Of course, as Jünger said, we must approach Nietzsche as an "intelligence test". Every attempt to follow Nietzsche or overcome him has failed due to systematisation. He was something of a final sacrifice to irrationalism.

The question is one of heresy. Did Nietzsche approach such a perfect irrationalism that he would have no choice but to turn away? This is in his choice to study physics for ten years, as it is in his Eternal Return, and the face of his death in the shadow of Hölderlin, Kleist.

Suicide as the German song that observes.
Suicide of that which may never be interpreted.
As Goethe knew, "Soon, you too will rest." Such perfect peace cannot know the Eternal Return.

And, of course, only fools attack Nietzsche.

Good writing is not only what is "surprising to oneself, even in retrospect", it also gives order to that inevitable moment, "What have I done?"

If the conservative is finally conserving something you know something is wrong.

To what extent does the will-to-power become a will-in-itself? "Queen Truth, may you not thrust my thinking up against a coarse lie." Power is not only that which is unbounded, unlimited, it is also the undiminished – what attains strength even in diffusion.
It is in this sense that Schopenhauer was the free spirit of philosophers of the will – for freedom is in one who is in conflict with the unknown. In his response to Kant he reattached the thing-in-itself to another object, as Alexander had done with the Gordian Knot; Nietzsche only attempted to sever it. But what is it to sever a nothing,? What has already been severed can have no further destruction or the decision which separates. The absolutely unknown at war with itself is the war of a Quixote or Ion.

To what extent does twitter act like the rigged stock market? First there was the rumour of the takeover, which is a benefit from the speculative, then this speculation is drawn out over the longest possible takeover to maximise value from the thinnest resources.
This method has been repeated by the market for a decade, and suggests something stinks.
#pessimisticspeechrights

Democracy is the tradition of the dead.

Just as a true Machiavellian would never reveal his methods, a true Nietzschean would forget the name Nietzsche.

Technology surpasses art as equality of conditions. The culture war is part of the dissolution of technology – the nakedness of the titans. In Schmittean terms, it is a second interim following the failure of a strong politics.
In other words, rather than confronting the existential enemy that is the dissolution of technology, the West turns inwards, to its own criminality. Rather than a Berlin Wall moment, there is a Khrushchev Thaw.
And yet, democracy approaches the limits of its mild character.

Basic position on technical free speech (twitter restoration): a Solomon's Judgement in which the left was unwilling to give up the baby, and now the right is happy to receive the remains.

Political discourse today is repeating your position over and over to wear down opponents, to eliminate them through moral exhaustion. It is the equivalent of the bad songs repeated on the radio until the audience accepts them.

Theological Centrism:
Democracy and liberalism have always been extremist.

https://t.iss.one/BertieBassett4Life/13268

A counter-intuitive reason for why the modern state moves left.
Schmitt says anarchism's true focus is the elimination of God.
This is of course a much more powerful position than abolition of the state, and more significant than absolutism/the reaction, which is not only reduced to a defense of religion but also denial of the metamorphosis/Gestaltwandel of God.
It is also perhaps untenable, yet the whole of society struggles against the anarchist position – first creating a leftward position, then a second interim, a void.

Sensible centrism:
Professional wrestling idealism.

Theological centrism:
Relinquishment of pro wrestling to the Mexicans.

The danger of sensible centrism is that it returns the left-right distinction to reality at the very moment it was becoming a mere formality. What was indecisive in the German crisis is automatic and permanent in our own – the perfection of indecision.

Socrates will eternally be known as a reborn Silenus; Nietzsche proclaimed he was Dionysus – and then was paralyzed by vines.

Sensible center: World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

Theological center: Jacob wrestling with the angel.

The opposition of Nietzsche and Socrates is misplaced. Jünger acknowledges Nietzsche's mistakes, his limits and absolute mortality, but nevertheless stands behind him as a Nestor to Achilles. "He will fight when he can fight."
The question for Nietzscheans is this, who is the hero that would stand, no matter his weaknesses, behind Socrates? Or perhaps we must ask of that which is more than a hero. In this is also the question, what was missing in Alcibiades?

The hero, as unbounded striving, is always the question of the Dioscuri: what part of us goes to the heavens, and what to the underworld? This is also the chain which binds the heroes to the titans.

The pure will is thus an interim of the will to struggle. It is not Patroclus who is the Castor to Achilles – this is Ajax. The absolutely divided is the sacrifice which comes with the willed, absolute wrath.

Patroclus is the absolutely unbound, memory and that which waits at the end of all waters. "Dead in the king's own armour." It is this that awaits return – – infinitely. And too, in this, Hölderlin is the freedom of Ajax, the perfection of a death too good for the dying age of heroes.

If Achilles is removed from events so that he might not be tarnished, it is Ajax who is removed from time itself, the fate of the Hellenes. In this is Hölderlin's greatest achievement, something far beyond tragedy – he frees Homer from the charges of Pindar, and Ajax from death in foreign parts.

Hölderlin found Ajax in the underworld, sacrificed to the modality beyond life – – neither master nor servant, the wound of the underworld.

Some commentary on the state of exception and the medical bureaucracy

I would say that the state of exception cannot be applied to our situation. The state of exception is really a dictatorial response to an existential crisis, it is more-than-legal rather than extra-legal. It must give intensity and authenticity to life, and it does so for the people (Volk) rather than the legal or bureaucratic structures. Particularly after the defeat of Germany there are laws or conditions in place to prevent any sort of dictator as Schmitt meant it, and also what was written into the old constitutions.

What happens today is that any emergency powers are deployed to defend the critical government functions, and as such the government or party stands between the public and any supra-state force. The existential condition and intensity of the people is neutralised rather than elevated. The party is, in its view of itself, representative of the people, and it defends the people through its extra-legal measures. So long as the party survives, the people survive. This was seen in Pierre Trudeau's war measures: the government mobilises against the criminal element to neutralise it, and there is no distinction between public and criminal, everyone is classified as potential criminal. It is, rather than a decision on the exception, an extension of legalism and parliamentary discourse - parliamentarism reduced to force.

The danger is that the exception (crisis/act of god/nature) becomes permanent, and in some sense the technical measures of the government become themselves an exception. In the same way, medical intervention is not a decision, it does not treat the origin of sickness and look to health, it only treats the symptoms. This is a purely technical sense of health, and we see how it has the same traits as indecision, an inability to deal with the exception.

Now enters a doubling of the crisis, the medical institutes and government bureaucracies become a type of decision-making body made sick. But rather than an exception this is only the norm. One need only look to the response to the Bird Flu and SARs, the mass isolation of the elderly, mass prescription of painkillers to children, the AIDs crisis, and psychiatric experimentation to see that medical tyranny is the norm and acts as a depoliticising power. The multiple bodies of technical measures form together as force and crisis necessitate, it is an automatic process rather than decision. And it is why the very character of the state begins to show signs of sickness.

At an existential level this even goes back to the origins of modern health. Study of the perfection of human organs was only made possible by grave robbers, the desecration of bodies. It is in the same way that abstract treatment of the body can only extend and isolate the bodies, mask the sickness with chemical and physical prosthetics if need be. This is why medical treatment becomes itself a metastasis within the body, then outside of it. One cannot simply eat an apple because it is an apple, it must be tested, studied, and have an entire industry dedicated to the refinement of its scientific proof.