When Gammas Cry

Gamma males seek to defend their insane philosopher in vain

I knew that my casual dismissal of Friedrich Nietzsche as the Great Philosopher of Gamma would provoke a few Gammas, but it’s educational to see how the Gammas responded in precisely the midwitted manner anyone who is SSH-aware would anticipate. The following approaches the platonic ideal of a Gamma rebuttal, even though it falls somewhat short of being a proper Wall of Text, as it combines ignorance and factual error with the customary posturing and personalization to which Gammas invariably retreat.

Just because you call him a lunatic doesn’t make it so. you think and behave as if we are in the Middle Ages and you Catholics are top dog and have a continent-spanning secret police behind you but you don’t.

All you have is a little internet echo chamber and a religion that is built on the flimsiest foundation that cannot stand up to any criticisms.

So you arrogantly dismiss them. but the vast majority of people aren’t convinced by your bluster anymore and haven’t been for centuries.

You come off as weak and ignorant now more than ever.

But the historical fact is that Nietzsche was a lunatic. He literally died in a state of “raving dementia”. His syphilis had been rotting his brain for two decades.

“Nietzsche’s letters from 1867 until his breakdown in 1889 provide a vivid account of the suffering of secondary syphilis. He complains of the pain, skin sores, weakness and loss of vision that typify the repertoire of the disease. In his last years, his letters give evidence of euphoria. His published works show the grandeur and inspiration that tertiary syphilis sometimes brings to brilliant and disciplined creative minds by removing inhibition as brain tissue is destroyed… Multiple sources indicate that he was treated for syphilis in 1867 at the age of twenty-three… Years later, in 1889, when Nietzsche broke down and was taken to the clinic of a paresis expert, he was admitted with the diagnosis: «1866. Syphilit. Infect.»”

Nietzsche didn’t just become a lunatic after his famous public breakdown in 1889. His intellectual abilities were already being significantly affected by his syphilis when he published his first work, The Birth of Tragedy, in 1872. His philosophy, such as it is, is quite literally crazy.

The last eleven years of his life, Nietzsche spent in an incoherent madness, crouching in corners and drinking his urine. The most productive year of his life had been immediately prior to the psychotic break.

The syphilitic lack of “inhibition as brain tissue is destroyed” is readily apparent in most of Nietzsche’s work, which is why only Gammas are inclined to take it seriously, some poor souls to the point of accepting it as quasi-Gospel.

Nietzsche suffered from an "unspeakable megalomania", but there's a reason he's still discussed and quoted so much to this day; and that reason, imo, isn't so much the will to power or the ubermench or what have you, or even his interesting style, but rather his correct identification with the transvaluation of values brought forth by Christianity to upend the Roman world.

“Are you not dead?”

Nietzsche is still quoted and discussed to this day because his grandiosity, pomposity, self-inflation, and superior posturing appeal greatly to Gamma males. As long as there are Gammas, there will be unhappy young men who confuse Nietzschean madness with a genuine philosophy by which to live.

And the “transvaluation of values brought forth by Christianity to upend the Roman world” was nothing new. Not only were centuries of intellectuals quite familiar with the metaphor of Jesus Christ as “the Light of the World” that vanquished pagan darkness, but that metaphor was inverted by the atheists of the Enlightenment. Nietzsche was merely following the lead of his atheist forebears. I even wrote about this specific historical inversion back in 2008, in The Irrational Atheist.

Most people today are under the vague impression that the very reason for the Dark Ages' grim nomenclature stems from a puritanical, power-hungry, monolithic Church's iron-fisted repression of science and human liberty, a totalitarian religious oppression that was finally shaken off by the bold freethinkers of the Enlightenment.

But as medievalists such as Umberto Eco and numerous historians have explained in copious detail, this simply is not true. The Dark Ages were no more dark than the Church was undivided.

The negative view of the medieval period has a long and interesting history. Edward Gibbon, the author of the classic The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire famously describes them as “priest-ridden, superstitious, dark times.” Of course, it can be reasonably suggested that anyone who is fascinated enough with the Roman Empire to write a million and a half words in six volumes about it, and is blindly prejudiced enough to blame its ultimate collapse on a religion that did not become commonplace until centuries after Juvenal was satirizing the mad decadence of imperial Roman society, is perhaps unlikely to be the most accurate guide in these matters.

What is fascinating is that this modern misconception of medieval times is at least partly based upon the romantic perspective of a fourteenth-century Italian poet, Francesco Petrarca, a Christian humanist better known in English as Petrarch, who is considered to have created the very concept of the Dark Ages. Scholars assert that it was Petrarch who reversed the classic Christian metaphor of pagan darkness giving way to the Light of the World and eventually came to view his own time as a dark age following a lost golden antiquity. This reversed metaphor was picked up by medieval writers such as Giovanni Boccaccio, then again by anti-religious Enlightenment intellectuals such as Denis Diderot, Louis de Jaucourt, Voltaire, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who established the reversed tradition that persists today.

And, of course, the idea that the Cross is a symbol of “powerlessness” or “the slave mentality” is so profoundly stupid that it is easily dismissed by a single image.

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Anyone who has ever listened once to Handel’s Messiah would know that the Cross is not a sign of weakness, but a sign of infinite power, an emblem of the defeat of a seemingly invincible foe by the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Harrower of Hell himself, Jesus Christ. But the Gamma midwit is not only delusional and ignorant, he is woefully uncultured.

You are far too insightful for a “double your dating” chad like Vox. He’s a weird “follow me for more dating tips” guy who also wants to be pretend to be beacon of Christendom. Only someone who hasn’t read “Dominion” by Tom Holland would say something so stupid about Nietzsche, I’m glad I haven’t hung around anymore in Vox’s world.

That Gamma was in such a rush to defend Nietzsche that he thinks this is a pick-up artist site. I’m confident that everyone in my world is very glad this guy hasn’t hung around here either.

The lack of attribution and the casual, disdainful arrogance isn't a good look, imo, but hey, it's your house.

I tend to think that being a Nietzsche-worshipping Gamma isn’t a good look, but hey, it’s his lonely hell of an existence. The reason that these “SOURCE?” guys are so widely mocked is because their demands for attribution reveal two things about themselves. First, that they don’t understand the way the truth exists independent of all opinion and evidence. Second, it indicates their projection of their own intrinsic dishonesty, because they assume that in the absence of evidence, the assertion must be false.

UPDATE: The complaint about “the lack of attribution” is even funnier and weirder than you would imagine. We are reliably informed that the Gamma’s complaint about attribution didn’t refer to anything that I posted which wasn’t sourced, but rather, the fact that I correctly attributed the interview he had quoted to the original publication rather than to him, which is a strange and very Gamma objection indeed.

Every seething post like this throwing slave resentment at me just proves Nietzsche was on to something. I see a lot more slave resentment from e crusaders than the love and kindness Jesus taught.

I don’t know if I could illustrate or explain the Gamma Delusion Bubble or the concept of the Secret King more accurately than this single Gamma quote. Rejection of a Gamma and his posturing “just proves Nietzsche was on to something” and makes one a resentful slave. To disagree with the Gamma or to criticize him is to seethe.

How these poor angry souls don’t see their own emotional projection is beyond me or any normal man, but it’s clear that somehow, they don’t. But it does make it clear why the unspeakable megalomania and grandiose rantings of a diseased, demented, urine-imbibing loser speaks to them so powerfully.

No man who can bench his own body weight has ever quoted Nietzsche. This is known.