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

Old November 23rd, 2005 #21
NeoNietzsche
Junior Member
 
NeoNietzsche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angle

There is no objectivity to Nietzsche. We are all the pawns of some priest. Using objectivity to convey something is the priestly act par excellence - one denies one has any part in using the tools of priestly persuasion in order to foist something on others. Same thing with the Stoics when they appealed to nature (BGE, 9). See GS, 121.
I believe that Nietzsche revised his views in this regard:

"From now on, my philosophical gentlemen, let us protect ourselves better from the dangerous old conceptual fantasy which posits a 'pure, will-less, painless, timeless subject of cognition,' let's guard ourselves against the tentacles of such contradictory ideas as 'pure reason,' 'absolute spirituality,' 'knowledge in itself'—those things which demand that we imagine an eye which simply can't be imagined, an eye without any direction at all, in which the active and interpretative forces are supposed to stop or be absent—the very things through which seeing first becomes seeing something. Hence these things always demand from the eye something conceptually empty and absurd. The only seeing we have is seeing from a perspective; the only knowledge we have is knowledge from a perspective. The more emotional affects we allow to be expressed in words concerning something, the more eyes, different eyes, we know how to train on the same thing, the more complete our 'idea' of this thing, our 'objectivity,' will be. But to eliminate the will in general, to suspend all our emotions without exception—even if we were capable of that—what would that be? Wouldn't we call that castrating the intellect?"
 
Old November 23rd, 2005 #22
Cthulhu
Senior Member
 
Cthulhu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 934
Default

That last quote of Nietzsche's is of course a parroting of Schopenhauer. But let me go back...

Some one mentioned plant's "will to power" and "He's more of a monist - 'there is will to power and nothing else,' he wrote." Of course Schopenhauer maintained this for his Will. So how does calling it a different name make it something different?

In dumb objects will is seen in obedience to gravity, and other forces, in plants stimulus, in animals understanding and in men reason and each ensuing category contains all of the previous.

Nietzsche would create a teleology with his Superman. He had to find a universal "yes", but Schopenhauer had already dismissed any teleological arguments because there is nowhere to go. This plays into Nietzsche's eternal recurrence fears. Which is to heavy for me to go into in any detail here. Read Schop.

Schopenhauer maintained there could be no improvement from man to some Superman because in man the will has the ability to reflect on itself. For the first time it could bring into reflection what it is. Schopenhauer maintained that at this the will being everything could not developmentally go any futher because it had met its brickwall: itself.

Any Superman would be aware that what he called his 'I' was no more than a motor car being driven around by the will. In sleep it goes into the garage and the will comes out to turn over the engine once every so often.

"For example, Nietzsche’s ideas of the Apollian and the Dionysian in the Birth of Tragedy are largely based upon Schopenhauer’s distinction between representation and will." - http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/gr...che/schop.html

And to a certain degree I disagree, but the thought is there. So you see Nietzsche's will was struggling with its reflection. The will could see itself reflected in the world and yet it did not want to be aghast but to give an eternal "Yea!". However he fails mostly, because he, himself, to do this had to do things like create a teleology when he had no foundation for doing so. Thus the will did not see itself clearly enough. It could not say a thorough "yea" because it had not yet seen itself clearly.

I should also say most of the descriptions of Supermen show a distinct lack of reflection upon the will thus they would be "untermenschen" and more akin to animals.
__________________
Cursing braces; blessing releases.
 
Old November 23rd, 2005 #23
Aryaarhat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiochus Epiphanes
you can pick and choose all kinds of quotes from Fred N.

Uppinata is right, there's been far too many books on this subject already. Most of them by Jews, probably. Here some Lebanese chirps in belatedly. Hurrah. Question Arhat: how did you find our forum, where are you from, what is your interest in posting here? Just to promote books or what? We'd like to hear more about you.

Dear members,

I am not "promoting" any books, I was just sharing with you my positive opinion on a book which is innovative and honest, since it is probably one of the very few books on Nietzsche which depicts him as an Aryan pagan, thus repudiating the views of Jews and pseudo "nietzscheans" who have totally distorted this great philosopher's Aryan message. That's all. No need to lambast a book you haven't read!! And what's sad is that this is a pro-
aryan book you are lambasting!!! If a Jew had written a book which glorified Nietzsche as a philosemite, would you see the Jews criticizing it or him??? That is the problem with Aryans today, they are extremely and are versed in self-destructive criticism, which is a very great favour to the Jews!!
Regarding your forum, I find it very interesting, of course, why else would I join it? Where I am from doesn't matter, since our motto is MY RACE IS MY Nation and "Aryans of the world unite!". The Jews are ruling the world not because they are "superior" (preposterous! They are the typical Subhumans, Untermenschen), but because Aryans have lost faith in themselves and have fallen victim to the myth of Jewish "supremacy" (yuch! The word is revolting when used to describe the typical Menschentiere, human beasts).
You will hear more about me, but PLEASE, let us stick together and stop putting ourselves down! This forum is intended for discussion, but POSITIVE discussion in order to find ways to change the pitiful state of the white race, so let's keep it that way! Thanks comrades.
Arya
 
Old November 23rd, 2005 #24
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

'Will to power' and 'Superman' are gibberish beloved of librarians and other indoorsmen. Civilization involves asserting and subordinating will, hopefully in a nigger and jewfree context. We are more together, now cooperating, now competing, than we are alone. The whole debate is beside the point, which is that we just now are beginning to develop the scientific tools to understand what we actually are. Without that knowledge all we can do is close-read behavior. I read Nietzsche because he's funny. Secondarily, he has some good digs at christian pukes. 'Will to power' - that's the stuff of comic books. He's guessing, which he had to since knowledge wasn't available. The baby study KM cites, which shows jew larvae inherently more xenophobic than Aryan babies - that is where you begin to get the truth about 'men' in their various subdivisions.
 
Old November 23rd, 2005 #25
Angle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: England
Posts: 944
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoNietzsche
I believe that Nietzsche revised his views in this regard:

"From now on, my philosophical gentlemen, let us protect ourselves better from the dangerous old conceptual fantasy which posits a 'pure, will-less, painless, timeless subject of cognition,' let's guard ourselves against the tentacles of such contradictory ideas as 'pure reason,' 'absolute spirituality,' 'knowledge in itself'—those things which demand that we imagine an eye which simply can't be imagined, an eye without any direction at all, in which the active and interpretative forces are supposed to stop or be absent—the very things through which seeing first becomes seeing something. Hence these things always demand from the eye something conceptually empty and absurd. The only seeing we have is seeing from a perspective; the only knowledge we have is knowledge from a perspective. The more emotional affects we allow to be expressed in words concerning something, the more eyes, different eyes, we know how to train on the same thing, the more complete our 'idea' of this thing, our 'objectivity,' will be. But to eliminate the will in general, to suspend all our emotions without exception—even if we were capable of that—what would that be? Wouldn't we call that castrating the intellect?"

That is the same thing. Objectivity = more perspectives (not 'the one' objective perspective). It's in the first book of BGE.

Interestingly, Nietzsche was the first to say that Christianity was a Jewish conspiracy against Rome. Pretty much everything in GM book one is in evidence today in the Jewish media pundits - 'hate hating', the attempt to redefine your values, weakness lauded as strength (diversity in a kosher nutshell), the craftiness of the slave caste (Hale's imprisonment), comfort uber alles, etc. He also leads the way out of the gefilte fish's stomach - 'kill your enemies, don't listen to their preaching.' Basically the stuff that science can't get to.
__________________
Hate Hurts - Wogs Kill

'At the end of his life he organized a financial offering for the poor in Jerusalem [Jew city] from the gentile churches he had founded.' - St. Paul [Jew], Oxford Companion to Class. Civ.
 
Old November 23rd, 2005 #26
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angle
......
Interestingly, Nietzsche was the first to say that Christianity was a Jewish conspiracy against Rome. Pretty much everything in GM book one is in evidence today in the Jewish media pundits - 'hate hating', the attempt to redefine your values, weakness lauded as strength (diversity in a kosher nutshell), the craftiness of the slave caste (Hale's imprisonment), comfort uber alles, etc. He also leads the way out of the gefilte fish's stomach - 'kill your enemies, don't listen to their preaching.' Basically the stuff that science can't get to.
No, I'm pretty sure that lots of Romans viewed it that way too. I am ordering Celsus on this topic.

I don't think Julian the Apostate viewed it this way, because he teamed up with the Jews against the Christians. Julian, there's another dualist. Threw Christianity overboard in favor of the suspiciously similar Mithraism.
 
Old November 23rd, 2005 #27
NeoNietzsche
Junior Member
 
NeoNietzsche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder

I read Nietzsche because he's funny.
I read Nietzsche because he recovered the lost understanding of the proper moral essence (the truthfulness and honor of men who rule by violence) of aristocratic culture - a priceless contribution to the comprehension of ourselves as Aryans and to a perspective on the Regime of the Lie that has engulfed us.
 
Old November 23rd, 2005 #28
Angle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: England
Posts: 944
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiochus Epiphanes
No, I'm pretty sure that lots of Romans viewed it that way too. I am ordering Celsus on this topic.

I don't think Julian the Apostate viewed it this way, because he teamed up with the Jews against the Christians. Julian, there's another dualist. Threw Christianity overboard in favor of the suspiciously similar Mithraism.

Because the Romans were the 'baddies' who lost against the great Christian 'goodies' we can hardly claim to be spiritually 'on their side'. We were on Jesus's team. So was Nietzsche - who broke rank and said we're the followers of a Kike Kult against Aryan Rome. There were many Messiahs during that era (Neil Faulkner wrote a History Today article about it). Why would Jeboo give the Romans any more worries than the rest?
__________________
Hate Hurts - Wogs Kill

'At the end of his life he organized a financial offering for the poor in Jerusalem [Jew city] from the gentile churches he had founded.' - St. Paul [Jew], Oxford Companion to Class. Civ.
 
Old November 23rd, 2005 #29
NeoNietzsche
Junior Member
 
NeoNietzsche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angle

Because the Romans were the 'baddies' who lost against the great Christian 'goodies' we can hardly claim to be spiritually 'on their side'. We were on Jesus's team. So was Nietzsche - who broke rank and said we're the followers of a Kike Kult against Aryan Rome. There were many Messiahs during that era (Neil Faulkner wrote a History Today article about it). Why would Jeboo give the Romans any more worries than the rest?
Does this make sense to anyone? Please explain.
 
Old December 31st, 2005 #30
Wewelsburg
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Its quite obvious by reading Nietzsches actual works that he was in no way interested in Nazism, nor is it important. Nietzsches philosophical endevours were interesting and provided tools employed by almost every contintental philosopher since, be they Marxist, right wing, post structuralist, feminist, nazi, whatever.

He is an everyman.
 
Old January 1st, 2006 #31
Steve Lillywhite
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The U.S. Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism
Posts: 1,434
Default

Quote:
Beyond Good and Evil
#251

That the Jewish 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
Pretty much says it all, don’t you think?


Quote:
Beyond Good and Evil
#251

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.
If Nietzsche had lived to see Russia taken over by jews in 1917 he would have been a fan of the National Socialists -- just like Heidegger.
 
Old January 1st, 2006 #32
Aryan Lord
Senior Member
 
Aryan Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,719
Default

I have ordered the book from Amazon.It comes highly recommended.
 
Old January 13th, 2006 #33
Farwell O. Kirk
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 200
Default

This all reminds me of the WWI anti-German propaganda that had the German soldiers charging into battle with a copy of Nietzsche under one arm and a copy of Bernhardi under the other.
 
Old January 13th, 2006 #34
Angle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: England
Posts: 944
Default

No wonder the Germans lost WWI. They had no room for ammo in their sacks.
I've heard from different sources that the Germans had:

the Bible
Zarathustra
Holderlin's hymns (Heidegger's claim)
Bernhardi

on their persons.
__________________
Hate Hurts - Wogs Kill

'At the end of his life he organized a financial offering for the poor in Jerusalem [Jew city] from the gentile churches he had founded.' - St. Paul [Jew], Oxford Companion to Class. Civ.
 
Old January 13th, 2006 #35
albion
Senior Member
 
albion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,499
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Part 5: Natural History of Morals
195
http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/bgept5.htm
Quote:
The Jews—a people “born into slavery” as Tacitus and the whole ancient world says, “the chosen people” as they themselves say and believe—the Jews achieved that miracle of inversion of values thanks to which life on earth has for a couple of millennia acquired a new and dangerous fascination—their prophets fused “rich,” “godless,” “evil,” “violent,” “sensual” into one and were the first to coin the word “world” as a term of infamy. It is in this inversion of values (with which is involved the employment of the word for “poor” as a synonym of “holy” and “friend”) that the significance of the Jewish people resides: with them there begins the slave revolt in morals.
Poor Nietzsche...
He needed a high-speed internet connection and a girlfriend. :nerd:
Beyond Good and EvilPrelude to a Philosophy of the Future
http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/bge.htm
 
Old January 13th, 2006 #36
Jenab
Senior Goatly One
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
That last quote of Nietzsche's is of course a parroting of Schopenhauer. But let me go back...

Some one mentioned plant's "will to power" and "He's more of a monist - 'there is will to power and nothing else,' he wrote." Of course Schopenhauer maintained this for his Will. So how does calling it a different name make it something different?

In dumb objects will is seen in obedience to gravity, and other forces, in plants stimulus, in animals understanding and in men reason and each ensuing category contains all of the previous.

Nietzsche would create a teleology with his Superman. He had to find a universal "yes", but Schopenhauer had already dismissed any teleological arguments because there is nowhere to go. This plays into Nietzsche's eternal recurrence fears. Which is to heavy for me to go into in any detail here. Read Schop.

Schopenhauer maintained there could be no improvement from man to some Superman because in man the will has the ability to reflect on itself. For the first time it could bring into reflection what it is. Schopenhauer maintained that at this the will being everything could not developmentally go any futher because it had met its brickwall: itself.

Any Superman would be aware that what he called his 'I' was no more than a motor car being driven around by the will. In sleep it goes into the garage and the will comes out to turn over the engine once every so often.

"For example, Nietzsche’s ideas of the Apollian and the Dionysian in the Birth of Tragedy are largely based upon Schopenhauer’s distinction between representation and will." - http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/gr...che/schop.html

And to a certain degree I disagree, but the thought is there. So you see Nietzsche's will was struggling with its reflection. The will could see itself reflected in the world and yet it did not want to be aghast but to give an eternal "Yea!". However he fails mostly, because he, himself, to do this had to do things like create a teleology when he had no foundation for doing so. Thus the will did not see itself clearly enough. It could not say a thorough "yea" because it had not yet seen itself clearly.

I should also say most of the descriptions of Supermen show a distinct lack of reflection upon the will thus they would be "untermenschen" and more akin to animals.
I disagree with Schopenhauer. At no level can life safely predict whether higher life is possible or what the limits of such higher life might be. The trend of the past is for advances in the scope and quality of consciousness, and it would be a strange coincidence if we happened to represent the ultimate manifestations of consciousness allowed by the laws of our universe.

That is, I characterize Schopenhauer's position as a defeatist conceit, which is the sort of thing Nietzsche didn't care for. He's as much as saying, "Yessir, just as soon as we came along, the story of evolutionary history was finished...might as well close the book."

In contrast, Nietzsche assumes to be true what I said about life being generally unable to predict the nature of its successors and whether such successors will exist, and he continues the trend of the evolutionary past into the future. While it is true that I find Nietzsche more pleasing, it's also true that I find him more reasonable.

Jerry Abbott

Last edited by Jenab; January 13th, 2006 at 07:35 PM.
 
Old January 13th, 2006 #37
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by monamontgomery
The Jews went to Egypt whenever drought made life impossible in Israel. The Jews, like the subsaharan Negros, went to Egypt for jobs with the more advanced (white) Egyptians. In those days it was acceptable for masters to beat their workers, that's why you see those pictures on the wall. When things got better in Israel and southern Africa the blacks and browns went home. The only thing true about the Moses story is that the Jews stole everything they could get their hands on when they left Egypt. It was the gold that they had stolen from the Egyptians that they used to make their golden cow while Moses was doing God knew what on the mountain allegedly getting the ten commandments from God.
That would be a plausible explanation if we knew that there were at least an element of truth in the Exodus story, but we don't know that. The whole story of Moses and the Exodus is extremely dubious, since the Egyptian records refer to no such event, and archaeological evidence does not support the existence of Jerusalem until centuries after the Exodus was supposed to have occurred.
 
Old January 13th, 2006 #38
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
Some one mentioned plant's "will to power" and "He's more of a monist - 'there is will to power and nothing else,' he wrote." Of course Schopenhauer maintained this for his Will. So how does calling it a different name make it something different?
This is an elementary question. Schopenhauer's will is a blind will to exist. With will to power, Nietzsche goes beyond will to existence; he incorporates the observation of Isocrates that power is always either waxing or waning; a will merely to exist is therefore not enough to secure existence. Nietzsche also thereby makes conflict the essence of life rather than an unfortunate concurrent of life as Schopenhauer represents.

Life is not worthwhile because of conflict, Schopenhauer says. Embrace conflict because it is the essence of life, Nietzsche says; not to embrace life is the behavior of sick people.
 
Old February 24th, 2006 #39
albion
Senior Member
 
albion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,499
Blog Entries: 2
Default from the Adelaide Institute

Abir Taha
Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism: The Cult of the Superman.
Unveiling the Nazi Secret Doctrine

Author House, Bloomington, Indiana 47403, USA, 2005 www.AuthorHouse.com

A Review by Fredrick Toben
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Think/abirtaha.htm

Arya Arhat has been promoting this book various places:

New Nation News forum
http://www.nnnforum.org/forums/index...6&hl=nietzsche

Stormfront
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/show...ight=Nietzsche

VNN forum
http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=25907

Last edited by albion; February 24th, 2006 at 05:48 AM.
 
Old August 7th, 2014 #40
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoNietzsche View Post
I read Nietzsche because he recovered the lost understanding of the proper moral essence (the truthfulness and honor of men who rule by violence) of aristocratic culture - a priceless contribution to the comprehension of ourselves as Aryans and to a perspective on the Regime of the Lie that has engulfed us.
Semantics. The Wall Street finance Jew colluding, buying off leaders, establishing Jewish banking and insurance schemes that people are forced to participate in (debt-money, your car insurance, Obamacare) and overtaking governments is another form of 'violence'. The Madison Avenue asshole putting up billboards that you must see when you go outside is another form of invasion, a mental invasion, you are forced to see it, even if you decide to ignore it, you were forced. Remember that when you see that giant depiction of the nigger and white woman looking all cozy next time you're driving down the thruway.

It takes a shallow mind to think that the only form of warfare is the kind that took place at Troy. These points are why Nietzsche respected the Jews at times. That cunning that allowed them to make fools think they weren't being attacked and subjugated, those fools who could surely react to a knife coming at them, but not to morality.

This is a late contribution to this thread, but this point was worth adding for future viewers.
 
Reply

Tags
abir taha, friedrich nietzsche

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:21 AM.
Page generated in 0.61352 seconds.