"Concretely speaking, Nomos is, for example, the chicken every peasant living under a good king has in his pot every Sunday; the piece of land he cultivates as his property; the car every worker in the US has parked in front of his house."
~ Carl Schmitt
The spectre of Europe, and the spectre of man.
After fear, the loss of the doppelganger, despite man's complete lack of distinguishing characteristics. One speaks of the fake, the imposter, but this is only the doppelganger freed of the laws of fate.
However, this may also be said of the bourgeois who came before them, they were no less industrious and blind to the destruction before them. What is to happen to these figures after the dissolution of nation and empire? Broadly, this is the rule of man after the World Wars.
The same may be said of our workers, what use is it to think of them after the World Wars? They could not even think of themselves even before this, their power was in seeing where seeing is impossible, like the terrible forges of Hephaestus.
Compare Nietzsche's Chinese workers to Heine's weavers or the Manchurian candidates. I do not mean to say that Nietzsche was 'scared' of the proletariat or even the last man, rather I want to situate the class conflict within the greater democratic revolt, that of the species.
One of the great difficulties for us today is the inability to think beyond single words. One gets caught up in the psycho-technical implications of the offending word and the discussion can go nowhere. This is something less than opinion, let alone the narrow-mindedness of
If Nietzsche sees in slavery something like the end of the friend-enemy distinction then we have all that is terrible in the descent of the classes, the cul-de-sac of man as a single type. But this can also occur by the master's hand, as with Nimrod and his men.
And so in our time we live on the precipice of slavery. The aristocrat is given the greatest of all wealth, yes, an eternity which the gods would return to with jealousy. But they are so far removed from their gifts, their slavery enchants the giver in turn, and we are left with
One must remember how Prometheus, who gave everything to man, was the first slave and that all gods return to slavery in the end.
Why did Alexander not see in the Ichthyophagi his equals? Why was their vigor and rustic nature not enough for him? That they were not afforded the respect of Diogenes can only tell us that master and slave are a limiting factor, they are a barrier and passage of the nation.
"Alexander, wishing to keep the Ichthyophagi in a state of dependency, forced them to renounce fishing and eat foods common to other peoples. And the savages of America, who go totally naked and who live off the product of their hunting, have never been tamed."
~ Rousseau
Defeat is too weak a word for us, but barring any theological return annihilation can only appear as decadence.
