Degree or no degree, it sucks.
Employed or unemployed, it sucks.
High paying job or low paying job, it sucks.

Capitalism fucking sucks! for all!

The system is sustained by your obedience and indifference... but it's not only you who suffer. Your obedience harms others too!

The obedience of the obedient harms the disobedient as well!

Work is slavery. There is no exaggeration in this. We are slaves under capitalism.

For anyone with a sense of dignity, this realization should cause some indignation (against capitalism), to say the least.

Alcoholic >>> Workaholic

(I'm neither)

THE TARANTULAS.

Lo, this is the tarantula’s den! Wouldst thou see the tarantula itself? Here hangeth its web: touch this, so that it may tremble.

There cometh the tarantula willingly: Welcome, tarantula! Black on thy back is thy triangle and symbol; and I know also what is in thy soul.

Revenge is in thy soul: wherever thou bitest, there ariseth black scab; with revenge, thy poison maketh the soul giddy!

Thus do I speak unto you in parable, ye who make the soul giddy, ye preachers of equality! Tarantulas are ye unto me, and secretly revengeful ones!

But I will soon bring your hiding-places to the light: therefore do I laugh in your face my laughter of the height.

Therefore do I tear at your web, that your rage may lure you out of your den of lies, and that your revenge may leap forth from behind your word “justice.”

Because, for man to be redeemed from revenge—that is for me the bridge to the highest hope, and a rainbow after long storms.

Otherwise, however, would the tarantulas have it. “Let it be very justice for the world to become full of the storms of our vengeance”—thus do they talk to one another.

“Vengeance will we use, and insult, against all who are not like us”—thus do the tarantula-hearts pledge themselves.

“And ‘Will to Equality’—that itself shall henceforth be the name of virtue; and against all that hath power will we raise an outcry!”

Ye preachers of equality, the tyrant-frenzy of impotence crieth thus in you for “equality”: your most secret tyrant-longings disguise themselves thus in virtue-words!

Fretted conceit and suppressed envy—perhaps your fathers’ conceit and envy: in you break they forth as flame and frenzy of vengeance.

What the father hath hid cometh out in the son; and oft have I found in the son the father’s revealed secret.

Inspired ones they resemble: but it is not the heart that inspireth them—but vengeance. And when they become subtle and cold, it is not spirit, but envy, that maketh them so.

Their jealousy leadeth them also into thinkers’ paths; and this is the sign of their jealousy—they always go too far: so that their fatigue hath at last to go to sleep on the snow.

In all their lamentations soundeth vengeance, in all their eulogies is maleficence; and being judge seemeth to them bliss.

— Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra (chapter 29)

But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!

They are people of bad race and lineage; out of their countenances peer the hangman and the sleuth-hound.

Distrust all those who talk much of their justice! Verily, in their souls not only honey is lacking.

And when they call themselves “the good and just,” forget not, that for them to be Pharisees, nothing is lacking but—power!

— Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra (chapter 29)

amor fati ✨

I give no alms. I am not poor enough for that.

I teach you the Superman. Man is something that is to be surpassed. What have ye done to surpass man?

The Superman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: The Superman shall be the meaning of the earth!

I conjure you, my brethren, remain true to the earth, and believe not those who speak unto you of superearthly hopes! Poisoners are they, whether they know it or not.

Despisers of life are they, decaying ones and poisoned ones themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so away with them!

I love those that know not how to live except as down-goers, for they are the over-goers.

I love the great despisers, because they are the great adorers, and arrows of longing for the other shore.

I love those who do not first seek a reason beyond the stars for going down and being sacrifices, but sacrifice themselves to the earth, that the earth of the Superman may hereafter arrive.

I love him who liveth in order to know, and seeketh to know in order that the Superman may hereafter live. Thus seeketh he his own down-going.

— Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra (prologue)

Everyone is both masculine and feminine, as well as something beyond both.

This would make sense once you really accept yourself.

Celebrate your femininity,
celebrate your masculinity,
celebrate your agenderness,
celebrate your queerness,
celebrate your uniqueness.

I'm bit of an evil bitch... I don't have a conscience, (un)fortunately

[Zarathustra said to himself:] “I will speak unto them of the most contemptible thing: that, however, is the last man!”

And thus spake Zarathustra unto the people:

It is time for man to fix his goal. It is time for man to plant the germ of his highest hope.

Still is his soil rich enough for it. But that soil will one day be poor and exhausted, and no lofty tree will any longer be able to grow thereon.

Alas! there cometh the time when man will no longer launch the arrow of his longing beyond man—and the string of his bow will have unlearned to whizz!

I tell you: one must still have chaos in one, to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: ye have still chaos in you.

Alas! There cometh the time when man will no longer give birth to any star. Alas! There cometh the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself.

Lo! I show you the last man.

“What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?”—so asketh the last man and blinketh.

The earth hath then become small, and on it there hoppeth the last man who maketh everything small. His species is ineradicable like that of the ground-flea; the last man liveth longest.

“We have discovered happiness”—say the last men, and blink thereby.

They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loveth one’s neighbour and rubbeth against him; for one needeth warmth.

Turning ill and being distrustful, they consider sinful: they walk warily. He is a fool who still stumbleth over stones or men!

A little poison now and then: that maketh pleasant dreams. And much poison at last for a pleasant death.

One still worketh, for work is a pastime. But one is careful lest the pastime should hurt one.

One no longer becometh poor or rich; both are too burdensome. Who still wanteth to rule? Who still wanteth to obey? Both are too burdensome.

No shepherd, and one herd! Every one wanteth the same; every one is equal: he who hath other sentiments goeth voluntarily into the madhouse.

“Formerly all the world was insane,”—say the subtlest of them, and blink thereby.

They are clever and know all that hath happened: so there is no end to their raillery. People still fall out, but are soon reconciled—otherwise it spoileth their stomachs.

They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health.

“We have discovered happiness,”—say the last men, and blink thereby.—

— Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra (prologue)

Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the good and just. Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the believers in the orthodox belief.

Behold the good and just! Whom do they hate most? Him who breaketh up their tables of values, the breaker, the law-breaker:—he, however, is the creator.

Behold the believers of all beliefs! Whom do they hate most? Him who breaketh up their tables of values, the breaker, the law-breaker—he, however, is the creator.

Companions, the creator seeketh, not corpses—and not herds or believers either. Fellow-creators the creator seeketh—those who grave new values on new tables.

Companions, the creator seeketh, and fellow-reapers: for everything is ripe for the harvest with him. But he lacketh the hundred sickles: so he plucketh the ears of corn and is vexed.

Companions, the creator seeketh, and such as know how to whet their sickles. Destroyers, will they be called, and despisers of good and evil. But they are the reapers and rejoicers.

Fellow-creators, Zarathustra seeketh; fellow-reapers and fellow-rejoicers, Zarathustra seeketh: what hath he to do with herds and herdsmen and corpses!

And thou, my first companion, rest in peace! Well have I buried thee in thy hollow tree; well have I hid thee from the wolves.

But I part from thee; the time hath arrived. ‘Twixt rosy dawn and rosy dawn there came unto me a new truth.

I am not to be a herdsman, I am not to be a grave-digger. Not any more will I discourse unto the people; for the last time have I spoken unto the dead.

With the creators, the reapers, and the rejoicers will I associate: the rainbow will I show them, and all the stairs to the Superman.

To the lone-dwellers will I sing my song, and to the twain-dwellers; and unto him who hath still ears for the unheard, will I make the heart heavy with my happiness.

I make for my goal, I follow my course; over the loitering and tardy will I leap. Thus let my on-going be their down-going!

— Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra (prologue)

THE THREE METAMORPHOSES.

Three metamorphoses of the spirit do I designate to you: how the spirit becometh a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child.

Many heavy things are there for the spirit, the strong load-bearing spirit in which reverence dwelleth: for the heavy and the heaviest longeth its strength.

What is heavy? so asketh the load-bearing spirit; then kneeleth it down like the camel, and wanteth to be well laden.

What is the heaviest thing, ye heroes? asketh the load-bearing spirit, that I may take it upon me and rejoice in my strength.

Is it not this: To humiliate oneself in order to mortify one’s pride? To exhibit one’s folly in order to mock at one’s wisdom?

Or is it this: To desert our cause when it celebrateth its triumph? To ascend high mountains to tempt the tempter?

Or is it this: To feed on the acorns and grass of knowledge, and for the sake of truth to suffer hunger of soul?

Or is it this: To be sick and dismiss comforters, and make friends of the deaf, who never hear thy requests?

Or is it this: To go into foul water when it is the water of truth, and not disclaim cold frogs and hot toads?

Or is it this: To love those who despise us, and give one’s hand to the phantom when it is going to frighten us?

All these heaviest things the load-bearing spirit taketh upon itself: and like the camel, which, when laden, hasteneth into the wilderness, so hasteneth the spirit into its wilderness.

But in the loneliest wilderness happeneth the second metamorphosis: here the spirit becometh a lion; freedom will it capture, and lordship in its own wilderness.

Its last Lord it here seeketh: hostile will it be to him, and to its last God; for victory will it struggle with the great dragon.

What is the great dragon which the spirit is no longer inclined to call Lord and God? “Thou shalt,” is the great dragon called. But the spirit of the lion saith, “I will.”

“Thou shalt,” lieth in its path, sparkling with gold—a scale-covered beast; and on every scale glittereth golden, “Thou shalt!”

The values of a thousand years glitter on those scales, and thus speaketh the mightiest of all dragons: “All the values of things—glitter on me.

All values have already been created, and all created values—do I represent. Verily, there shall be no ‘I will’ any more.” Thus speaketh the dragon.

My brethren, wherefore is there need of the lion in the spirit? Why sufficeth not the beast of burden, which renounceth and is reverent?

To create new values—that, even the lion cannot yet accomplish: but to create itself freedom for new creating—that can the might of the lion do.

To create itself freedom, and give a holy Nay even unto duty: for that, my brethren, there is need of the lion.

To assume the right to new values—that is the most formidable assumption for a load-bearing and reverent spirit. Verily, unto such a spirit it is preying, and the work of a beast of prey.

As its holiest, it once loved “Thou shalt”: now is it forced to find illusion and arbitrariness even in the holiest things, that it may capture freedom from its love: the lion is needed for this capture.

But tell me, my brethren, what the child can do, which even the lion could not do? Why hath the preying lion still to become a child?

Innocence is the child, and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea.

Aye, for the game of creating, my brethren, there is needed a holy Yea unto life: its own will, willeth now the spirit; his own world winneth the world’s outcast.

Three metamorphoses of the spirit have I designated to you: how the spirit became a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child.—

Thus spake Zarathustra.

— Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra (chapter 1)

Nietzsche, Ambedkar, Übermensch, Manu(smriti), Nazism:

B.R. Ambedkar wrote in Philosophy of Hinduism and The Hindu Social Order: Its Unique Features (see BAWS Vol III: pp. 74-77, pp. 116-124) about the (supposed) relationship and/or similarities between Nietzsche's philosophy and Manuwād, i.e., Brahmanism/Hinduism.

Ambedkar's discussion on this can be divided primarily into 3 aspects:
1. the (supposed) similarity between Nietzsche's philosophy and Manusmriti (aka Laws of Manu)
2. Nietzsche's own "inspiration" from the Manusmriti
3. Nietzsche's philosophy as the philosophy of Nazism


MY CRITIQUE:

First, it may be noted that Nietzsche was not a very systematic thinker and he even explicitly criticized systematic thinking (TotI, §1.26). So it's to be expected that he would often contradict himself, or at any rate he would not always express himself very clearly.

Now, to address these 3 arguments (they more or less overlap and so the divided response is only for convenience, there'd be overlap in it too)...


1. Ambedkar describes the brahminical scheme of Manusmriti as an ideology of "Supermen", where the Brahmins (primarily) are supposed to be the supermen.

Hinduism is the gospel of the superman and it teaches that what is right for the superman is the only thing which is called morally right and morally good.

And goes on to suggest that there's a parallel between this and Nietzsche's philosophy.

Is there any parallel to this philosophy? I hate to suggest it. But it is so obvious. The parallel to this philosophy of Hinduism is to be found in Nietzsche.

Nevertheless, Ambedkar draws a contrast between them:

Nietzsche’s supermen were supermen by reason of their worth. Manu’s supermen were supermen by reason of their birth. Nietzsche was a genuine disinterested philosopher. Manu on the contrary was a hireling engaged to propound a philosophy which served the interests of a class born in a group and whose noscript to being supermen was not to be lost even if they lost their virtue.

It didn't help that Nietzsche himself praised Manu on a few occasions. Indeed, Ambedkar quotes from the Antichrist (§56) to demonstrate that Nietzsche's philosophy was indeed similar to Manuwād.

However, it must be kept in mind that the Antichrist, as the noscript suggests, is – primarily an attack on Christianity. Nietzsche's "praise" for Manu's laws should be seen within this context; it should not be supposed that Nietzsche was in favor of Manuwād; he was only using this rhetoric to attack Christianity.

One has to recognize that Nietzsche had a contempt for priests, not only Christian priests… but priests of all kinds; and that, therefore, Brahmins were no exception.
Nietzsche writes in GoM (I. §7):

As is well known, the priests are the most evil enemies — but why? Because they are the most impotent. It is because of their impotence that in them hatred grows to monstrous and uncanny proportions, to the most spiritual and poisonous kind of hatred. The truly great haters in world history have always been priests; likewise the most ingenious haters: other kinds of spirit hardly come into consideration when compared with the spirit of priestly vengefulness.

But lest it be mistaken, say, that Nietzsche was only referring to Christian priests, it's clear from the previous section (GoM, I. §6) that Brahmins were no exception (and as a matter of fact, that denoscription from §7 applies most aptly to the Brahmins, more than to any other priestly classes):

There is from the first something unhealthy in such priestly aristocracies and in the habits ruling in them which turn them away from action and alternate between brooding and emotional explosions, habits which seem to have as their almost invariable consequence that intestinal morbidity and neurasthenia which has afflicted priests at all times; but as to that which they themselves devised as a remedy for this morbidity — must one not assert that it has ultimately proved itself a hundred times more dangerous in its effects than the sickness it was supposed to cure? Mankind itself is still ill with the effects of this priestly naïveté in medicine! Think, for example, of certain forms of diet (abstinence from meat), of fasting, of sexual continence, of flight “into the wilderness” (the Weir Mitchell isolation cure — without, to be sure, the subsequent fattening and overfeeding which constitute the most effective remedy for the hysteria induced by the ascetic ideal): add to these the entire antisensualistic metaphysic of the priests that makes men indolent and overrefined, their autohypnosis in the manner of fakirs and Brahmins — Brahma used in the shape of a glass knob and a fixed idea — and finally the only-too-comprehensible satiety with all this, together with the radical cure for it, nothingness (or God — the desire for a unio mystica with God is the desire of the Buddhist for nothingness, Nirvana — and no more!). For with the priests everything becomes more dangerous, not only cures and remedies, but also arrogance, revenge, acuteness, profligacy, love, lust to rule, virtue, disease…

And from the WtP (§143):

A lot is said today about the Semitic spirit of the New Testament: but what is called Semitic is merely priestly — and in the racially purest Aryan law-book, in Manu, this kind of ’Semitism,’ i.e., the spirit of the priest, is worse than anywhere else.

The immediately preceding couple of sections from WtP (§§136–142) are also highly critical of Manusmriti.

And when Nietzsche had taken up this topic in TotI (§7.3), he critically refers to how Brahmanism makes use of the same kind of morality of taming that he associates with Christian slave morality; and, speaking of the oppressive rules ("protective measures") that brahmins enforced on dalits in order to keep themselves in power... Nietzsche says:

Perhaps there is nothing that goes against our feelings more than these protective measures of Indian morality.

A careful and critical analysis would demonstrate that there's no actual meaningful similarity between Manuwād and Nietzsche's philosophy. Yes, indeed... if anything, they're utterly incompatible!
Brahmanism, being the fascist ideology that it is, is the worst manifestation of ressentiment; it is, in fact, slave morality masquerading as master morality... — one only has to observe its modern form, Hindutva, to confirm that, and one would have no doubt left regarding this.

2. It is a gross exaggeration to say that Nietzsche's philosophy was inspired from Manusmriti. Manusmriti's influence on Nietzsche was not much, definitely not central... his remarks on it are largely seen only in his last few works, and even there it was not at all central to his work.

As mentioned earlier, Nietzsche was actually critical of Manusmriti and Brahmanism, and even when he spoke positively of it, it was only rhetoric to attack Christianity in that particular context; and, moreover, the edition of Manusmriti he had read was a very unreliable one, so it seemed better to him than it actually was.

So that's an important aspect to be noted. The translation of Manusmriti that he relied on was very unreliable; it was by a chauvinist who sought to present Brahmanism as something great, something in which all sort of knowledge could be found, etc... so there was a lot of whitewashing and misrepresentation. That edition of Manusmriti made it seem much better than it actually was (e.g., about treatment of women etc). For example, Nietzsche criticized Christianity by comparing the misogyny in it to the treatment of women in the edition of Manusmriti he had, but its presentation on this subject was very inaccurate... so if he instead read a more authentic translation, he likely would have been much more critical of Manusmriti, to say the least.

Also, just as Nietzsche's primary aim in Antichrist was to attack Christianity, and so used various means and rhetorics to that end, including "praising" Manusmriti vis-à-vis the Bible... so Ambedkar's aim in these texts was (quite rightly) to attack Hinduism and therefore used various means to that end, including invoking Nietzsche's philosophy and using the then-prevalent interpretation of Nietzsche's philosophy as Nazi philosophy.
And Ambedkar was justified in doing that; after all, these texts were written sometime during the 1940's-50's and a more critical analysis and understanding of Nietzsche was not mainstream then.

But, to reiterate, a critical analysis would show that there's no similarity between Brahmanism and Nietzsche's philosophy; thay, if anything, they're mutually incompatible — antagonistic even!

The following discussion adds further to this, refuting especially the reactionary, imperialist interpretations of Nietzsche; and, further, providing some context for Nietzsche's engagement with the Manusmriti... along with some relevant scholarly references: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/#:~:text=handful%20of%20passages,views%20(A%2056)

On the sort of bad translation of Manusmriti that Nietzsche had relied on: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44367015?read-now=1&seq=3