratic Ethics Ethical Good as opposed to utilitarian good was grafted to subvert Abraham polytheism as well as the environing polytheism. And finally was added to that toxic brew the slogan of a Promised Land or Lebensraum - exclusively granted by « god » itself to this « elected race » with the purpose of legitimizing the genocides of the autochthonous population over which the Old Testament takes great proud and even greater delight, something other ancient people never seemed to have done. To stuff up the narrative, a Moses was added copied straight from the model of King Sargon masked in Egyptian clothing, and so on and so forth.

In fact, the English translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh had been available since around 1830-1840. But it was prudently reserved to the specialists. It nevertheless produced the same mentality upheaval as had been produced by the publication in current or vulgar language of Gutenberg's Bible, an event which shook the foundations of the expurgated Vulgate propagandised by the Churches. Modern reactionaries were helped in their endeavor by the English military discovery of the same method used by the Hindu Brahmins, although it was expressed in different clothing. They will do their best to imitate the regressive narrative process. It was certainly not a coincidence if Nietzsche staged his Zarathustra to express his ideas.

Nonetheless, the discovery of the religious and mythological basis of these narratives will naturally leads to an acceleration of the progress toward secularity and general atheism. For a free conscience atheism could be summed up as « neither god, nor master », a stand not to be confused with the negation of spirituality. This happened thanks to the efforts for instance of Renan, Mallarmé and of others, one of the best early contribution being that offered by Paul Lafargue. He was also well accounted with the English and German contributions so dear to Engels (Bauer, among others.) I believe to have brought this process to its completion by unifying my Marxist understanding of archeoastronomy with my theory of Marxist psychoanalysis. (See my Book II).

For the dominant circles, however, it led to occultation and to reactionary imitation: Imitating the biblical blockade of the Road to science became an eminently political and anti-democratic affair. A weapon in the class struggle. Let us jump over some stages: This regressive strategy assumed a new life after the creation of Marx's International and the unfolding of the Paris Commune in 1871; it also inspired a new hysteria worse than that expressed by Flaubert in 1871 and afterwards after the successful Bolshevik Revolution. Wedded to capitalism and to the societies of exploitation of Man by Man, the dominant classes had suddenly been faced with the first concrete illustrations of their ineluctable historical demise; their hysteria expresses the « will to survive ». But it had always been so in the past, at each steps of the general march for emancipation. Witness the condemnation to death of the Pythagorean masters Socrates and Jesus; or again by the indignant reaction of Thomas Paine, in his Rights of Man, against the counter-revolutionary and venal « return » of Edmund Burke to the inegalitarian Tradition.

Today, people still dare defend this regressive project. Moreover, they do so taking their Sophistic non-Hegelian flight from teaching postings in the republican and secular Grandes Ecoles and other universities. This is tantamount to a betrayal of the Constitution and of Human civilisation, necessarily egalitarian, and accountable for the duties of consciousness which cannot be substituted by deference to an authority, unless it be the authority of science. I was thus able to affirm, without seeing the shadow of an open critique that would recognise my right to respond, that: « What is not scientific is not Marxist and vice-versa. » In effect, the bee wax of narratives quickly melts down in the presence of the shining Sun of science. As for the Zionist-Nietzschean Hammer, it is already badly shaking in the handle. « Once again ». These narratives have no historical lasting weight whatsoever: Any more than they proved to have in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Palestine, in Africa and elsewhere.

To conclude, we shall add that the rogue Heidegger had typically attempted after the war to erase his traces. He attempted to do so by rewriting a presentable autobiography here too through a reversal of Vico. He also attempted to do it through the invitation sent to a rising Western, and above all French, philosophical star, Jean-Paul Sartre. Who, not being a dupe, simply declined, as he did later with the same foresight and the same exemplary courage for the Committee attributing the Nobel Prize for Literature. Rags and napkins don't mix.

I hope that no one will be simplistic enough to reproach me not having waited for the new publication: We will provide our reaction on it when the time comes, if it is worth the time. This short essay already provides the irrefutable main keys of interpretation. We are specifically criticising here a fraudulent manner of raising a false problem, one that is cynically calculated to mystify the debate preventively. This is done providing as usual both the questions and the answers, while at the same time doing some lucrative free marketing. We, too, are no dupes. However, we are grateful to the author of the above quoted article if only for his essential remarks that were reproduced at the beginning of this comment.

Paul De Marco,

San Giovanni in Fiore (CS), December 8, 2013. Translated in English on December 24-25, 2013.

1) See for instance in the site www.la-commune-paraclet.com a) « Le lit du néofascisme » and its « Annexe » and « In praise of Reason » in the Fascism/Racism/Exclusivism. b) « Nietzsche as an awakened nightmare » and Pour Marx contre le nihilisme dans la Section Livres/Books ; c) the « Note * », the « Note ** » as well as the « Note 15 on John Galbraith » in my Book III entitled Keynesianism, Marxism, Economic Stability and Growth, 2005, in the Books section of the same site.

2) On Marxist psychoanalysis definitively elucidated see the second part of my Pour Marx, contre le nihilism, in the Books section of the same site. The English version of this crucial second part will soon be made available in English.

3) Herder Idées sur la philosophie de l'histoire de l'humanité, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k68507x/f24.image.r=Herder,%20Johann%20Gottfried%20von.langEN (See also Herder in www.marxists.org) and Paul Lafargue, The Historical Method of Karl Marx, (1903) IV. The Natural Environment and the Artificial or Social Environment http://marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1903/xx/histmeth.htm