The Philosophy of Extremism III on Google Books

Now The Philosophy of Extremism III by Jennifer S. Chesler & myself has reached Google Books. Here it is at this link.

Apart from the standard filth, it contains a series of articles/essays by myself about nihilism, teratology, & the writings of Chesler.

extremism iii cover


Extremism III on Amazon

Now the newest collaborative thing is on Amazon. Here is is, The Philosophy of Extremism III by David C. McLean & Jennifer S. Chesler.



Further Considerations on Nihilism and Teratology in Chesler’s Fragments

Dread reveals no-thing.

We are “suspended” in dread. More clearly, dread leaves us hanging because it brings on the slipping away of being. So it is that we actual human beings slip away from ourselves in the midst of being. For at bottom this is not uncanny to you or me, but rather “it” is like that. In the shuddering of this suspense, where one can hold on to nothing, only pure Dasein remains.

Heidegger points out that a thing can be worth nothing by being “null and nothing” itself. Nihilism, however, is thought of as a decline and a devaluation of values. In this sense, Chesler, in “Down & Out in Muncie, Indiana”, writes “I know nothing. I am nothing. I am the inevitable consequence of my actions” & this relates both to the ontological nullity & the sense of devaluation. In a sense, nihilism is a general preoccupation for Chesler. Her books narrate a series of interactions with a world that is trashy and relations with humans who are stupid, no better than trash.

Nihilism is “the uncanniest of guests”, says Nietzsche.  Heidegger feels that the essence of nihilism might rest in not taking the nihil, the nothing, seriously, seeing it as an illusion created by negation. The tiger that is not in the room is not a negative tiger, as it were. The heart of nihilism is a not thinking of the nothing, and Nietzsche became a nihilist himself since he could not see nihilism as anything other than axiological.

“Down and Out” – man is homeless as regards his essence, there is no unconcealment of Being, but exploitation. Being is need, and man has become needless. This needlessness is a great lack, itself a terrible need, a shortcoming so monstrous that it populates the teratology of Fragments. Pathetic unthinking freaks like the characters described in the book are not aware of Being, they do not think, they exist in a world populated by beings that they exploit. The freaks of this teratology are also devalued, nothings in the Nietzschean sense

Chesler, in Fragments, sought love in a needless world populated by freaks. The word “love” is scarcely used in the book in its usual sense, since the freaks and monsters that inhabit that sordid landscape cannot love in any meaningful sense. They do not know the need of Being, though they are sometimes needy, in the colloquial sense, but they are de trop, they are a futility. This shows a double nihilism, an axiological nihilism as well as a Heideggerean nihilism where Chesler is aware of the terrible question of thrownness in the brute facticity of the world, but nobody else is, where she, the only thinker among her alleged friends, all worthless scum, is seen as the freak.

The Philosophy of Extremism III, a.k.a. Fisting Fiesta

Here is the description of The Philosophy of Extremism, Vol. III, by myself & Jennifer S. Chesler. It is on sale here at Lulu, and forthcoming from Amazon etc. It is our best and most extreme collaborative book, the working title was Fisting Fiesta.

This concludes the trilogy The Philosophy of Extremism by Jennifer S. Chesler and David C. McLean. It describes various scumbags, child-rearing methods, precautions against juvenile hypothermia, and more. It gives more delightful details about backsplash and the smarmy fascism of religious shrinks. Some parts of this book of this book are fictional.

extremism iii cover


Daddy Takes Me and Sally for a Ride in His Shiny Red Silverado

This is by myself & Jennifer S. Chesler

Daddy Takes Me and Sally for a Ride in His Shiny Red Silverado
Daddy takes me and Sally for a ride in his shiny red Silverado. Sally’s ginger curls are tied back in a blue ribbon. She has on the blue gingham dress I gave her for her birthday. She sits on the bench seat between me and Daddy.

“Penny for a smile,” Daddy says to Sally, chuckling.

She giggles. I step on her white shoe a little and pretend to slide away from her on the seat.

“Watch it, Jennifer,” Daddy says, “I’m trying to drive. There will be no more white stuff for you if you cause me to crash our big red Silverado, you know.”

“Oh, no, Daddy, no!”, I say.

I look at Sally. She’s smiling.

“Look, Mr. McLean, here’s your smile,” she says.

I press on her foot again.

“Ow, Jennifer,” she says.

“That’s a beautiful smile, Sally,” Daddy says.  He puts his hand on her bare knee.

“Where’s my penny?” Sally asks.

“Oh, you’ll be getting a lot more than that later,” he says to her.

“Really?” Sally says. She’s clearly excited. I become enraged and start crying uncontrollably, banging my head against the dashboard.

“Jennifer, watch out. You’ll ruin your hair and the car! I won’t give you the white stuff if you do that either.” Daddy says.

“Jennifer, what’s wrong?” Sally asks me. I spit on her face. She wipes it off and starts to cry. Daddy gets excited when little girls cry so he’s about to shoot the white stuff in his pants I guess, and I really won’t get it. I grab hold of one of her ringlets and pull so hard it comes out of her head. She’s hysterical and Daddy’s pants are drenched. He pulls over at a highway rest stop to use the bathroom. When he’s out of sight I get out of the Silverado and tell Sally to get out. I kick her in the knees so that she falls down.

“You’re not getting my white stuff!” I say to her.

I start kicking Sally underneath the SUV next to Daddy’s truck. He comes back, refreshed.

“Where’s Sally?” he says.

“Sorry, Daddy, it happened again now.”

“Oh, Jennifer, not again! I really wanted to stretch Sally out too. That’s too bad. It’ll be the hard punishment for you.”

“No, Dad, no” I cried, feeling my Hello Kitty underpants grow soaking wet.

Daddy looked so manly as he climbed out of the car again and fetched the shovel from the back. I could see his huge rod swell in his wet pants as he dug the hole later in the woods. Sally always liked the woods, so I guess that little bitch will be happy there. Nobody rides Daddy’s pole but me.


Nihilism in “Fragments” by Jennifer S. Chesler

EDIT: Extended version.
Nietzsche predicted two centuries of nihilism, and we are still comfortably within that time period. Fragments shows evidence of the process he described.

Psychological nihilism is attained when we, first, note that there is no “meaning” behind all events, second, that there is not even a unity of becoming, thirdly, that there is no alternative “truer” metaphysical world behind the shabby garbage in which we live. “Aim”, “unity”, and “truth” are not categories that are suitable to describe our existence. The world is not without value for this reason, but these three categories are not the ones to use in the impending transvaluation that Nietzsche requested. “We have measured the value of the world by categories that refer to a purely fictitious world.” (All quotes from Nietzsche are from The Will to Power.)

This nihilism is naturally a consequence of a shame at having been fooled by all the religious nonsense that has afflicted humanity for so long as an infantile disorder. Chesler was raised without religion but in an environment that saw economic well-being as some sort of alternative, grubbing together money for no real reason, an unthinking acceptance of societal values in that respect. Anyway, nihilism is not a modern or postmodern phenomenon. Heidegger points out that Nietzsche sees it as “not a Weltanschauung that occurs at some place or other; it is rather the basic character of what happens in Occidental history.” The development of nihilism will occupy the coming centuries, especially where it seems that opinions are the opposite of nihilistic. As Heidegger says, and this is not contrary to what Deleuze says, the counter-movement to nihilism is within nihilism.

The homo mensura thesis has been used to judge the world according to categories that are driven by considerations of gross utility, designed to improve “human constructs of domination”. But “man” is not the measure; “man” is a cunt.

Fragments depicts an entire teratology, a menagerie of grotesques and freaks – from the stupid transsexual comedian to the mythological creature Little Jack, who is an allegory of empty homoerotic desire. (It’s a labor of love fucking yourself to death.)

Extreme nihilism is an empowerment, to use a grotesque neologism. It is admittedly still a “pathological transitional stage” to the transvaluation of all values, and Fragments shows the great strength of the intellect. In an as yet unpublished novel, An Honest Day of Blowjobs, Chesler describes a vision that can represent a goal of understanding, mental development, and a Foucauldian ideal of ascetic self-development (intellectual discipline) as an alternative. To Nietzsche, maybe, this might lie too close to Schopenhauer’s will-less contemplation. But this is a form of the eternal return, the epiphany that changes nothing, satori that leaves everything exactly the same. For in The Will to Power Nietzsche introduces the eternal return as a consummation of nihilism, and the nauseating ugliness of human nature is a tiny film of bullshit over the fiery beauty of atoms and the void, and it is the cosmogenic wheel to which we consent, not the scumbags stumbling through their superficial illusion.

This return, as Deleuze points out, is the chaos in destiny, the arbitrary in necessity. We do not seek homeostatic equilibrium, the world is burning and most things are too ugly for eternity, most people do not affirm and should not be affirmed. It is again Deleuze who points out that the “nihil” does not refer to nothing but to a nil evaluation. Human things are trash.

But Deleuze interprets Nietzsche as describing how the originally reactive nihilism becomes selective. The will to power transforms the negation into that which affirms whatever is not excluded.

However, Fragments is not supposed to provide an answer, since the answer can only be a complete assignment of values to everything. There is no point, as Nietzsche notes, in becoming a victim of conscience, of a belief in history, or societal values. Religion is only an alternative for the retarded or the genuinely mentally ill nowadays.

But Nietzsche himself emphasizes the value of laughter, the value of contempt and despite, the cleansing power of hatred, the necessity of lies. Nihilism, it is something divine when it denies the entirety of being, and is thoroughly perspectival.

Dysgenic fertility (bad breeding) and general intellectual decline are a phenomenon later than Nietzsche. He writes of something similar, though: “There is no solidarity in a society in which there are sterile, unproductive, and destructive elements – which, incidentally, will have descendants even more degenerate than they are themselves”. Heidegger notes that valuations disappear when the manner of thinking that created them disappears. This is why Nietzsche concludes The Will to Power with “Discipline and Breeding” – a new sort of human is required, one that is capable of a new valuation. This does not necessarily mean eugenics, but maybe something like the process of intellectual asceticism to which I alluded earlier.

Chesler writes in an age where the loss of dignity described by Nietzsche has become exacerbated, the new humans are even trashier and more laughable, as he anticipated. What is needed is not the enfeebled passive nihilism of Schopenhauer or the Buddhists, but a transition to an active nihilism that despises, an active nihilism that favors strength of will, a strength of will that helps to destroy all the old impotent nonsense. Fragments is part of this transition.

Lyotard says …

“The wisdom of nations is not only their skepticism, but also the “free life” of phrases and genres.”

Lyotard says that maybe prose is impossible. He points out that it is “tempted on one side by despotism, and on the other by anarchy”. The despotism is achieved by trying to become the genre of all genres (“the prose of popular Empire”), the anarchy by becoming an attempt to produce a disparate blob, an “unregulated assemblage of all phrases”, like a vagabond or, maybe, like Gertrude Stein.

Now I wholeheartedly agree. I hope that this applies to prose poetry, and in fact the only canonical influences I now have are Lyotard himself and Ms. Stein herself. I regard her pieces as basically poetry, revealing the glorious repetitive variability of phrases. Coffee and everything.

Every time I am polysemic I want to say every possible want-to-say. Language should be tested to destruction, on a semantic level. Syntax can go fuck itself.

Prose, Lyotard says, cannot become the unity of all genres, like despotism wants. Nor can it become their zero degree. Prose needs to try to be, he says, the multitude of genres and the multiplicity of their differends. I say that this applies to prose poetry, not just the trashy prose poetry of Baudelaire, but real prose poetry too.

Still, the zero degree is cool too. (He goes on to mention narratives, of course.) Ultimately, prose proper itself should tend to the “deritualized short story” where differends are not dissipated but neutralized. They persist in their contradiction. For (this) “prose is the people of anecdotes” – the oppressor – everything from the cockwombles who produce television shows to the cockwombles who produce psychiatry, nationalism, and religion – will always come up against the free life of phrases and genres in the prose that is the people. The oppressor will come up against revolutionary and innovative prose like that of Jennifer S. Chesler.

Language is not a unity, nor should it be.