I'm not challenging your assumptions because it's clear you have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about this subject. It would be foolish of me to enter an intellectual battle with someone when I lack the preparedness. I do see a lot of similarities of Nietzsche's philosophy in your writing, and although I've read few of Nietzsche' books (Thus Spoke Zarathustra and The Gay Science) , I can detect where you get your ideas. The whole issue of the inversion of slave morality and the spiteful resentment by the less fortunate seems to the prevalent motif in Nietzsche's philosophy. However, your philosophy takes a wider range by including civilization as a whole.
I have been reading some of your work, so I'm quoting you here:
icycalm wrote:Civilization is the cultural form of evolution, with the same goal as the biological kind: domination of the environment; power in a single word. Civilization accomplishes this in the same way as species do in the wild, by increasing the complexity of the organism, which in this case is not comprised of internal organs but of people, what is known as "human resources". Shorn of their independence as distinct and sovereign lifeforms, these civilized people (from Latin civilis meaning "civil", related to civis meaning "citizen" and civitas meaning "city", i.e. city-dwellers) leave behind the ways of the wild and of their animal and prehistoric tribal ancestors and begin to form groupings of increasing scale and complexity, with each member co-operating with the rest by specializing in an ever-increasing number of tasks of ever-narrowing scope, thereby achieving efficiencies and synergies that boost the group's power to such high levels that, to the uncivilized, their accomplishments seem nothing short of miraculous, which in a sense they are, as they bring forth artifacts and open up mindscapes that would most definitely have been impossible without this scheme of elaborate co-operation (a phenomenon which scientists call "emergence"). Very soon the civilized tower above the uncivilized to such an extent that they appear as gods to them worthy of worship, and in a real sense they are, since the gods of the uncivilized often appear, even in the latter's religious fantasies, as weaker and less capable than the civilized.
But there is a price to be paid for all this newfound power of the group, and this price is the increasing weakening of the individuals that comprise it, as the history of civilization is simultaneously a history of increasing feminization, and no metaphor is more helpful to understanding this than that of the tool and workshop. As every mechanic knows, the more specialized the tool, the more useful it is for the main task for which it was designed, but the more useless for every other task. A hammer or a knife are simple, primitive tools that can therefore be used for a multitude of basic tasks, and if need be they make for fairly decent weapons too; but by the time you get to the kind of space-qualified, low-torque screwdrivers astronauts use in space station repairs or micro ligature devices neurosurgeons use to "accommodate and manipulate ligatures with maximum efficiency" you're talking about a tool built for a single task that is absolutely fucking useless for any other conceivable task, and so fragile it will break if you look at it the wrong way in the bargain. The same exact fate awaits the hypercivilized and therefore hyperspecialized man, and is indeed already evident all around us, and has been evident to some degree or other for over 6,000 years. Our goal now is to understand the cultural, social and biological processes of how this happens; of how the strong and fearless barbarian who dominated all prehistoric cultures comes at last to be transformed to what in philosophical terminology is known as the subhuman of modern culture, a creature so weak, stupid and pathetic that even women can dominate it and become masters of it; even, in some cases, animals. Once we have understood the genealogy of this clearly no longer human creature, we will by the same token have understood what we must do to prevent it from destroying civilization (and there's still plenty of time for that, don't worry); what should have been done in earlier times but wasn't done due to lacking philosophy; due to lacking that is to say an understanding of precisely what civilization is and how it functions.
So the solution to halt the weakening and decadence of civilization is to prevent it from becoming too civilized? Now, how would you accomplish that? It seems to me that you would have to destroy it, or am I missing something?