[[NEVER READ OR PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT I WRITE ("SAY"). JUST READ AND STUDY P.K.'s TEXTS AND HIS NOTES (WHAT HE WROTE, "SAID") - TAKING YOUR TIME AND TAKING A LOT OF TIME, NICE AND SLOWLY, ABSORBING EVERY SENTENCE COMPREHENSIVELY AND BY COMPREHENDING IT (IF POSSIBLE),... AND OF COURSE WITHOUT PLACING ANY WEIGHT ON MY MAD MADMAN CRAZED CRAZY LOOPY LOONY RAVINGS, INCLUDING MY FOOTNOTES AND ENDNOTES AND OTHER COMMENTARY!!! FIGURE THINGS OUT FOR YOURSELVES (LONG-TERM AND PROBABLY (CERTAINLY) SHORT/MEDIUM-TERM, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE ANYWAY (HUMANS WILL ALWAYS CONTINUE TO BE HUMANS)), AND GOOD LUCK!!!]]
[[IT IS TIME FOR THE FULL-SPECTRUM ZIO-LOBOTOMISED PSYCHO PSYCHO-PATHOLOGISERS (INCL. A GROSSLY, INORDINATELY AND VERY VULGAR - SEEN AS A SUBJECTIVE MATTER OF TASTE - NUMBER OF PSYCHO PSYCHO-PATHOLOGISING JEWS (ZIOS, HEBREWS), TO FEEL A BIT OF MELANCHOLY BEFORE THE MEN ARRIVE, WHO WILL FINALLY DEAL WITH THEM.
DEATH TO SATAN!!!]]
[[In this - as always with P.K. - absolutely one-of-a-kind, unique RAZOR SHARP slashing, slicing analysis of an aspect of "the human condition", there is reference to psychologism (ZIO or NOT), and when considered with, inter alia, sociologism (ZIO or NOT), as well as with reductionism (ZIO or NOT), "post-modern" etc. Nonsense (ZIO or NOT), etc., then we can see that P.K. left no stone unturned in pulling apart all the empirically false, ideological assumptions of non-scientific "theory", and in this instance especially 19th and 20th century theory (ZIO or NOT). Thus, what P.K. did is basically stick to History, Sociology and Social Ontology (including Anthropology and Biology, Nature, where relevant), (Geo)Politics, Philosophy,... at the macro or general level, and left it up to Serious (and not Mickey-Minnie-Mouse-Goofy-Donald Duck) Historians, Sociologists, Political Scientists, Social Psychologists and of course Geneticists, Social Biologists, et al., etc. - ZIO or NOT -, to work at the micro or more specialised levels.]]
[[This roughly describes me: A-HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]]
" From the dandy, who avoids society and visits the salon, the
hermit (recluse) is distinguished, who disenchanted
by the course of the world, discovers wisdom in the cultivation of his garden, or else withdraws as an ascetic and prophet into the
desert and from there thunders against the sinful way of life of
his people. The pendant, i.e. counterpart, of melancholy is in the latter case
(of the hermit) no longer cultivated, ambiguous irony,
but well-aimed sarcasm, which increases and
heightens to holy wrath, because taking
the place of the casual and laid-back amoralism of the dandy, is now a rigorous,
deeply mistrustful and eternally vigilant moralism.
With the absoluteness of the ethical claim, contact with every concrete human reality
flows into and leads to regular despair, and the changing
of melancholy into despair is carried out in a breath, i.e. automatically,
along with the transition from despair into aggression. To such an aggression
is of course that person entitled who knows that his own conscience is free
from every burden or load. For this reason, the prophet –
as long as he remains a prophet, as long as he, therefore, loves the desert
rather than the commotion of politics – is hardly capable
of finding fellow-travellers, and deep down he does not even want to: the voice
of the right (correct) cast of mind is heard louder
and clearer when it speaks by way of one single mouth."
[[Master Class TIME!!! - ARE YOU READY? (YOU ARE VERY LUCKY TO BE READING PASSAGES LIKE THIS - THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE P.K. PEAKS IN RESPECT OF WHAT HUMANS CAN DO IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES OR "PHILOSOPHY" AND IS GENERALLY - THROUGHOUT HISTORY, AS FAR AS ITS FULL IMPLICATIONS ARE CONCERNED - BANNED).]]
" We understand now why the
world-theoretical melancholy of the first water, i.e. genuine and pure or
unmixed melancholy, that is, the proclamation of the meaninglessness of life has been a quantité
négligeable in the spectrum pertaining to the history of ideas of all
cultures and of all epochs. Even materialistic world views, which for polemical
reasons, rejected the direct and original binding of meaning to an
intellectual(-spiritual) or else godly, divine world foundation, had to smuggle
in – in a logically breakneck manner –, at this or that tier, stage or level of the theoretical
construction, principles or forces, which were supposed to save and rescue the
assumption of meaningful moral-social action. Because of the cultural
indispensability of this assumption, meaning can only be combated only in the
name of meaning; that is why the proclamation of meaninglessness is polemically completely useless, and melancholy, to the extent it is
reduced to the assumption of the incurable meaninglessness of
the Is (Being), necessarily remains a private matter. Positions, which give rise to melancholy or rather seem to spring from a melancholic
disposition, can – inside of ideational constructs – undertake only polemical
functions, if they represent or constitute one side of a two-sided construction,
whose other side founds meaning and gives ontological or other guarantees
for the pushing through, i.e. imposition, of meaning. As [[occurs]] inside the
human situation itself, thus also inside of every world image, which does not want
to fully renounce and relinquish normative aspects, pessimistic and optimistic
components exist next to one another; otherwise the world image concerned
proves itself to be incapable of existing in competition with other world
images, that is to say, to fulfil polemical goals (ends), and accordingly to
satisfy power claims. The reason is obvious: one begins and justifies at the
same time a polemic(s) by referring to the constituent parts of
reality which are valueless or damaging – that is, instil grief and melancholy; and one announces and justifies a power
claim by, this time, optimistically asserting that the social granting or imposition of our own meaning-creating position can put aside and eliminate that evil
by equating therefore the victory of one’s own position and social salvation in practice. And in actual fact: no single case until now has occurred in
history in regard to which someone has declared that the deplorable states of
affairs complained about by him himself would
be got rid of through the recipes and action of his opponents, and
not through his own recipes and action. Only from this
perspective does it become explicable why in all great world images of the
hitherto history of ideas, good and evil or else optimism and pessimism, have existed
next to each other. And it is, in the course of this, entirely
irrelevant whether the corresponding pair of concepts are
called God/Devil, Redemption (Salvation, Deliverance)/Sin, Freedom/Oppression
(Suppression), Self-realisation/Alienation (Estrangement), or multicultural
society/racism and nationalism."
{{THE ARTICLE CLOSES WITH AN ABSOLUTELY COMPELLING FOUR-AND-A-HALF (in the German) PAGE SUMMARY OF THE HISTORY OF CORE POLEMICS, FROM LUTHER AGAINST MAINSTREAM CHURCH CATHOLICISM, TO THE ENLIGHTENMENT, AND THEN TO 20TH CENTURY MASS DEMOCRACY. NOT TO BE MISSED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!!!}}
