← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · NeoNietzsche
Thread ID: 3078 | Posts: 13 | Started: 2002-10-15
2002-10-15 01:32 | User Profile
"The Jews, however, are beyond all doubt the strongest, toughest and purest race at present living in Europe; they know how to prevail even under the worst conditions (better even than under favourable ones), by means of virtues which one would like to stamp as vices ‑ thanks above all to a resolute faith which does not need to be ashamed before modem ideas.'; they change, when they change, only in the way in which the Russian Empire makes its conquests ‑ an empire that has time and is not of yesterday ‑: namely, according to the principleas slowly as possible'! A thinker who has the future of Europe on his conscience will, in all the designs he makes for this future, take the Jews into account as he will take the Russians, as the immediately surest and most probable factors in the great game and struggle of forces. That which is called a nation' in Europe today and is actually more of a res facto than nata (indeed sometimes positively resembles a res ficta et picta ‑) is in any case something growing, young, easily disruptable, not yet a race, let alone such an aere perennius as the Jewish type is: thesenations' should certainly avoid all hot‑headed rivalry and hostility very carefully! That the Jews could, if they wanted ‑ or if they were compelled, as the anti‑Semites seem to want ‑ even now predominate, indeed quite literally rule over Europe, is certain; that they are not planning and working towards that is equally certain. In the meantime they are, rather, wanting and wishing, even with some importunity, to be absorbed and assimilated by and into Europe, they are longing to be finally settled, permitted, respected somewhere and to put an end to the nomadic life, to the Wandering Jew' ‑; one ought to pay heed to this inclination and impulse (which is perhaps even a sign that the Jewish instincts are becoming milder) and go out to meet it: for which it would perhaps be a good idea to eject the anti‑Semitic ranters from the country. Go out to meet it with all caution, with selectivity; much as the English nobility do. It is plain that the stronger and already more firmly formed types of the new Germanism could enter into relations with them with the least hesitation; the aristocratic officer of the March, for example: it would be interesting in many ways to see whether the genius of money and patience (and above all a little mind and spirituality, of which there is a plentiful lack in the persons above mentioned ‑) could not be added and bred into the hereditary art of commanding and obeying, in both of which the abovementioned land is today classic. But here it is fitting that I should break off my cheerful Germanomaniac address: for already I am touching on what is to me serious, on theEuropean problem' as I understand it, on the breeding of a new ruling caste for Europe."
2002-10-15 01:37 | User Profile
**In the meantime they are, rather, wanting and wishing, even with some importunity, to be absorbed and assimilated by and into Europe, they are longing to be finally settled, permitted, respected somewhere and to put an end to the nomadic life, to the `Wandering Jew' .... **
Yes, he was way off-base here.
2002-10-15 01:48 | User Profile
On the other hand:
"Whether that which now distinguishes the European be called civilization' orhumanization' or 'progress'; whether one calls it simply, without implying any praise or blame, the democratic movement in Europe: behind all the moral and political foregrounds indicated by such formulas a great physioÃÂlogical process is taking place and gathering greater and ever greater impetus ‑ the process of the assimilation of all EuroÃÂpeans, their growing detachment from the conditions under which races dependent on climate and class originate, their increasing independence of any definite milieu which, through making the same demands for centuries, would like to inscribe itself on soul and body ‑ that is to say, the slow emergence of an essentially supra‑national and nomadic type of man which, physiologically speaking, possesses as its typical distinction a maximum of the art and power of adaptation. This process of the becoming European, the tempo of which can be retarded by great relapses but which will perhaps precisely through them gain in vehemence and depth ‑ the still‑raging storm and stress of national feeling' belongs here, likewise the anarchism now emerging ‑: this process will probably lead to results which its naive propagators and panegyrists, the apostles ofmodern ideas', would be least inclined to anticipate. The same novel conditions which will on average create a levelling and mediocritizing of man ‑ a useful, industrious, highly serviceable and able herd‑animal man ‑ are adapted in the highest degree to giving rise to exceptional men of the most dangerous and enticing quality. For while that power of adaptaÃÂtion which continually tries out changing conditions and begins a new labour with every new generation, almost with every new decade, cannot make possible the powerfulness of the type; while the total impression produced by such future Europeans will probably be that of multifarious, garrulous, weak‑willed and highly employable workers who need a master, a commander, as they need their daily bread; while, therefore, the democratization of Europe will lead to the production of a type prepared for slavery in the subtlest sense: in individual and exceptional cases the strong man will be found to turn out stronger and richer than has perhaps ever happened before ‑thanks to the unprejudiced nature of his schooling, thanks to the tremendous multiplicity of practice, art and mask. What I mean to say is that the democratization of Europe is at the same time an involuntary arrangement for the breeding of tyrants ‑ in every sense of that word, including the most spiritual.
"I hear with pleasure that our sun is moving rapidly in the direction of the constellation of Hercules: and I hope that men on the earth will in this matter emulate the sun. And we at their head, we good Europeans!"
2002-10-15 02:17 | User Profile
And - what's not to like here?:
"The strong of the future.-- That which partly necessity, partly chance has achieved here and there, the conditions for the production of a stronger type, we are now able to comprehend and consciously will: we are able to create the conditions under which such an elevation is possible.
"Until now, 'education' has had in view the needs of society: not the possible needs of the future, but the needs of the society of the day. One desired to produce 'tools' for it. Assuming the wealth of force were greater, one could imagine forces being subtracted, not to serve the needs of society but some future need.
"Such a task would have to be posed the more it was grasped to what extent the contemporary form of society was being so powerfully transformed that at some future time it would be unable to exist for its own sake alone, but only as a tool in the hands of a stronger race.
"The increasing dwarfing of man is precisely the driving force that brings to mind the breeding of a stronger race--a race that would be excessive precisely where the dwarfed species was weak and growing weaker (in will, responsibility, self-assurance, ability to posit goals for oneself).
"The means would be those history teaches: isolation through interests in preservation that are the reverse of those which are average today; habituation to reverse evaluations; distance as a pathos; a free conscience in those things that today are most undervalued and prohibited.
"The homogenizing of European man is the great process that cannot be obstructed: one should even hasten it. The necessity to create a gulf, distance, order of rank, is given eo ipso--not the necessity to retard the process.
"As soon as it is established, this homogenizing species requires a justification: it lies in serving a higher sovereign species that stands upon the former and can raise itself to its task only by doing this. Not merely a master race whose sole task is to rule, but a race with its own sphere of life, with an excess of strength for beauty, bravery, culture, manners to the highest peak of the spirit; an affirming race that may grant itself every great luxury--strong enough to have no need of the tyranny of the virtue-imperative, rich enough to have no need of thrift and pedantry, beyond good and evil; a hothouse for strange and choice plants."
2002-10-15 02:29 | User Profile
"Let's bring this to a conclusion. The two opposing values 'good and bad,' 'good and evil' have fought a fearful battle on earth for thousands of years. If it's true that the second value in each pair has for a long time had the upper hand, there's no lack of places where the battle goes on without a final decision. We ourselves could say that in the intervening time the battle has been constantly drawn to greater heights and greater depths and has become continuously more spiritual, so that nowadays there is perhaps no more decisive mark of a 'higher nature,' a more spiritual nature, than that it is split in this sense and is truly a battleground for these opposites.
"The symbol of this battle, written in a script which has remained legible through all human history up to the present, is called 'Rome Against Judea, Judea Against Rome.' To this point there has been no greater event than this war, this posing of a question, the contradiction between these deadly enemies. Rome felt that the Jews were something contrary to nature itself, something like its monstrous polar opposite. In Rome the Jew was considered 'guilty of hatred again the entire human race.' And that view was correct, to the extent we are right to link the health and the future of the human race to the unconditional rule of aristocratic values, the Roman values.
"By contrast, how did the Jews feel about Rome? We can guess that from a thousand signs, but it is sufficient to treat oneself again to the Apocalypse of John, that wildest of all written outbursts which vengeance has on its conscience. (Incidentally, we must not underestimate the deep consistency of the Christian instinct, when it ascribed this very book of hate to the name of the disciple of love, the same man to whom it attributed that wildly enthusiastic amorous gospelââ¬âthere is some truth to this, no matter how much literary counterfeiting may have been necessary for that book to make its point)
"The Romans were the strong and noble men, stronger and nobler than any people who'd lived on earth up until thenââ¬âor even than any people who'd ever been dreamed up. Everything they left as remains, every inscription, is delightful, provided that we can guess what was doing the writing there. By contrast, the Jews were par excellence that priestly people of resentment who possessed an unparalleled genius for popular morality. Just compare people with related talentsââ¬âsay, the Chinese or the Germansââ¬âwith the Jews in order to understand who's in first place and who's fifth.
"Which of them has proved victorious for the time being, Rome or Judea? Surely there's not the slightest doubt. Just think of who it is people bow down to today in Rome as the personification of all the highest valuesââ¬âand not only in Rome, but in almost half the earth, everywhere where people have become merely tame or want to become tameââ¬âin front of three Jews, as we know, and one Jewess (before Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the carpet worker Paul, and the mother of the first-mentioned Jesus, named Mary).
"Now, this is very remarkable: without doubt Rome has been conquered. It's true that in the Renaissance there was a brilliant, incredible re-awakening of the classical ideal, the noble way of evaluating everything. Rome itself behaved like someone who'd woken up from a coma induced by the pressure of the new Jewish Rome built over it, which looked like an ecumenical synagogue and was called 'the church.' But immediately Judea triumphed again, thanks to that basically vulgar (German and English) movement of resentment, which we call the Reformation, together with what had to follow as a consequence, the re-establishment of the church, as well as the re-establishment of the old grave-like tranquillity of classical Rome.
"In what is an even more decisive and deeper sense, Judea once again was victorious over the classical ideal at the time of the French Revolution. The last political nobility which we had in Europe, in seventeenth and eighteenth century France, broke apart under the instinct of popular resentmentââ¬ânever on earth has there ever been heard a greater rejoicing, a noisier enthusiasm! It's true that in the midst of all this the most dreadful and most unexpected events took place: the old ideal itself stepped physically and with unheard of splendour before the eyes and the conscience of humanityââ¬âand once again stronger, simpler, and more urgently than ever rang out, in opposition to the old lie, to the slogan of resentment about the privileged rights of the majority, in opposition to that will for a low condition, abasement, equality, for the decline and extinguishing of mankindââ¬âin opposition to all that there rang out a fearsome and delightful counter-slogan about the privileged rights of the few! As a last signpost to a different road Napoleon appeared, the most singular and late-born man there ever was, and in him the problem of the inherently noble ideal was made flesh. We might well think about what sort of a problem that is: Napoleon, this synthesis of the inhuman and the superhuman . . .
"Did that end it? Was that greatest of all opposition of ideals thus set ad acta for all time? Or was it merely postponed, postponed indefinitely? . . . Some day, after a much longer preparation, will an even more fearful blaze from the old fire not have to take place More than that: isn't this exactly something we should hope for with all our strengthââ¬âeven will it or demand it? . . ."
2002-10-16 03:14 | User Profile
AntiYuppie,
Great Post. I was never a fan of Nietzsche, but did like some of Nietzsche's works, but fear "Fritz loses it" may be pretty close to the truth.
As for his quarrel with Wagner, I fall 100% on the side of Wanger. Parsifal was great!
I get the impression that much of Nietzsche's condemnation of German nationalism and the German people, as well as his philosemitism, was said out of spite. Keeping in mind Nietzsche's personal quarrel with Wagner (which Nietzsche dishonestly informs us was over Parsifal and Wagner's "falling pathetically before the Cross" - even though Wagner had been interested in the Parsifal story as a "prequel" to Lohengrin decades earlier) and Wagner's commitment to German nationalism and the Jewish question, I suspect that many of Nietzsche's pronouncements on the subject were simply due to childish spite - juvenile posthumous attacks on Wagner by his embittered former admirer. In other words, Nietzsche praised Jews and attacked Germany just to prove to his readers that he was "independent" of Wagner and not at all in debt to the man.
**Monsalvat: the Parsifal homepage ** [url=http://home.c2i.net/monsalvat/inxcommon.htm]http://home.c2i.net/monsalvat/inxcommon.htm[/url]
2002-10-16 14:12 | User Profile
AntiYuppie,
Excellent post. Very impressive for a non-"Nietzschean" to be so well acquainted with the Master's thought and yet free from popular misconceptions thereabout.
Some observations on your points:
My personal inclination is toward not bothering to argue Nietzsche as a precursor - I simply cite Nietzsche where his remarks seem pertinent to the issue. I value Nietzsche for his coherent remarks on the genealogy of morals, the state, and aristocracy - without trying overly much to reconcile the sense and the nonsense in which he involves himself elsewhere.
Why, for an example of the latter, would he have imagined the purest, etc., race in Europe wanting to assimilate itself to one which it obviously considered beneath itself? And how could Nietzsche have missed the growing power and independent agenda of international Jewry?
Why would Nietzsche oppose rising German nationalism if he hoped for an imperium of Europe such as that attempted by his hero, Napoleon? He seemed primed for the emergence of pan-European tyranny, but would seem to have expected something unprecedented and most improbable in the form of a spontaneous creation of a super-state. His own brutally realistic remarks about the formation of the "state," and his admiration for Roman imperialism, leave one puzzled in this regard.
In the spirit of the present enterprise, however, I might offer my own sense of Nietzsche's difficulty by attributing the latter to disappointment and vanity. He unendingly reproached the Germans on various accounts - for having prostituted themselves to the alien Church as its guardians and enforcers; for having made the telling contribution to the defeat of Napoleon, the unifier of Europe; for various cultural shortcomings such as to offend the sensitive nose of Herr Doctor Professor Nietzsche. He constantly focused on the Germans because they were the only hope - and yet they seemed hopeless, when account was taken of their history and characteristics. The Germans were forever a people of "half-measures" - as he put the case of the kinsmen from whom he ludicrously distanced himself as supposedly of "Polish" extraction.
In my summary sense of Der Fall Nietzsche, the subject turned away from the love which disappointed and largely spurned him, and turned toward those who seemed to recognize him as he saw himself.
2002-10-16 14:42 | User Profile
Also, my sense of Nietzsche is not so much of a philosemite, as it is of an anti-anti-Semite.
Nietzsche, consistent with his established attitudes, despised the "Christian moralizing" of the contemporary anti-Semites, and likewise hated the "arousing of the horned-beast element in the people."
I would surmise that Nietzsche felt that his expectation of a European "self-overcoming" of Christianity, out of Christian confessional "truthfulness," would have been thwarted if anti-Semitism had continued to preserve Europeans in self-satisfaction with their Christian cultural heritage.
2002-10-16 20:42 | User Profile
Nietzsche's great hatred was of "slave morality," of which morality and attitude Christianity was, for him, a most vile expression.
Characteristic of Nietzsche's execrable slave morality was a hatred of "the world," of life, of reality experienced without mediation by illusion or intoxication.
Also characteristic was the "slave's" orientation to life as a "victim," rather than as a victor - as a trembling "lamb" rather than as a "bird of prey," clear-sightedly "beyond good and evil" in the ability to view the lamb with detachment. The strong and victorious could affirm life, the world, reality - as was Nietzsche's aspiration for the great race of his imagination to come. The cultivation of victim status, as was and is typically done among anti-Semites in deploring the depredations of Jewry, was antithetical to the Nietzschean project for reviving the "ancient fire" and the quest for restoration of the "supreme rights of the few."
2002-10-16 21:25 | User Profile
I thus depart from Nietzsche in recognizing, as did Hitler and his version of National Socialism, that the "Red" had to be cultivated in order to elevate the "Brown" to power. Once the latter was in power, ideological dissension, over the issue of the proper implementation of "Socialism," was puerile at best and a threat to the maintenance of a national victory.
And only upon a foundation of Nationalist victory could a racially and culturally "conservative" (in a very broad sense) regime be maintained in Europe. National Socialism, supported in the extremity of the early 30's by reactionary elements, was the best that could be done in terms of preserving what was left of the West derived from "Aryan" resources and inspiration.
Of course that situation and evaluation always appear radically otherwise from the perspective of the Christian/Communist/Classical-Liberal-Pseudo-Conservative, for whom nasty Nazi-ism is "evil" - and for whom death would be preferable to the commission of the latter's "crimes."
2002-10-20 16:09 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Oct 19 2002, 23:22 **This is one of Claverly Cartney's posts from the VNN letters column. I think he establishes pretty clearly where N's symphathies lay - with both parties.
**It's high time that we give Fritz Nietzsche two of the best in the back of the neck. He was never our friend, and it's about time that we recognize the gruesome facts in his case. He hated the Germans passionately and he loved the taste of Jewish toe-paste to distraction. He sneered at the "race-swindle" and swindled himself into a belief that he was Polish--anything rather than admit to being a German. Ludwig Klages put the matter quite eloquently and irrefutably as follows:
Nietzsche: Philo-Semite and Germanophobe I. Nietzsche had so little of the "anti-Semite" in his nature that he can scarcely conceive of a more loathsome character than the: "anti-Semite"! Whoever takes the pains to examine Nietzsche's collected works in order to determine his actual opinion of the Jews -- and of the Germans -- cannot fail to arrive at the following conclusions: Nietzsche held the Jews in the highest possible esteem; he detests all "anti-Semites"; and he hated the Germans with a blind hatred...
Had Nietzsche lived into the era of the "World War," there can be no doubt as to whom he would have pledged his allegiance: he would certainly have sided with the mortal enemies of Germany! (PEN p. 152)
Nietzsche: Philo-Semite and Germanophobe II. It is Nietzsche who informs us that the Jews have bestowed the "most refined manners" upon Europe.
It is Nietzsche who informs us that the Jews are the great masters of the art of adaptation, the true geniuses of European drama.
It is Nietzsche who praises the Jews as the race that has the most reverence for their forefathers.
It is Nietzsche who finds in the "Old Testament" the best criteria for distinguishing the "great" from the "small."
It is Nietzsche who holds that "In comparison with Luther's Bible, all other books are mere 'literature'".
It is Nietzsche who insists that the Jews and the Romans are the two most spiritually virile nations in history.
It is Nietzsche who tells us that the Jews initiated the "grand style" in moral matters...
It is Nietzsche who informs us that the Jews are "the most ancient and best-bred of all the races."
It is Nietzsche who urges the "noble officers of Prussia" to marry Jewesses in order to create "a new ruling caste for Europe."
It is Nietzsche who calls the Bible "the most profound and most important" book in existence.
It is Nietzsche who tells us that the Jews have raised "the dream of ethical nobility to a higher plane than has any other people."
It is Nietzsche who tells us that the ideas of the Jews are the means by which Europe has achieved its masterful position.
It is Nietzsche whose exaggerated regard for the writings of Heine betrays him into such statements as the following: "Heine's style is far superior to anything that mere Germans" (!) can hope to achieve!
And similar reflections can be culled by the dozen from Nietzsche's works! (PEN pp. 223-4)
Alex, I say we should dump this crackpot overboard schnell!
John Claverley Cartney **
Also
**Nietzsche never wasted his time laying out a double-entry ledger with good-Jew vs. bad-Jew entries en regard, as it were; he was a man twisted and torn to pieces in his instincts and drives, a half-Dionysus and half-Yahweh who never realized that his deepest core was Christian malgre lui, and fortiter Jewish -- if we follow his teaching we reinfect ourselves the disease from which we are seeking release. Adhere to Nietzsche and you empower Yahweh: it's that simple (there is a way out--but I don't expect many comrades to pay attention to the exit sign, which reads KLAGES! **
There are some fascinating excerpts from Klages in translation on the web, if the question of N's folly deeply perturbs you may wish to seek further wisdom there.
And who knows? You just may come back as NeoKlages!
Wintermute**
Unfortunately for the reader and defender of Nietzsche, one must do a great deal of reading and re-reading of Nietzsche in order to acquire and make some sense of what he is about. One cannot take a series of concrete extractions out of context and make a case for "The" Nietzschean position without finding, upon further research, that a case can likewise be made for a contrary attitude.
One can say that "He hated the Germans passionately" - but wonder why he spent so much time and effort in well-taken criticism of the Germans, a people who would seem to have been the only contemporary hope for a restoration of a Roman-style Imperium. One has the sense that his hatred was that for wasted potential, and his focus upon the Germans was in reproach therefor, in hopes of stimulating a self-examination and correction. Kind of like Patton slapping a shirker in hopes of recalling him to a sense of manhood.
And in the same spirit, the praise of the Jews involves some well-taken concession to the truth of the case, as one would compare a child unfavorably with a peer in hopes of motivating the child toward emulating the favored behavior. Again, the picture is that of loving one's own child, but being disappointed in him, wanting him to reform, and being inclined to disown him in moments of despair.
For Nietzsche's one hatred was not of the Germans, but of Christianity - and the best of the Germans, the officers, perversely clung to this antithetical orientation. Nietzsche's hopes for a "self-overcoming" of Christianity were certainly affronted by this combination, and some heavy-duty face-slapping was called for if these "Christian gentlemen" were to be brought around to their proper sense of themselves, as Nietzsche conceived the issue.
2002-10-23 01:58 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Oct 22 2002, 15:55 * > One can say that "He hated the Germans passionately" - but wonder why he spent so much time and effort in well-taken criticism of the Germans, a people who would seem to have been the only contemporary hope for a restoration of a Roman-style Imperium*
I have to take exception to your claim that late 19th Century Germany was destined to play the role of a modern Roman Empire. In the 19th Century it would have seemed that Germany (and to a lesser extent France and Italy) played [the] role of Greece in Roman times while the role of the Roman Empire was being taken up by Britain.
Where Hellenism provided the "high culture" of antiquity: the pure science, the literature, the philosophy, etc, Rome provided practical civilization: engineering, statescraft, empire-building, and commerce. The Germans were a "nation of thinkers" when the British were known as a nation of shopkeepers, entirely analogous to the cultural divide between Greece and Rome.
This should be even more clear when we take into account the one nation which today IS playing the role of the Roman Empire writ large (and has been since WWI and particularly WWII) - the United States. Postmodern American international imperium has all of the aspects of Post-Republican Rome's belligerance, decadence, and materialism, and what remains of Europe gets to play the part of de facto subjugated second fiddle (i.e. when the US decides to pulverise some defenseless nation, the Europeans either burble some ineffectual protest or yap "me too" like the Brits in their big dog/little dog relationship). I'm sure the Greeks felt the same way circa 100 AD.**
I would liken Britain to Carthage, as the commercial and colonial power of its day.
The British, but for the acquisition of India, were merely colonialists - unlike the Romans, who aggressively integrated and administered conquered territory as did Prussia in later creating a German Empire of the various states - a regime finally and fully consolidated under the authoritarian Third Reich.
So conspicuous was the German martial and nationalist enthusiasm of Nietzsche's time, that the equation of the Prussian victories with a putative cultural superiority offended even that champion of manly endeavor. Any reasonable expectation of Continental Imperium in terms of consolidation by conquest certainly lay with Germany alone, given the requirements of means, motive, and opportunity.
I would accept the analogy, in terms of more recent events, between America/Europe and Rome/Greece with regard to cultural contrast. However, the origins of Anglo-American political hegemony in the modern world has most to do, in my judgment, with global geography/demography and Jewish manipulation of events - whereas the thorough regimentation and militarization of its society under Etruscan tutelage was largely responsible for Roman success in that ancient arena. The British thalassocracy permitted a domestic politico-economic liberalism and collateral tendency to colonial independence that strongly contrasts with the forthright basis in rigorous military authority of all Roman regimes.
It is the case that Hitler's own martial aspirations for Lebensraum had too much of the flavor of a colonial, rather than an imperial enterprise, and that his preparations and resources were insufficient for the latter. It would appear that Bismarck should have preceeded him in integrating a conquered France into the Reich, thus forming the basis of a realizable German/European imperium - rather than having predictably planted the seeds of French revanchism and eventual disaster for Germany and Europe. Bismarck evidently did not know what Spengler knew of the necessity for the "Contending States" to eventually resolve themselves into a unity.
2002-11-05 08:03 | User Profile
Here's how I see it. What does noble, mean? It means being aware of all that is arrayed against one, also plural against "us", in the fight for life. However that includes, in Jewish opinion, G-d, being arrayed in one's favor or against, as well.
(Questions?) There should be tons. Unless this forum is merely a political Thang, which no doubt it is. However Gentiles when discussing "God" tend to want to already assume they know him/her/it-?- etc. Jewish opinion, in so far as I perceive it, assumes only the question... then what-?-is the UNKNOWABLE'S prerogative... -?- However intuition and heart in these matters tends to want to share with the group, if possible... which has always been part of the role of rabbis... or others, and so forth, poets, nuts, etc. IN human terms, the purer the gene pool, tends to be accompanied by both (sometimes) increased awareness, I say awareness because we know we don't yet have a working definition of "intelligence", and accompanied as well in terms of averages, by a disappearance or diminishing of the penal bone. I read this somehwhere, and in candor have no idea if it is Actual, does anyone esle know?or believe they do?