“The slave revolt in morality begins when ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge. While every noble morality develops from a triumphant affirmation of itself, slave morality from the outset says No to what is ‘outside,’ what is ‘different,’ what is ‘not itself’; and this No is its creative deed. This inversion of the value-positing glance — this need to direct one's view outward instead of back to oneself — is of the essence of ressentiment: in order to exist, slave morality always first needs a hostile external world; it needs, physiologically speaking, external stimuli in order to act at all — its action is fundamentally reaction.

The reverse is the case with the noble mode of valuation: it acts and grows spontaneously, it seeks its opposite only so as to affirm itself more gratefully and triumphantly — its negative concept ‘low,’ ‘common,’ ‘bad’ is only a subsequently-invented pale, contrasting image in relation to its positive basic concept — filled with life and passion through and through — ‘we noble ones, we good, beautiful, happy ones!’”

— Friedrich Nietzsche,
On the Genealogy of Morality (I. §10)

“While the noble man lives in trust and openness with himself, the man of ressentiment is neither upright nor naïve nor honest and straightforward with himself. His soul squints; his spirit loves hiding places, secret paths and back doors, everything covert entices him as his world, his security, his refreshment; he understands how to keep silent, how not to forget, how to wait, how to be provisionally self-deprecating and humble. A race of such men of ressentiment is bound to become eventually cleverer than any noble race; it will also honor cleverness to a far greater degree: namely, as a condition of existence of the first importance; while with noble men cleverness can easily acquire a subtle flavor of luxury and subtlety — for here it is far less essential than the perfect functioning of the regulating unconscious instincts or even than a certain imprudence, perhaps a bold recklessness whether in the face of danger or of the enemy, or that enthusiastic impulsiveness in anger, love, reverence, gratitude, and revenge by which noble souls have at all times recognized one another. Ressentiment itself, if it should appear in the noble man, consummates and exhausts itself in an immediate reaction, and therefore does not poison: on the other hand, it fails to appear at all on countless occasions on which it inevitably appears in the weak and impotent.

To be incapable of taking one's enemies, one's accidents, even one's misdeeds seriously for very long — that is the sign of strong, full natures in whom there is an excess of the power to form, to mold, to recuperate and to forget (a good example of this in modern times is Mirabeau, who had no memory for insults and vile actions done him and was unable to forgive simply because he — forgot). Such a man shakes off with a single shrug many vermin that eat deep into others; here alone genuine ‘love of one's enemies’ is possible — supposing it to be possible at all on earth. How much reverence has a noble man for his enemies! — and such reverence is a bridge to love. — For he desires his enemy for himself, as his mark of distinction; he can endure no other enemy than one in whom there is nothing to despise and very much to honor! In contrast to this, picture ‘the enemy’ as the man of ressentiment conceives him — and here precisely is his deed, his creation: he has conceived ‘the evil enemy,’ ‘the Evil One,’ and this in fact is his basic concept, from which he then evolves, as an afterthought and pendant, a ‘good one’ — himself!”

— Friedrich Nietzsche,
On the Genealogy of Morality (I. §10)

“This, then, is quite the contrary of what the noble man does, who conceives the basic concept ‘good’ in advance and spontaneously out of himself and only then creates for himself an idea of ‘bad’! This ‘bad’ of noble origin and that ‘evil’ out of the cauldron of unsatisfied hatred — the former an after-production, a side issue, a contrasting shade, the latter on the contrary the original thing, the beginning, the distinctive deed in the conception of a slave morality — how different these words ‘bad’ and ‘evil’ are, although they are both apparently the opposite of the same concept ‘good.’ But it is not the same concept ‘good’: one should ask rather precisely who is ‘evil’ in the sense of the morality of ressentiment. The answer, in all strictness, is: precisely the ‘good man’ of the other morality, precisely the noble, powerful man, but dyed in another color, interpreted in another fashion, seen in another way by the venomous eye of ressentiment.”

— Friedrich Nietzsche,
On the Genealogy of Morality (I. §11)

read along with this channel: a passage or two every few days

Anarchy (by Errico Malatesta)

(a good introductory text on anarchism!)

https://telegram.me/anarchyMalatesta

“Yet some can be patriotic who have no self-respect, and sacrifice the greater to the less. They love the soil which makes their graves, but have no sympathy with the spirit which may still animate their clay. Patriotism is a maggot in their heads.”

— Henry David Thoreau,
Walden (chapter 18)

“The Right of Universal Suffrage. — The people has not granted itself universal suffrage but, wherever this is now in force, it has received and accepted it as a temporary measure. But in any case the people has the right to restore the gift, if it does not satisfy its anticipations. This dissatisfaction seems universal nowadays, for when, at any occasion where the vote is exercised, scarcely two-thirds, nay perhaps not even the majority of all voters, go to the polls, that very fact is a vote against the whole suffrage system. – On this point, in fact, we must pronounce a much sterner verdict. A law that enacts that the majority shall decide as to the welfare of all cannot be built up on the foundation that it alone has provided, for it is bound to require a far broader foundation, namely the unanimity of all. Universal suffrage must not only be the expression of the will of a majority, but of the whole country. Thus the dissent of a very small minority is already enough to set aside the system as impracticable; and the abstention from voting is in fact a dissent of this kind, which ruins the whole institution. The ‘absolute veto’ of the individual, or – not to be too minute – the veto of a few thousands, hangs over the system as the consequence of justice. On every occasion when it is employed, the system must, according to the variety of the division, first prove that it has still a right to exist.”

— Friedrich Nietzsche,
Human, All Too Human (Part II) (§2. 276)

Irrespective of the veracity of this...

we would rather be anarchic, feline-like than submissive, dog-like

On selflessness, a contradiction

The "selfless"–"selfish" binary is such an absurdity, just as with the word 'anarchy', but perhaps at an even more fundamental level.
It doesn't make sense on any level...

If I am nothing but my self, if I and the (my) self are inseparable, one and the same thing, how can I be selfless? That'd amount to my ceasing to exist. And similarly, by definition I am selfish, because I am my-self.

The usage of these terms is moralistic in a dogmatic sense, requiring that I agree to renounce myself, be obedient, submissive etc in order to be "good"

(I'm not talking about terms like "greedy" here... rather, just pointing to the basic contradiction in the usage of words like "selfish" and "selfless")

Okay, to add to this, it's not just this one word, though... it has parallels in other languages too

To name some more examples: egoism etc ("ego" is Latin for "I"), अहंकार (अहम् is Sanskrit for "I"), etc


Just as with the word "anarchy": for example, the usage of the word is similar in india too — variants of the word "अराजकता".
They are used to mean violence, chaos, disorder.
These are all just prejudiced usages.


The word "selfish" is often used to describe anyone who stands up for themselves, especially women and other marginalized people.

Undoubtedly, giving oneself importance to the extent of harming the others is wrong and should be condemned, but these words are used more than just for that... and are fundamentally contradictory
(just as describing a king's behavior as "anarchic" is contradictory, for example)

“The Danger of Kings. — Democracy has it in its power, without any violent means, and only by a lawful pressure steadily exerted, to make kingship and emperorship hollow, until only a zero remains, perhaps with the significance of every zero in that, while nothing in itself, it multiplies a number tenfold if placed on the right side. Kingship and emperorship would remain a gorgeous ornament upon the simple and appropriate dress of democracy, a beautiful superfluity that democracy allows itself, a relic of all the historically venerable, primitive ornaments, nay the symbol of history itself, and in this unique position a highly effective thing if, as above said, it does not stand alone, but is put on the right side. – In order to avoid the danger of this nullification, kings hold by their teeth to their dignity as war-lords. To this end they need wars, or in other words exceptional circumstances, in which that slow, lawful pressure of the democratic forces is relaxed.”

— Friedrich Nietzsche,
Human, All Too Human (Part II) (§2. 281)

„Welche Regierung die beste sei? Diejenige, die uns lehrt, uns selbst zu regieren.“

“Which form of government is the best? That which teaches us to govern ourselves.”

— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Maximen und Reflexionen (Maxims and Reflections)

Brain development, maturity etc

Today, the subordination of children to adults in general and their parents in particular is similarly seen as being both caused and justified by children’s inferior mental faculties.

Both the paternalism argument (children must be subordinate for their own good) and the social necessity argument (children must be subordinate for the good of society) are advanced to support the legal disabilities of children.

The parallels with “scientific racism” and sexist neurological theories should be obvious: we are frequently told that children and adolescents are mentally inferior due to their underdeveloped brains, and this inferiority renders them incapable of behaving rationally or responsibly; in the past, precisely the same claims were advanced against women and black people.

“The Tax of Homage. — Him whom we know and honor, – be he physician, artist, or artisan, – who does and produces something for us, we gladly pay as highly as we can, often a fee beyond our means. On the other hand, we pay the unknown as low a price as possible; here is a contest in which every one struggles and makes others struggle for a foot's breadth of land. In the work of the known there is something that cannot be bought, the sentiment and ingenuity put into his work for our own sake. We think we cannot better express our sense of obligation than by a sort of sacrifice on our part. – The heaviest tax is the tax of homage. The more competition prevails, the more we buy from the unknown and work for the unknown, the lower does this tax become, whereas it is really the standard for the loftiness of human spiritual intercourse.”

— Friedrich Nietzsche,
Human, All Too Human (Part II) (§2. 283)

“Work and boredom. — Seeking work for the sake of wages – in this, nearly all people in civilized countries are alike; to all of them, work is just a means and not itself the end, which is why they are unrefined in their choice of work, provided it yields an ample reward. Now there are rare individuals who would rather perish than work without taking pleasure in their work: they are fastidious, difficult to satisfy, and have no use for ample rewards if the work is not itself the reward of rewards. To this rare breed belong artists and contemplative people of all kinds, but also the idlers who spend their lives hunting, travelling, in love affairs, or on adventures. All of them want work and misery as long as it is joined with pleasure, and the heaviest, hardest work, if need be. Otherwise they are resolutely idle, even if it spells impoverishment, dishonour, and danger to life and limb. They do not fear boredom as much as work without pleasure; indeed, they need a lot of boredom if their work is to succeed. For the thinker and for all inventive spirits, boredom is that unpleasant ‘calm’ of the soul that precedes a happy voyage and cheerful breezes; he has to endure it, must await its effect on him – precisely that is what lesser natures are totally unable to achieve! To fend off boredom at any price is vulgar, just as work without pleasure is vulgar. Perhaps Asians are distinguished as above Europeans by their capacity for a longer, deeper calm; even their narcotics work slowly and require patience, in contrast to the revolting suddenness of the European poison, alcohol.”

— Friedrich Nietzsche,
The Gay Science (42)

Liberal methods, "problems", status quo

The virgin "state approved demonstration"