Novatore

That only extends the question to Nietschze, it all just reeks of a frustration which manages to fill a whole perspective.

Nazi liked him because muh Ubermensch, even tough Nietzshe meant that in a different way. I'm pretty sure he would have held the Nazi i comtempt as they are the embodiement of resentment and slave morality.

yeah I did forget the quotation mark after "brats". The rest is me. And the quote is Bruno Fillipi from The Free Art of a Free Spirit - he was a contemporary of Novatore for those who don't know.

He liked the Spartans and other ancient Greeks for practices that would be called fascism today.

Do you really think this means anything in and of itself? I like liberalism for the fact that there is a tradition among liberals of reading from all viewpoints, even those you disagree with - but I am not a liberal. My point being that you can take something good from someone you ultimately disagree with.

Well, read Nietzsche then.

The basic idea behind slave morality is that it is the morality of the former slaves of Rome - the Christians - who transvaluated master morality by offering up one of their own (Jesus) as "bait" for the world to swallow. They made everyone else feel bad, and elevated themselves to being the better class, out of their resentment for the master class having it better than them rather than exerting their own internal will to power.

That's the basic idea at least.

He straight-up says in Beyond Good and Evil that the Jews were basically the best race of Europe, so I think it's pretty safe to say that Nietzsche would have hated the Nazis :^)

This tbh.

It doesn't even matter, on that point, if Nietzsche himself did in fact believe in anything resembling fascism or monarchy or whatever. Nietzsche himself would laugh at anyone who followed his own ideas to the letter.

I think it doesn't mean anarchism, not even the more edgy variety.

That doesn't explain why it is slavery, this obsession with power and submission, that is the prism through which all human behavior is viewed.

The arch-hipster.

“Hipster” is a term co-opted for use as a meaningless pejorative in order to vaguely call someone else’s authenticity into question and, by extension, claim authenticity for yourself.

It serves no conversational function and imparts no information, save for indicating the opinions and preferences of the speaker.

Meanwhile, a market myth has sprung up around the term, as well as a cultural bogeyman consisting of elusive white 20-somethings who wear certain clothes (but no one will agree on what), listen to certain music (no one can agree on this either), and act a certain way (you’ve probably sensed the pattern on your own).

You can’t define what “that kind of behavior or fashion or lifestyle” actually is, nor will you ever be able to. That’s because you don’t use “hipster” to describe an actual group of people, but to describe a fictional stereotype that is an outlet for literally anything that annoys you.

The twist, of course, is that if it weren’t for your own insecurities, nothing that a “hipster” could do or wear would ever affect you emotionally. But you are insecure about your own authenticity - “Do I wear what I wear because I want to? Do I listen to my music because I truly like it? I’m certainly not like those filthy hipsters!” - so you project those feelings.

Suffice it to say, no one self-identifies as a hipster; the term is always applied to an Other, to separate the authentic Us from the inauthentic, “ironic” Them.

It's slave morality because it literally is the morality of a class of slaves m8. The Christians (Jews) were in Rome basically slaves.

I should also point out that Nietzsche nonetheless recognizes the significance of how the Christians transvalued the master morality, because that has literally never been done again. He doesn't accept it as the end-all, however, because it has lead to a sickness of passive nihilism.

Nietzsche would laugh at anyone who tried to follow his own ideas to the letter because he hated dogma in all its forms. Read On Truth and Lie in the Extra-moral Sense to get a feel for how his aversion to dogma informs his epistemology.

You're one of those ironic hipsters, aren't you?

No, it's slave morality because slavery has been recasted as Big Other in the Nietszchean worldview. The history of christianity is besides the point.

k, well, your posts are really lazy and you're not cashing out your arguments so I'm gonna pull an Ubermensch move here and ignore you until you put in a little more effort :^)

because my potential, and what i want to achieve, is a threat to the system, and they will destroy me if i try to realise it
they became aristocrats by working within the system, and are supported and protected by it. i don't want to be "alongside them," i want to destroy them

nevertheless, i mostly agree with you. i hate the masses and am a proud antidemocrat.

That is a very narrow specialty. There is a conceit among philosophers that being adept with philosophy makes them the natural leaders of mankind, and this goes back to Plato. Philosophy provides a philosopher with the ability to detect patterns in the world as he experiences it and to place it into a grand narrative (yes, you as well, pomos). That allows us to rationally write prescriptions for others that are intended to help them to achieve desirable ends, but they may do with them as they please. That is in practice the extent of our efficacy. We are the servants of those to whom we give our theories, not their rulers.

Does this make us better or worse than them? I say that such a categorization is meaningless. It assumes a whole value by evaluating only a constituent aspect of contrasting individuals.

Can you not outsmart the state/porky? There are "cracks' in the system, temporally and geographically speaking. Places where for a certain amount of time no functionary of the state or of capital is present. If you can learn these cracks and find ways to move between them, your potential and all that you seek could be brought into being without your destruction.
Novatore did not mean, in his use of the term "aristocrat" the bourgeois conception of the thing. He meant existential aristocrats // ubermensch. These people did not become aristocrats by the system's protection or their collusion with it - they simply had the werewithal to ascend out and up from the herd.

Ay see you at Jambo

Who said anything about rulers? It is not that I seek to rule them as much as I am saying that they are irrelevant. I do not think we should waste our time with them period - prescribing actions or ruling them or any of it. I think the shackling to the collective that is etched into leftism is an understandable move, but ultimately one that produces existential poverty.

Hahaha howd you know
Stirner's Intellectual Vagabonds ride freights and hitch highways IRL, whaddaya know

It's nice that you've found empowerment and freedom in anarchist philosophy, but I'm trying to live in a world here which doesn't consign billions of current and future people to slavery, suffering and death.

You maybe content with tragic existence as an enlightened vagabond living on the margins of a postindustrial Europe, or picking over the bones of a post-collapse America. Personally, I wouldn't; I acknowledge my own weakness and therefore prefer solidarity and the promise of collective struggle for a better society. Better that than trying to rise above my fellow man for a chance to be the main character in the William Gibson novel that is our future, rather than a faceless background character.

So what do you actually want to do?

no. nor can i outnumber, outgun, or outspend them. and nor can you and 99% of humanity.
then i guess i'm just part of the inferior, subhuman breed, destined always to serve our betters.

Then we are of no value to anyone. You may find that liberating, but I would like to put my agency to some use.

This is a sound response I can't take too much issue with. I am content with such an existence, honestly. Though,
I get it, and empathize to some degree. The problem with it is that you are talking about a massive undertaking for which there is presently no truly effectual means of dealing with. My view of problems of this scale is essentially that society comprises such a massive "ship" that it cannot be steered - particularly when the navigation cabin of the ship is stuffed with buffoons who spit at you if you attempt to chart a reasonable course. Why relegate yourself to a life of standing by the wheel, cucked by a gaggle of ignorant swine who take the wheel by force? Why not "[allow] this tragic social dusk to give our 'I' some calm and thrilling tinder of universal light?"
Further, I think in terms of efficacy, the aristocratic-individualist approach bears real fruit. If I, as a rogue iconoclast, live so intensely and with such vigor, the others around me cannot help but notice, and in time, they may join. My interest is in pulling these people into the aristocratic fold. This is a form of "organizing" that makes no pretense at the masses across the future, and instead focuses entirely on the individual presently - with a long-term possibility (a quite real one) of something larger emerging.

In every individual there is an aristocrat, and in most, he has been forced into an absurd sleep by authority. This deprives me of comrades, and holds back the possibility of the only society that would be worth living in - one in which every individual's potential was exalted to the highest degree. So I am interested in embarrass and weakening that power structure at every chance.
It is also worth saying that what capitalist exploitation was in the 19th century, that Marx so reasonably demonstrated - a unifying struggle - suicide is today. I endeavor down the individualist path as a means to resisting the machine that produces such an unthinkable volume of suicide. I do this because I find that machine disgusting.
Good question.

What do you actually want to do except for metaphors that don't have any active meaning?

Tell me how your day looks like and how you want anarchist ubermensch aristocracy to change that.

Name calling it is, then. ok

There is nothing to these fucks ideology

They're sitting on Holla Forums growing less fit and less intellectually desperate by the day, craving internet brownie points and false senses of superiority. They don't travel and they don't read - they wouldn't be here otherwise.

The pretensions of individualist anarchists never cease to amuse.

That's because anarchism is a radical offshoot of liberalism, as Chomsky said – and he stands as a good example of it too.

You don't have to lower yourself regardless of whether you're an anarchist or not.

Ultimately, it's not only about putting yourself above people in your class, but thinking you can willfully separate yourself from capitalism, like that wandering hobo who thinks he's found "freedom" living in the crack of the bourgeoisie's ass (yet still having to sell his labor for a wage from time to time).

Ever heard of Sisyphus? Cause that's what you're doing absent a collective revolutionary struggle. If it makes you happy, fine, but don't delude yourself otherwise.

So what? It's not up to the thinker how their ideas are used, hence why Nietzsche became synonymous with Fascism for a time, and why Marx's works became dogma in Marxism-Leninism.

Badiou would go further and state that philosophy is forever at the mercy of developments in non-philosophical realms (art, science, politics). I have my doubts, though.

Class society produces existential poverty, not some generalized collective.

Otherwise known as a cult.

We should combine anarchism with eugenics tbh. Only the free should reproduce.

"hipster" means someone who is being insincere for popularity or to impress others, retard.

True change will remain impossible until historical conditions make it possible.

What do you guys think of Blanqui? His rejection of mass movements seems to jive with a lot of what is being said here. He could be considered a "aristocratic" socialist of sorts.

I think Blanqui my be the bridge between Stirnerites and Insurrectos with classical Marxists, if such a bridge exists.

Is there not a significant difference between needing $1500/yr and needing $20,000? In terms of one's lived freedom, it seems like such a low amount of necessary labor to survive would be liberating. Not totally liberating, but certainly much more than living paycheck to paycheck. I think that sort of thing is more about what is than what "ought to be". Yes, capitalism ought to be abolished, but making our lives as individuals more livable first seems like a pretty solid notion.

I agree that the revolutionary task, when viewed in its entirety, seems daunting and hopeless. The idea of a global, concurrent revolution, as some dogmatists suggest, is laughably improbable. However, collective struggle is much more feasible if you break it down at a local/regional level.

I premise this idea on the belief that climate and economic externalities will weaken and collapse the current global neoliberal order. Once that happens, the possibility for small-scale organization and change becomes much more attainable. Small groups and communes of individualist-anarchists could have their place in this moment in showing the way forward, and advocating for new forms of non-hierarchical society. However, their forms and philosophies cannot easily be scaled upwards. I don't see directly-democratic, non-hierarchical forms of society as achievable in any modern metropolitan area, where many millions may live and work. Urban areas need some form of agreed-upon hierarchy, rule of law, etc. both to prevent a descent into barbarism, and to preserve the industrial technology that can enable post-scarcity. Because without some socialist movement that promises the collective preservation of the urban, these regions will either descend into despotism/fascism to preserve their ways of life through tyranny, or collapse into barbarism and annihilation. Either route destroys the material foundations of technology and science on which post-scarcity communism could be built.

My ideal reality for a future Earth is one split between federated collective socialist governments providing for and managing the bulk of urbanized human society, and groups of individualist anarchists and separatists who serve as a rural/nomadic counterweight and safeguard against the rise of tyranny. It's sort of what was described in Robinson's Mars Trilogy, with a confederated cooperative society coexisting with bands of ecological anarchists, except on Earth and not the red planet. IMO there can be a space for both socialism and anarchism, just as long as capitalism is not present.