Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old February 9th, 2011 #21
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
See I would dispute that: there is a massive debate about whether Der Chef read and admired Nietzsche or not. Ryback (in 'Hitler's Private Library') for example claims that Der Chef did not read Nietzsche at all and picked him up second hand (not surprising considering that Nietzsche was a philosopher much in fashion among both the revolutionary conservative and völkisch right). While others; Jacob (in 'German Conservative Foreign Policy') for example, assert that there is much in Nietzsche that Der Chef took and created National Socialism as a logical extension of it.

Now as for Elisabeth I think this is where you need to be aware of context MH. Elisabeth was well known on the anti-Semitic circuit via her husband; Bernhard Forster, who was heavily involved with anti-Semitism and pan-German nationalism until his suicide. Now we know that both of them (i.e. Bernhard and Elisabeth) were close with people like Theodor Fritsch who was the declared altmeister of the NSDAP (as well as an NSDAP Reichstag member in his later years) so it would be far more likely that Elisabeth was seen as a fellow 'old time' anti-Semite and widow of a notable proto-NS intellectual but more incidentally as the sister of a fashionable völkisch philosopher. Alfred Rosenberg would be the inverse of that IMO, but we must always stress context for these things as it is very easy to make a mountain out of a molehill.

For example see Peter Pulzer, 1988, 'The Rise of Political anti-Semitism in Germany & Austria', 2nd Edition, Halban: London; George Mosse, 1966, 'The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich', 1st Edition, Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London and Fritz Stern, 1974, 'The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of Germanic Ideology', 2nd Edition, University of California Press: Los Angeles.

You might want to contrast the attitude of the NSDAP towards Nietzsche with the attitude toward Paul de Lagarde whose books we know Nietzsche read and against whom he later wrote as an 'example of German chauvinism'. Robert Lougee has some commentary on that in his 1962, 'Paul de Lagarde', 1st Editon, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. In essence writers in the Third Reich roundly criticised Lagarde for his failure to see the jews as a biological; as opposed to religio-cultural, threat and argued that this had blinded (and to an extent blunted) his critiques of them because it had meant that Lagarde; like those involved in Protestant and Catholic anti-Judaism, had to admit the possibly of the acceptable and sincere jewish convert rather than deal with jews as a biological entity with no exceptions regardless of personal merit/variation.



But that assumes that Nietzsche was a primary thinker in Der Chef's pantheon: no? We know Wagner was a huge influence, but Nietzsche is heavily debated in much the same way as Schopenhauer, Hegel and Fichte are.



But yet Wagner had jewish friends such as Samuel Lehrs and I do believe he was taken to task for that by authors in the Third Reich in the same way that Marr was heavily criticised because three out of his four wives were jewesses and he spent a lot of time arguing for race mixing.

As I have said before attributing anti-Semitism to Wagner is too much, but a general anti-Judaism is quite reasonable given that he wrote against 'jewish influence' not so much against jews per se and the debate as then framed was about jews becoming good Germans and ceasing to be jews not that jews were a biological entity that was therefore entirely unsuited to even be in Germany.

For example see Marc Weiner, 1997, 'Richard Wagner and the Anti-Semitic Imagination', 2nd Edition, University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln. I believe Leon Poliakov mentions this in the fourth volume of his 'History of anti-Semitism' and deals with the Wagner controversy in some detail (his long commentary on Voltaire's anti-Semitism in the third volume is also of particular interest). Albert Lindemann (in his 1997, 'Esau's Tears', 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York) also points out in detail that Wagner was not an anti-Semite in the sense meant by us today, but rather anti-Judaism in the vague generalised sense then common in German anti-Semitic circles.



Possibly, but I think we would find that Nietzsche was merely reacting against social mores of his time (why focus his critique on Christianity, pan-Germanism and anti-Semitism if he was not) and also against those that were prevalent in his hated brother-in-law (which Forster very publicly ascribed to in all three cases).
Yes there is a question of whether or not AH actually read Nietzsche, but as far as his admiration for the man goes there can be no doubt. Remember, he visited Elisabeth on several occasions; if not out of respect and admiration for Fritz, then what for? And it was primarily AH's theoreticians and ideologists who drafted the will to power and ubermensch aspects of Nietzchean thought into National Socialism. Alfred Baeumler, who was to become Rosenberg's chief competition for top idealogue in the NS party, wrote Nietzsche: The Philosopher and Politician in 1931 and I would imagine that AH had at least read that, though I can't say for certain.

And yes, I'm well aware of Elisabeth's role in the whole affair -- freeloading publicity hound that she was. Fritz loathed her and with good reason. She was riding on his coattails throughout most of his career and after Nietzsche's breakdown the bitch was actually charging admission for curiosity seekers and fans of Fritz to catch a glimpse of him as he ranted and raved in his confined room. Once she managed to wrangle control of Nietzsche's works from their mother, she deleted certain passages from Nietzshe's archives that were highly critical of her. She in effect rewrote much of his work and published what she and her cohorts deemed to be more damning of jewry.

As to Wagner being antisemitic or anti-Judaistic, well that's simply a matter of semantics, definition and interpretation of terms. I myself can say that I'm not against jews "per se", but against their influence -- their corruptive influence -- on Western society and this would be true. But the fact remains that anyone critical of any aspects of jewry's machinations is branded antisemitic, and this would include Wagner. Just because he had a few friends who happened to be jews doesn't take away from that. A man of his renown was bound to come into contact and have business dealings with many more jews than the average German. And let's not forget that he sponsored and contributed to an openly antisemitic publication (was it a newsletter or newspaper?); just one more straw onto the camel's back for Nietzsche.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old February 9th, 2011 #22
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default

The Ubermensch; Part I (from pp. 260-3 of Safranski's book):

Nietzsche had already formulated a conceptual model of the Ubermensch in Human, All Too Human: "You should become the master of yourself and also the master of your own virtues. Previously they were your masters, but they must be nothing more than your tools, just some tools among others. You should achieve power over your pros and cons and learn how to put them forth and hang them back in accordance with your higher aim."

The Ubermensch's mastery of self-configuration is not the only issue here. There are also biological overtones in Zarathustra's speeches, especially when he explains that man in his current form evolved from the ape, but that there is still too much of the ape in him and too much laziness, which wants to revert to the animal kingdom. Man is a creature in transition. He is still in flux between the ape from which he originated and the Ubermensch into which he may evolve. "What is the ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And this is exactly what man should be for the Ubermensch: a laughing stock or painful embarrassment."

In matters concerning the physical appearance of the Ubermensch, Zarathustra confines himself to this advice for those contemplating marriage: "Do not reproduce yourself, but rather produce upward! May the garden of marriage help you do this."

Nietzsche was thoroughly familiar with his contemporaries' ideas on biological breeding and evolution. While in Sils-Maria in the summer of 1881, he had sent for literature on this subject. He would have had to be completely ignorant of the widespread trend of biological evolutionary thought spurred by Darwinism to have escaped its influence. Despite all of his criticism of the specifics of Darwinism, Nietzsche was unable to extricate himself entirely from the powerful implications of this theory. Two basic ideas were considered common knowledge in the intellectual culture of those years, and they had become unquestioned assumptions on his part as well.

The notion of development was one of them. It is not a new idea, at least not in reference to the cultural sphere. All of Hegelianism and the subsequent historical school introduced it as a law of development of intellectual metamorphoses. Darwin's new contribution, the second of these basic ideas, was the application of the thesis of development to biological substance.

The implications of a biological history of man's evolution from the animal kingdom could be viewed as a drastic debasement of man. It makes the ape an early relative of man, which led Nietzsche to have his Zarathustra explain: "Once you were apes, and even now man is more ape than any ape." The definition of man as a product of biological development implied that even the so-called mind was regarded as a bodily function of the head, spinal cord, nerves, and so forth.

It is in this sense that Nietzsche also turned his attention to the physiological side of mental faculties and in Zarathustra wrote about the "great rationality of the body; the creative body created the mind for itself as a hand of its will." But this naturalization of the mind and the consequent relativization of the special status of man, which was in effect a disparagement of man, is only one of the two major aspects of Darwinism.

The other aspect, in stark contrast to the first, is marked by positively euphoric visions of human evolution, because it was now possible to extend the idea of progress to biological development. If evolution has led to man, why should it stop with man? Why might there not be an even higher form of life, an Ubermensch as a higher biological type? Darwin did not use the term Ubermensch, but the application of biological futurism to man was not unfamiliar to him. The logic of the idea of development was bound to lead to fantasies of this sort. Darwin wrote: "Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though not of his own exertions, to the very summit of the organic scale; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future."



Part II tomorrow.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old February 9th, 2011 #23
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
Default

I couldn't help but as I read this, to contrast it with the present.

This bit smacks up every inkling of the bourgeois white 'follower', the common man and woman of the current situation in white lands - the west, who will preach their degenerate multicultural (miserable, hypocritical, and genocidal) stance assigned to them by the current anti-white authority. This position they carry that it is immoral to not want aliens among you and those like you. That is something that they were taught, and they hold on to that only because they are followers. The leaders are the ones who disavowed that, and saw through the fact that the only reason that WRONG message STICKS AT ALL is because it comes from an authority, which is only another being who made that choice to subvert others for his will.

It screams volumes to the historical fact that the small group of leaders must lead the followers. That the smartest, the wisest, the 'Ubermensch' must be the authority, and that small elite is NOT for everyone. And it is that elite that decides which way a people and a world goes.

To put this perspective I see simpler and more practical, we should not, and cannot, look at all whites as people capable of a master morality. We can put the message out there to say "become a master, a leader, a changer, if you wish, it is possible", but that is a personal choice.

There are those who choose to change the world - be it for better or worse - and there are those who will just follow whoever the authority is, and willingly espouse their position, to remain in a state of comfort. I see this at every point in history, from the ancients to now, from small personal social circles to larger groups. The 1% who make the change, and the 99% who jump on board when they see the previous authority falling. Or should we say, the 'early adopters' of the new means of security. Everywhere. The reason the masses get behind the new elite is because they become enthralled by a vision of a better life, a better world that is painted by this new elite, and the elite sticks to it with a stronger mental frame than the current authority, never doubting it, never showing any weakness or submission or slave morality, because they know the current situation is merely the act of another man, and to weaken their frame or belief is an act of submission to the opposition, and followers will not follow other followers. They just turn off.

Here it is, take what you will from it, I had to type it by hand from the PDF since I couldn't find a reproduction online, so there may be slight errors.

P.S.: The bit about Duhring and anti-Semites is more of that naivete we spoke of in this thread, but it doesn't take from the overall message. Or is it that the Jews are the ones who took his advice and are acting as master? Perhaps, considering so many - even in our community - feel they will democratically acquire approval and acceptance from an opposing group, that those people will willingly cede or diminish their position. Well, we know how WWII went. True to the Protocols of Zion, they aligned all of their guns at those who threatened their master position, and fired.

From On the Genealogy of Morality (Diethe)

Quote:
The more normal this sickliness is in man - and we cannot dispute this normality -, the higher we should esteem the unusual cases of spiritual and physical powerfulness, man's strokes of luck, and the better we should protect the successful from the worst kind of air, that of the sick-room. Do we do that? ... The sick are the greatest danger for the healthy; harm comes to the strong not from the strongest but from the weakest. Do people realize this? ...

Broadly speaking, it is not the fear of man that we should wish to see diminished: for this fear forces the strong to be strong, on occasions terrible, - it maintains a type of man who is successful. What is to be feared and can work more calamitously than any other calamity is not great fear of, but great nausea at man; similarly, great compassion for man. Assuming that these might one day mate, then immediately and unavoidably something most uncanny would be produced, the 'last will' of man, his will to nothingness, nihilism. And in fact: a great deal has been done to prepare for this.

Whoever still has a nose to smell with as well as eyes and ears, can detect almost everywhere he goes these days something like the air of the madhouse and hospital, - I speak, as is appropriate, of man's cultural domains, of every kind of 'Europe' that still exists on this earth. The sickly are the greatest danger to man: not the wicked, not the 'beasts of prey'. Those who, from the start, are the unfortunate, and downtrodden, the broken - these are the ones, the weakest, who most undermine life amongst men, who introduce the deadliest poison and skepticism into our trust in life, in man, in ourselves. Where can we escape the surreptitious glance imparting deep sadness, the backward gland of the born misfit revealing how such a man communes with himself, - that glance which is a sigh. 'If only I were some other person!' is what this glance sighs: 'but there's no hope of that. I am who I am: how could I get away from myself? And oh - I'm fed up with myself!" ...

In such a soil of self-contempt, such a veritable swamp, every kind of weed and poisonous plan grows, all of them so small, hidden, dissembling and sugary. Here, the worms of revenge and rancour teem all round; here, the air stinks of things unrevealed and unconfessed; here, the web of the most wicked conspiracy is continually being spun, - the conspiracy of those who suffer against those who are successful and victorious, here, the sight of the victorious man is hated. And what mendacity to avoid admitting this hatred! What expenditure of big words and gestures, what an art of 'righteous' slander! These failures: what noble eloquence flows from their lips! How much sugared, slimy, humble humility swims in their eyes! What do they really want? At any rate, to represent justice, love, wisdom, superiority, that is the ambition of these who are 'the lowest', these sick people!

And how skillful such an ambition makes them! In particular, we have to admire the counterfeiter's skill, with which the stamp of virtue, the ding-a-ling golden ring of virtue is now imitated. They have taken out a lease on virtue just to keep it for themselves, these weak and incurably sick people, there is no doubt about it: 'Only we are good and just' is what they say, 'only we are the homines bonae voulntatis' (men of good will). They promenade in our midst like living reproaches, like warnings to us, - as though health, success, strength, pride and the feeling of power were in themselves depravities for which penance, bitter penance will one day be exacted: oh, how they thirst to be hangmen!

Amongst them we find plenty of vengeance-seekers disguised as judges, with the word justice continually in their mouth like poisonous spittle, pursing their lips and always at the ready to spit at anybody who does not look discontented and who cheerfully goes his own way. Among their number there is no lack of that most disgusting type of dandy, the lying freaks who want to impersonate 'beautiful souls' and put their wrecked sensuality on the market, swaddled in verses and other nappies, as 'purity of the heart': the type of moral onanists and 'self-gratifiers'.

The will of the sick to appear superior in any way, their instinct for secret paths, which lead to tyranny over the healthy, - where can it not be found, this will to power of precisely the weakest! In particular, the sick woman: nobody can outdo her refinements in ruling, oppressing, tyrannizing. The sick woman spares nothing, either living or dead, to this end, she digs up the things most deeply buried (the Bogos say: 'woman is hyena'). You can look behind every family, every corporate body, every community: everywhere, the struggle of the sick against the healthy - mostly a silent struggle with small doses of poison, pinpricks, spiteful, long-suffering looks, but also interspersed with the loud gesture of the sick Pharisee playing his favourite role of 'righteous indignation'.

The hoarse, indignant baying of sick hounds, the vicious mendacity of rage and such 'noble' Pharisees, can be heard right into the hallowed halls of learning ( - I again remind readers who have ears to hear of that apostle of revenge from Berlin, Eugen Duhring, who makes the most indecent and disgusting use of moral clap-trap of anyone in Germany today: Duhring, today's biggest loudmouth of morality, even amongst his kind, the anti-Semites). These worm-eaten physiological casualties are all men of ressentiment, a whole, vibrating realm of subterranean revenge, inexhaustible and insatiable in its eruptions against the happy, and likewise in masquerades of revenge and pretexts for revenge: when will they actually achieve their ultimate, finest, most sublime triumph of revenge? Doubtless if they succeed in shoving their own misery, in fact all misery, on to the conscience of the happy: so that the latter eventually start to be ashamed of their happiness and perhaps say to another: 'It's a disgrace to be happy! There is too much misery!' ...

But there could be no greater or more disastrous misunderstanding than for the happy, the successful, those powerful in body and soul to begin to doubt their right to happiness in this way. Away with this 'world turned upside down'! Away with this disgraceful mollycoddling of feeling! That the sick should not make the healthy sick - and this would be that kind of mollycoddling - ought to be the chief concern on earth: - but for that, it is essential that the healthy should remain separated from the sick, should even be spared the sight of the sick so that they do not confuse themselves with the sick.

Or would it be their task, perhaps, to be nurses and doctors? ... But they could not be more mistaken and deceived about their task, - the higher ought not to abase itself as the tool of the lower, the pathos of distance ought to ensure that their tasks are kept separate for all eternity! Their right to be there, the priority of the bell with a clear ring over the discordant and cracked one, is clearly a thousand times greater: they alone are guarantors of the future, they alone have a bounden duty to man's future. What they can do, what they should do, is something the sick must never do: but so that they can do what only they should, why should they still be free to play doctor, comforter and 'saviour' to the sick? ... And so we need good air! good air! At all events, well away from all madhouses and hospital of culture! And so we need good company, our company! Or solitude, if need be! But at all events, keep away from the evil fumes of inner corruption and the secret, worm-eaten rottenness of disease! ... So that we, my friends, can actually defend ourselves, at least for a while yet, against the two worst epidemics that could possibly have been set aside just for us - against great nausea at man! Against deep compassion for man!...

Last edited by P.E.; February 9th, 2011 at 07:07 PM.
 
Old February 10th, 2011 #24
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default

Thanks, buddy -- keep up the good work. Excellent stuff indeed. I myself plan on commenting on Nietzche's philosophy shortly. I just want to post his primary theses first; then I'll get down to business...
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old February 10th, 2011 #25
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default

The Ubermensch; Part II (from pp. 266-72 of Safranski's book):

The Ubermensch viewed as a biological type certainly came across as a voguish figure of Darwinism, which was quite discomfitting for Nietzsche...

Why did Nietzsche resist the Darwinian misconception if his affinity to Darwin was so obvious?...He accused Darwin of having applied the logic of development in the animal kingdom, which is unreflective, to man. In man, however, all developmental processes are refracted through the medium of consciousness, which means that the higher development of man cannot be conceived of according to the model of the insensible development of nature, but must be regarded instead as a product of free will and creativity. It is therefore impossible to rely on any natural process in regard to the Ubermensch of the future; human intervention is called for. But what kind?

Nietzsche had at any rate absorbed enough biologism from the theory of evolution and genetics to consider the idea of breeding to regulate reproduction. His recommendation -- "Do not reproduce yourself, but rather produce upward! -- was cited earlier. What this "upward" means for biology remains vague, but Zarathustra leaves no doubt that the "far too many" should not be allowed to reproduce indiscriminately. "Far too many live, and far too long they hang on their branches. If only a storm would come to shake all of this rot and worm-eaten decay from the tree!" Rampant reproduction must be stopped. Chance and the power of the great masses must not continue to have the upper hand: "We are still fighting step by step with the giant that is accident, and so far only nonsense, senselessness, has governed over the whole of humanity." To prevent the madness of past generations from erupting in current and future generations and landing all of history in an awful state of degeneration, specific means must be taken.

Nietzsche's image of the Ubermensch betrays his own ambivelance while unfolding an entire existential drama. The Ubermensch represents a higher biological type and could be the product of deliberate breeding. However, he can also function as an ideal for anyone who wishes to gain power over himself and cultivate his virtues, anyone who is creative and knows the whole spectrum of the human capacity for thought, fantasy, and imagination. Nietzsche's Ubermensch is the consummate realization of human potential and, in this sense, is also a response to the "death of God."

Let us recall the famous scene in The Gay Science (note: no, dipshit -- this was written in the 19th century and therefore "gay" doesn't translate into the modern meaning of the term -- MH) in which the "madman" runs about in the bright morning hours yelling, "I am seeking God! I am seeking God!...We killed him!...Is the magnitude of this deed not too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods just to seem worthy of it?" The murderer of God must himself become God -- that is, an Ubermensch -- otherwise he will sink into banality, as Nietzsche attempted to illustrate in this scene. The issue is whether man can retain the ingenuity he employed in inventing an entire heaven of gods, or whether he will be left empty after attacking them. If God is dead because people have realized that they invented him, it is crucial that their powers to posit divinity remain intact.

Part III tomorrow.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old February 10th, 2011 #26
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias Hetzenauer View Post
Thanks, buddy -- keep up the good work. Excellent stuff indeed. I myself plan on commenting on Nietzche's philosophy shortly. I just want to post his primary theses first; then I'll get down to business...
Good stuff. Look forward to it.

Crazy how much this stuff makes your mind run.

I didn't want to deviate or hijack the thread further, so I threw more thoughts that sprang out of Genealogy of Morality onto a blog post here, though there are no direct mentions of GoM, it was just a storm of thought that sprang from it.
 
Old February 11th, 2011 #27
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default

The Ubermensch; Part III (from p. 272 of Safranski's book):

The Ubermensch embodies the sanctification of this world as a response to the "death of God." The Ubermensch is free of religion. He has not lost it, but reclaimed it for himself. The typical nihilist, by contrast, the "last man," has merely forfeited religion and retained life in all its profane wretchedness. Nietzsche aspired to salvage sanctifying powers for the here and now from the nihilistic tendency of vulgarization by means of his Ubermensch.

Nietzsche invoked this idea with powerful imagery, and without sounding preachy, in The Gay Science: "There is a lake that forewent overflowing one day and formed a dam where it had been flowing off before; since then, this lake has been rising higher and higher. Perhaps this very privation will also grant us the strength to endure privation ourselves; perhaps from that point on, man will continue to rise up by not flowing out into a god." The Ubermennsch is the Promethean man who has discovered his theogonic talents. The God outside of him is dead, but the God who is known to live through man and in him is alive. God is a name for the creative power of man. This creative power enables man to partake of the vast dimensions of existence. The first book of Zarathustra closes with these words: "All the gods are dead; now we want the Ubermensch to live." The section called "On the Blissful Islands", in the second book of Zarathustra, expands this idea: "Once you said God when you looked out upon the distant seas; now, however, I have taught you to say: Ubermensch. God is a conjecture, but I do not want your conjectures to reach beyond your creative will. Could you create a god? Then do not talk to me about any gods. But you could certainly create the Ubermensch." At the very instant that man discovers and affirms his theogonic power and in the process learns to revere himself, he stops disparaging his own achievements. When this stage is reached, Zarathustra exclaims: "Only now is the mountain of man's future in labor." The Ubermensch who develops after the death of God is the person who no longer requires a detour via God to find faith in himself.


And that's the end of my quotes on the Ubermensch.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old February 11th, 2011 #28
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default

Are you beginning to see the parallels between Nietzschean and National Socialist thought here? Many people today, jews especially, are wary of Nietzschean philosophy because of its close proximity to that of those naughty Nazis of their nightmares. Others contend that NS theoreticians deceptively selected only that of Nietzsche's philosophy which seemed to lend credence to their own. But as a German critic once said, "Tell me what you need, and I'll supply you with the right Nietzsche quotation." Whatever your political stripe, left or right, you can find something to admire about the man; though people of the latter persuasion can no doubt claim him as one of their own with much more certitude and authority than the former could ever possibly hope to. Yes, Nietzsche was opposed to nationalism and antisemitism (though as I said previously, if he had lived to see what the jew had wrought in the 20th century he undoubtedly would've reassessed his opinion of him), but he was vehemently opposed also to virtually all of what the jew pontificates and force feeds to his subjects (and them only) today: religious slave morality (humility, meekness, obedience, etc.); the promotion of lesser beings' welfare over the more worthy among us; the compassionate understanding of the underlying forces for criminal behavior ("It's society's fault, not mine"); the levelling of society via democratic institutions and govt; tolerance and promotion of the darker races' culture and "art" forms; egalitarianism; feminism -- the list goes on and on. Matter of fact, 90% of the views on culture and society expressed by AH in Mein Kampf could just as well have been authored by Nietzsche himself. Anyone reading Der Fuehrer's polemic and works by Fritz, such as Thus Spoke Zarathustra for example, cannot help but notice the remarkable similarities between them.

All this aside, so what if NS theoreticians such as Baeumler and Rosenberg gave particular emphasis to certain aspects of Nietzschean thought to the exclusion of others; those which didn't pertain to their philosophy and goals. They most certainly took nothing out of context and twisted it to suit their "evil" intentions. And after all, who the hell adheres 100% to any man's beliefs, thoughts and opinions? Even today's Christians "pick 'n' choose" which fables and moral lessons of their Holy Babble to believe and pay heed to while discarding those which they find antiquated or just plain "inconvenient"; and these sacred texts are essentially ghost written by God himself no less. So much for the "Yeah but, they chose to adopt only certain elements of Nietzschean philosophy" argument. Right out the window that bullshit goes...
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs

Last edited by Matthaus Hetzenauer; February 11th, 2011 at 12:13 PM.
 
Old February 11th, 2011 #29
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias Hetzenauer View Post
Yes there is a question of whether or not AH actually read Nietzsche, but as far as his admiration for the man goes there can be no doubt.
And on what grounds do you assume admiration MH?

If you admire Nietzsche; much as I do, then it doesn't mean that Der Chef did or if he did in the same way as you or I do. We can't ascertain what Der Chef thought about Nietzsche (or even whether he read him although I consider it likely he did) particularly because he was a fashionable thinker on the völkisch right whose ideas had been melded with many a more popular völkisch writer.

To give a similar practical example: I've recently seen it claimed by one; although decidedly absurd most of the time, author (Michael Fitzgerald) that Der Chef read Hegel's works and used his thought regarding heroes and the heroic, when in fact he is not using Hegel's works but rather he is using Thomas Carlyle's thought regarding them in the German translation of 'On Heroes and Hero Worship' (we know he read most of what Carlyle wrote particularly his biography of Frederick the Great, which he returned to in the last days in Berlin).

Quote:
Remember, he visited Elisabeth on several occasions; if not out of respect and admiration for Fritz, then what for?
Because she was an important public personage on the völkisch right as I have explained. She was a person closely connected to the very anti-Semites and nationalists who we know Der Chef read (because he personally recommended their works to members on early NSDAP membership cards) and who it would have been impolitic not to visit and court support from. In much the same way as Goebbels and Streicher courted support from devout Christians in spite of the fact that both of them were known (and in Goebbels' case published) anti-Christians.

Unless you can show that Der Chef's motivation was due in signficant part to Elisabeth's familial connection with Fritz then you cannot argue that it was due to that. We can speculate (and I don't consider it unreasonable to do so), but until you can offer that evidence you cannot reasonably conclude that was the case because the context mitigates your argument and provides a logical explanation which is actually more plausible than a special love of Nietzsche. After all why do you think Der Chef attended mass services?

If I might type-cast your argument slightly: if we run with your line of thought and apply it to what we know about Der Chef's visits and correspondence then we could argue; as Marxists do, that Der Chef was a 'tool' of 'big business' because he made a habit of directly talking to Alfred Hugenberg a good deal between 1929 - 1933. He even had indirect relations with Hugenberg's slush funds as early as 1921 and 1922. So are we to therefore to assume that Der Chef was a 'tool' of 'big business' because of his 'friendly' relations with Hugenberg?

Or can we assume because we know (as opposed to speculate) that Der Chef admired the jew Otto Weininger's 1903 book; 'Geschlecht und Charakter', that Der Chef was a philo-Semite because of this?

I can put this into other contexts as well if you like as we can argue anything from anything in relation to Der Chef because we have a lot of unknowns in his life and thought. You tend to end up arguing for absurd these such Lothar Machtan does in 'The Hidden Hitler' when he argues at length that Der Chef was a faggot.

Quote:
And it was primarily AH's theoreticians and ideologists who drafted the will to power and ubermensch aspects of Nietzchean thought into National Socialism.
Debatable and you are assuming that a considerable literature from which National Socialism drew its intellectual inspiration did not already exist independent of said theorists and ideologues, which it did. To understand that you need only consult the several major works on the intellectual origins and precursors of National Socialism as an ideological position as Jacob has pointed out in detail. For example Constantin Frantz, Paul de Lagarde, Fichte, Herder, Houston Stewart Chamberlain etc.

Quote:
Alfred Baeumler, who was to become Rosenberg's chief competition for top idealogue in the NS party, wrote Nietzsche: The Philosopher and Politician in 1931 and I would imagine that AH had at least read that, though I can't say for certain.
Why assume he read that? We can only speculate on what Der Chef read based on what he cited, referred to and/or on the basis of what he had in his library. Incidentally he did have Nietzsche in his library as I recall (I believe the early edition of his Werkes). As far as we know Der Chef did not read Rosenberg's 'Mythos' for the simple reason that it wasn't generally speaking his kind of book.

Oh and you are also missing out Johann von Leers (among others) who was another major (and prolific) ideologue who was member of the SS, a friend (as of 1929) of Goebbels'/Himmler's (he was also married to Herman Wirth's secretary [a very popular author and first head of the Ahnenerbe]) and a high official in the Propaganda Ministry (as well as being a Professor of History at Jena). Then there is Darre to consider for example and even some of Rosenberg's staff at Amt Rosenberg would vie with their master for that slot.

I think people tend to overestimate Rosenberg's role as National Socialism has more to do with Goebbels and Himmler than it does with Rosenberg. Rosenberg; in essence, was a relic from the early days of the party who had little to no influence and what he had was as the editor of the Völkischer Beobachter, which was rather less influential than is usually assumed.

Quote:
And yes, I'm well aware of Elisabeth's role in the whole affair -- freeloading publicity hound that she was. Fritz loathed her and with good reason.
Yep, but it seems Nietzsche attracted more than one of those as the entire affair with Julius Langbehn and Elisabeth kind of demonstrates. Her 1912 'The Young Nietzsche' (translated by Ludovici incidentally) is still a damn good read though I have to say even if it isn't in line with much of what we now know about Nietzsche.

Quote:
She was riding on his coattails throughout most of his career and after Nietzsche's breakdown the bitch was actually charging admission for curiosity seekers and fans of Fritz to catch a glimpse of him as he ranted and raved in his confined room.
Not pretty is it? She also rode on Forster's coat-tails most of his life as well and as I said that is what got her admission into the top box at the anti-Semitic and nationalist table as her husband was something of celebrity on the völkisch right before her brother's philosophy began to achieve its massive popularity in völkisch (and general intellectual) circles.

Quote:
Once she managed to wrangle control of Nietzsche's works from their mother, she deleted certain passages from Nietzshe's archives that were highly critical of her. She in effect rewrote much of his work and published what she and her cohorts deemed to be more damning of jewry.
True enough, but then we both know there are plenty of people who did that kind of thing now as then. Hell I've seen enough rewrites of material; even well known material, through looking into various matters to make ever the hardiest man wretch.

Quote:
As to Wagner being antisemitic or anti-Judaistic, well that's simply a matter of semantics, definition and interpretation of terms. I myself can say that I'm not against jews "per se", but against their influence -- their corruptive influence -- on Western society and this would be true.
Actually we use the distinction deliberately in the literature and the reason why is very simple. Anti-Judaism is merely opposition to a religion not to jews as a group: a jew is not a follower of Judaism per se and nor is a non-jew necessarily not a follower of Judaism (according to Judaism itself as well incidentally [a-la the Israel and non-Israel distinction]).

Anti-Semitism is opposition to jews on a biological group level is irrespective of whether one is a follower of Judaism or not. Wagner voiced his opposition to the influence of Judaism not the jews as a biological group.

You might call that semantics, but I'd call that pretty important for understanding what Wagner said and the context in which he said it. It is rather like one assuming that Jesus was an anti-Semitic because he called the jews a nasty name once or twice where-as Jesus could only be considered anti-Judaism if one accepted the comments as genuine and without their context.

Quote:
But the fact remains that anyone critical of any aspects of jewry's machinations is branded antisemitic,
To be branded as anti-Semitic (I use the original term deliberately as it accurately reflects my personal sentiments) by jews does mean that one is necessarily anti-Semitic (for that is to accept a jew's judgement as being superior to one's own [hardly a position for a critic of jewry in my opinion]). Hell Abe Foxman and Dershy have both been branded as anti-Semitic by the Kook brigade (who aren't short of influence) in Israel and the US. Are they therefore anti-Semitic?

Quote:
and this would include Wagner.
Yes and that would be accept any judgement that we might regard as favourable to our interpretation as ispo facto the right one without proper investigation or the necessary contextual information, which IMO is silly and obviously fallacious.

Quote:
Just because he had a few friends who happened to be jews doesn't take away from that.
No: I merely said it put his ideas in context, which is why we cannot but conclude that he was anti-Judaism in the common vague conservative sense of the time rather than anti-Semitic as an anti-Semite cannot by definition have jewish friends.

Quote:
A man of his renown was bound to come into contact and have business dealings with many more jews than the average German.
Yes, but he didn't have to be close friends with them and describe them in glowing terms now did he?

Quote:
And let's not forget that he sponsored and contributed to an openly antisemitic publication (was it a newsletter or newspaper?); just one more straw onto the camel's back for Nietzsche.
Yes and? You do realise a jew wrote regularly for 'Der Stuermer' from close to its inception: don't you?

And that makes the jew a National Socialist or 'Der Stuermer' philo-Semitic because? (I am using the same logic you are but using it to explain in a counter example why your logical leaps are unfounded.)

Incidentally I might be wrong but didn't Wagner write for Fritsch's 'Antisemitische Korrespondenz' or am I thinking of someone else?

-------------------

Incidentally don't take offence at the tone as it isn't meant to be offensive, but rather it is the way I tend to argue (i.e. very aggressively).
__________________

Last edited by Karl Radl; February 11th, 2011 at 01:11 PM.
 
Old February 11th, 2011 #30
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default

You're dead wrong on Hitler's not admiring Nietzsche, Karl. Just do a quick search on the subject and you'll find out what I mean. The internet's loaded with documentation.

btw -- There's also a famous photo of him staring at a bust of Nietzsche at the Weimar museum in 1932. I'll see if I can dig it up.

more later; time's short...
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old February 11th, 2011 #31
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias Hetzenauer View Post
You're dead wrong on Hitler's not admiring Nietzsche, Karl. Just do a quick search on the subject and you'll find out what I mean. The internet's loaded with documentation.
Which is? You mean Shirer's comments for example?

Quote:
btw -- There's also a famous photo of him staring at a bust of Nietzsche at the Weimar museum in 1932. I'll see if I can dig it up.

more later; time's short...
Yes and this proves what exactly in your opinion my friend?

I can argue on a similar basis; as I've seen CI do, that pictures of Der Chef coming out of Sunday mass meant that he was a 'Bible Christian' (as V. Herrell puts it). I certainly wouldn't do that personally for much the same reason I don't conclude as you do concerning a Der Chef/Nietzsche close connection.

Take your time responding: no need to rush.
__________________
 
Old February 12th, 2011 #32
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default

Well then, maybe this will convince you (from pp. 575-6 of the Cate's book):

Barely two weeks after his surprise appointment, Chancellor Adolf Hitler made another visit to Weimar to attend a gala performance of Tristan und Isolde, staged to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of Richard Wagner's death. Once again, to Elisabeth Forster-Nietzsche's rapturous delight, the now omnipotent Fuhrer made a point of visiting her threatre box.

Three more visits to Weimar were made by Germany's new Ubermensch during 1934 -- one of them with Hitler's favourite architect, Albert Speer, who was asked to oversee the erection, next to the Nietzsche-Archiv, of a splendid monument honouring the great German thinker whom the new regime had now annexed and made its own. Before she died in early November of 1935 -- her grandiose funeral too was graced by the presence of the Fuhrer --the 88-year-old Elisabeth Forster-Nietzsche was gratified to learn that a handsomely bound copy of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, now become a bible for the adolescents of the Hitler-Jugend, had been solemnly placed, alongside Mein Kampf and Alfred Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Century, in the vault of the Tannenberg Memorial (commemorating the Germans' decisive victory over the Russians in the autumn of 1914) as one of the three ideological pillars of Germany's Third Reich.

And since the name of National Socialism's chief theoretician sprang up (and for good measure) this from Carol Diethe's Historical Dictionary of Nietzscheanism:

ALFRED ROSENBERG (1893-1946) Ideologue of National Socialism. As an aide to Hitler, he attended the celebration of the centenary of Nietzsche's birth at the Nietzche-Archiv and made a speech about Nietzsche's role in Germany's destiny which was printed in the Volkischer Beobachter of 17 October 1944. In the same year, his book on Nietzsche, Friedrich Nietzsche (1944), was published by the official National Socialist Press.

So there we have it. These are all well-documented facts, not opinions or conjecture. And you're telling me that Der Fuhrer didn't admire the man? Come on already, Karl, concede the point.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old February 12th, 2011 #33
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias Hetzenauer View Post
ALFRED ROSENBERG (1893-1946) Ideologue of National Socialism. As an aide to Hitler, he attended the celebration of the centenary of Nietzsche's birth at the Nietzche-Archiv and made a speech about Nietzsche's role in Germany's destiny which was printed in the Volkischer Beobachter of 17 October 1944. In the same year, his book on Nietzsche, Friedrich Nietzsche (1944), was published by the official National Socialist Press.
Unfortunate that will never be found.

Rosenberg seems an interesting character. I've still not fully read his TMOTTC, but it's high on the list (too bad most speed reading techniques ARE a myth if you give two hoots about retention and relation/reflection ).

I've read enough snippets of him though to get an idea. The fact that his book ended up in Tannenberg with only two others, and that he was hung for his thought and writing, and that the prosecution made their point along the lines of 'this man lived in all of these offensive books, not reality', is enough for me to read his work.

They probably thought it would be a bad idea to leave a guy like Rosenberg alive.
 
Old February 13th, 2011 #34
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
Default

I side with Nietzsche, and not Herr Hitler on this one, from Genealogy of Morality:

Quote:
We can regard it as inherently probable that from time to time, at certain places on earth, almost from necessity, a physiological feeling of obstruction will rule amongst large masses of people which, however, is not consciously perceived as such, through lack of physiological knowledge, so that its 'cause' and its cure can be sought and tested only on the psychological-moral level (- actually, this is my most general formula for what is usually called a 'religion').

Such a feeling of obstruction can be of the most diverse descent: for example, as a result of crossing races that are too heterogeneous (or estates - estates always indicate differences in descent and race as well: the European 'Weltschmerz', the pessimism of the nineteenth century, is essentially the result of a foolishly sudden mixing of estates); or it could be brought about by unsound emigration - a race ending up in a climate for which its powers of adaptation are inadequate (the case of the Indians in India); or by the after-effects of a race's age and fatigue (Parisian pessimism from 1850 on); or by a faulty diet (alcoholism of the Middle Ages; the nonsense of the vegetarians who at least have the authority of Sir Christopher in Shakespeare on their side); or by corruption of the blood, malaria, syphilis and such like (German depression after the Thirty Years' War, which infected half of Germany with ruinous diseases and thus prepared the ground for German servility, German faint-heartedness).
I'll never understand that whole vegetarianism thing. Where Hitler was inspired to that is of interest. I'm not a doctor, but I see vegetarians, they don't look exactly all that healthy, whereas I do eat meat and take care of myself and am healthy, and the healthiest and most fit and strong men I know (men especially) are NOT vegetarians. And even the vegan women I know look like they are about to get bruised if it becomes too windy outside.

I know there was a real drive to try and do away with the negatives of common German culture, as I'm sure many have seen that line to the Hitler Youth in that speech where Hitler said (paraphrase) 'The Beer Drinker reputation is no more'.

And I'm sure on a reasoning level most of the fellow elite could accept doing away with beer drinking, the degenerate film era of what Rosenberg called the three 'heroic' archetypes of the pimp, the prostitute, and the criminal (from his intro to TMOTTC), and other common negative pastimes that came to be identified with German culture, ones that didn't quite fit in with a vision of an Ubermensch society.

But then again, I shouldn't make a big deal of this. I don't think any serious pro-vegetarian campaign pushes were made, not to the likes of tobacco and alcohol (which I have seen a few posters about from that era).

Last edited by P.E.; February 13th, 2011 at 07:39 PM.
 
Old February 13th, 2011 #35
Simo Häyhä
Senior Member
 
Simo Häyhä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 860
Default

If I'm not mistaken Hitler adopted a vegetarian diet in order to reduce his flatulency, which was caused (or aggravated) by meat.

Then again, that could be slander.
 
Old February 13th, 2011 #36
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simo Häyhä View Post
If I'm not mistaken Hitler adopted a vegetarian diet in order to reduce his flatulency, which was caused (or aggravated) by meat.

Then again, that could be slander.
This supposed 'Aryan' argument for veganism I happened to just come across (via people spamming that site - which I've never heard of - on youtube comments no less).

http://aryanism.net/culture/veganism/

I'm not too sure of the accuracy of those Hitler quotes, as I think those were from that "Table Talk" book, which is not official obviously.

I don't agree with the position. Even if people were to go along with their 'conquer your "inner Jew" ' philosophy to not look at other animals as Jews look at Goy, then what about overpopulation? Issues with aggressive animals? Animals are going to get killed either way.

Regardless, looking past all so-called 'moral' considerations, there is still the fact that vegans look weaker and overall less-healthy than meat eaters. Any ideology which wants to claim that people should lower their overall health for the sake of being 'moral' towards animals is a batshit crazy ideology.

Though I will say that I assume part of the reason many modern 'vegans' look unhealthy - from those I've met - is that they tend to eat a lot of processed garbage, and other meat-substitute type foods with tons of preservatives / additives / chemicals, and other junk like soy products.

Perhaps there is such a thing as a healthy vegan who eats from natural fresh sources and has stamina and physical fitness / health that is up there with any meat eater. I sure as shit haven't seen it yet.

Last edited by P.E.; February 13th, 2011 at 08:16 PM.
 
Old February 13th, 2011 #37
Simo Häyhä
Senior Member
 
Simo Häyhä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 860
Default

P.E., I can understand people who choose to be vegetarians for healthy reasons only; but being a vegetarian because killing animals is "cruel" and one doesn't want to partake in it is fucking gay.

Aryans ARE, and always were, CRUEL; and this is something this goat fuck of a thread hasn't even tackled yet. The completely sick mindset that dictates violence and cruelty are "wrong". To truly believe this is madness; it is a sickness. It is sickness turned into sainthood.

There is absolutely no reason to feel ashamed of one's own cruelty or lust for violence and killing. That is actually a very natural drive; every man wants it, in some point in their lives. It is called being human. However, with the advent of the sickness called morality, it is now wrong to be strong.

"Men must be educated for war..." - Enough said.
 
Old February 13th, 2011 #38
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simo Häyhä View Post
P.E., I can understand people who choose to be vegetarians for healthy reasons only; but being a vegetarian because killing animals is "cruel" and one doesn't want to partake in it is fucking gay.

Aryans ARE, and always were, CRUEL; and this is something this goat fuck of a thread hasn't even tackled yet. The completely sick mindset that violence and cruelty are "wrong". To truly believe this is madness; it is a sickness. It is sickness turned into sainthood.

There is absolutely no reason to feel ashamed of one's own cruelty or lust for violence and killing. That is actually a very natural drive; every man wants it, in some point in their lives. It is called being human. However, with the advent of the sickness called morality, it is now wrong to be strong.

"Men must be educated for war..." - Enough said.
Agreed. I tend to try to soften the blow with more words when I go against the Third Reich (on the few points there is to), since a lot of people on boards like these tend to hold a 'Reich can do no wrong' position.

In fact a lot of the 'morality' talk surrounding the Third Reich, and it's whole attempt to sustain 'Christian Europe', is the most miffing point of the whole thing for me. Perhaps a moot point, just as many around here consider it a waste of time to try to shoot down Christianity in any current white movement. For the thinkers like Rosenberg, sure, the NSDAP could get those guys all day. But for the farmer, the worker, the average among the mass that makes up a movement, they never would've gotten off the ground without the endorsing of Christianity.

Of course, Nietzsche said that to move forward from something that was once strong, something has to be destroyed.

And reading some of Rosenberg's book (I started to dig into it a bit), he was very in line with Nietzsche on this one.

It smells to me like Europe had issues letting go of these moral shackles a bit too late, and they paid for it. And since the war ended, they do pay for it, literally, both in money and in restriction of speech (and thought for that matter, as the white dying baby boomer generation doesn't say what they think, and their descendants thought is completely alien, as they think what the Jews have taught them to think from their most malleable years of youth, even to the point of genocidal miscegenation).

Of course the same could be said about whites in general. Morality was the cause of the decline of the west, and now the white people of the world are enslaved both in both the physical world and the psychological (barring that 1 or 2% of upper echelon whites who act as nomadic as the Jews).

Last edited by P.E.; February 13th, 2011 at 09:31 PM.
 
Old February 13th, 2011 #39
Simo Häyhä
Senior Member
 
Simo Häyhä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 860
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P.E. View Post
Morality was the cause of the decline of the west
Wiser words never spoken, my friend. How I wish we could see our whole race understanding this! But millennia of sickness don't go away overnight.
 
Old February 14th, 2011 #40
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simo Häyhä View Post
P.E., I can understand people who choose to be vegetarians for healthy reasons only; but being a vegetarian because killing animals is "cruel" and one doesn't want to partake in it is fucking gay.

Aryans ARE, and always were, CRUEL; and this is something this goat fuck of a thread hasn't even tackled yet. The completely sick mindset that dictates violence and cruelty are "wrong". To truly believe this is madness; it is a sickness. It is sickness turned into sainthood.

There is absolutely no reason to feel ashamed of one's own cruelty or lust for violence and killing. That is actually a very natural drive; every man wants it, in some point in their lives. It is called being human. However, with the advent of the sickness called morality, it is now wrong to be strong.

"Men must be educated for war..." - Enough said.
Before you rashly condemn this thread as being a "goat fuck", I suggest you read post #2. Nietzshe knew that men had a natural propensity towards violence and war and he didn't mince words about it either. No, he didn't consider it a virtuous aspect of man's nature, but he knew that the world is made up of those who will fight for what they desire and believe in, and those who will lay down and die without so much as throwing a punch; and he applauded the efforts of the former.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:02 PM.
Page generated in 2.49858 seconds.