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

Old February 14th, 2011 #41
Simo Häyhä
Senior Member
 
Simo Häyhä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 860
Simo Häyhä
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias Hetzenauer View Post
No, he didn't consider it a virtuous aspect of man's nature
I can see you still have a lot to learn about his message.

Hint: those who have truly understood it don't call themselves "Nietzschean".
 
Old February 14th, 2011 #42
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
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simo Häyhä View Post
I can see you still have a lot to learn about his message.

Hint: those who have truly understood it don't call themselves "Nietzschean".
Is that right? Well then, please enlighten me. Show me just exactly what it is that I don't understand -- if you'd be so kind.

Nietzsche wasn't an overly-enthusiastic endorser of bloodshed; he simply felt it to be one tool among many to be used by those with the will and balls to use it: an implement necessary for the victory of those of master morality over those of the slave morality.

It seems as though it is you who has a lot more to learn about Nietzsche's message.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs

Last edited by Matthaus Hetzenauer; February 14th, 2011 at 11:20 AM.
 
Old February 14th, 2011 #43
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,825
P.E.
Default

I think it is to say that - unlike other ideologies - there can never be a concrete 'Nietzschean', because of the concept of master morality leaves for so many variables in what defines thought.

Hitler for example, envisioned a world where a lot of Christian Europe's characteristics remained intact - which some would interpret as moral, or 'White characteristics': i.e.: the possibility to trust your fellow blood-relative, the people in your own land, without needling long and ridiculous obfuscating contracts and agreements which come part and parcel with EVERYTHING we do in today's completely Jewed world.

And, by the same token, his master morality said quite simply (and in a very un-Christian way of the time and certainly now): we don't want to live amongst Jews. You people are different from us (let alone the fact that you are aggressively fighting our way of life), and that is ENOUGH for us as an autonomous people to say get out (and those who didn't want to leave went in camps and were second class citizens who worked for the people of that land, RIGHTLY SO!).

Of course, white slave morality today is still utterly falling for the never-ending post-war propaganda campaign to maintain a master position from Jews, as they are hopelessly caught up in apologizing for the holocaust, or attempting to deny it, as I've said again and again is all idiotic, and to the Jews delight nonetheless.

The Jews would only truly fear the day when whites looked at the practical reality of the treachery of Jewry in their lands as a whole, the practical effects it has on lowering their quality of life (a barbed-wire-sided slide of misery straight into a pit of genocide), and said 'and? we'll do it again if you don't get out'.

It still strikes me as unbelievable that there are apologies for such a possibility, when the fact is that they were posing aggression within the land of those people. Would the Romans not have completely wiped out any invaders who tried to topple their way of life, even through so-called non-physically-violent means? Violence and aggression are not necessarily just physical, contrary to what so many whites believe, especially when you seek slaves (which the Jews do, rather than whites who just want to live and work amongst themselves).

To whites, living in a 100% white land where you could trust just about everyone you see, has been psychologically programmed via this never-ending war, to be irresponsibly offensive.

Last edited by P.E.; February 14th, 2011 at 11:38 AM.
 
Old February 14th, 2011 #44
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
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P.E. View Post
I think it is to say that - unlike other ideologies - there can never be a concrete 'Nietzschean'
Correct, P.E. As I said earlier, both the right and left (I should say the left "sometimes") lay claim to Nietzsche being one of their own; though the former has much more right to do so. Unlike most philosophers, he had never set down a concrete, etched-in-granite creed or socio-political doctrine to be followed without fail. He was constantly evolving his "message" in direct correlation to his intellectual growth and thus many people mistakenly believe that his philosophical views were inconsistent and conflicting. As egotistical as Nietzsche was (and both he and his former idol Wagner were extremely so; then again what geniuses aren't?), he at least had the intellectual honesty to correct, if not utterly refute altogether, any of his past works in which he detected flaws. You can't say that about most other philosphers with distinct ideological agendas in mind.

NS theoreticians are accused of twisting Nietzsche's philosophy to suit their own ideology: superiority of the Aryan people over the lesser races (Nietzsche believed in the superiority of the invidual vs. NS belief in superiority of the race). To date, I haven't read Nietzsche's views on the potentials or abilities of niggers, but I would find it incredibly naive of the man to believe that these half-apes were every bit as capable of achieving Ubermensch status as quickly as the White man; if at all.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs

Last edited by Matthaus Hetzenauer; February 14th, 2011 at 11:59 AM.
 
Old February 14th, 2011 #45
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,825
P.E.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias Hetzenauer View Post
NS theoreticians are accused of twisting Nietzsche's philosophy to suit their own ideology: superiority of the Aryan people over the lesser races (Nietzsche believed in the superiority of the invidual vs. NS belief in superiority of the race). To date, I haven't read Nietzsche's views on the potentials or abilities of niggers, but I would find it incredibly naive of the man to believe that these half-apes were every bit as capable of achieving Ubermensch status as quickly as the White man; if at all.
And this is further proof of how it is possible for either side to twist Nietzsche to their own desire.

Whereas the left says: It should be about the individual, it shouldn't be about a people or a race.

The right says (and Rosenberg specifically said this in his book in referring to Jews nomadic lifestyle in opposition to organic communities and cultures): If you Jews get away with making the world this international cesspool of a brown mix of slaves with no race and one slave-culture, THERE WILL BE NO INDIVIDUALS, NOTHING UNIQUE.

But of course, that was the entire goal as Marx would allude, to make a mass of slaves under the Jews with no possible group identifiers. One people, one shit-chasing slave culture, dumbed down into completely retarded Golem status.

And we see this today, in America especially, your common white has more in common with the non-white than differentiating, to the point of the men hanging amongst each other, fully socially integrated (if not racially miscegenated as so many are now) of their own accord.

In effect, I look at (and still continue to look at, and use this very example on PC-whites, which they always have a hard time refuting, and always stump in their thought) the world as a paint pallet, with a magnitude of different possible colors on the pallet (or cultures, not necessarily skin colors, even the white sub cultures make this pallet a good pallet in my morality) for the picture. And it is the Jews who wish to make that pallet have a single brown color, significantly reducing the possibilities of the quality of the picture.

Last edited by P.E.; February 14th, 2011 at 12:14 PM.
 
Old February 14th, 2011 #46
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
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P.E. View Post
And this is further proof of how it is possible for either side to twist Nietzsche to their own desire.

Whereas the left says: It should be about the individual, it shouldn't be about a people or a race.

The right says (and Rosenberg specifically said this in his book in referring to Jews nomadic lifestyle in opposition to organic communities and cultures): If you Jews get away with making the world this international cesspool of a brown mix of slaves with no race and one slave-culture, THERE WILL BE NO INDIVIDUALS, NOTHING UNIQUE.

And of course, we see this today, in America especially, your common white has more in common with the non-white than differentiating, to the point of the men hanging amongst each other, fully socially integrated (if not racially miscegenated as so many are now) of their own accord.

In effect, I look at (and still continue to look at, and use this very example on PC-whites, which they always have a hard time refuting, and always stump in their thought) the world as a paint pallet, with a magnitude of different possible colors on the pallet (or cultures, not necessarily skin colors, even the white sub cultures make this pallet a good pallet in my morality) for the picture. And it is the Jews who wish to make that pallet have a single brown color, significantly reducing the possibilities of the quality of the picture.
Exactly right. And exactly why the jew is so intent, so obsessed, with diluting our race through his promotion of miscegenation between Whites and the darker races while trying like hell to keep his own pure. Once a people loses pride in its cultural heritage and racial identity, they lose the will also to carry on the proud traditions of the ancestors. The jew knows what he's doing; it's a shame that 99% of Whites don't.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old February 15th, 2011 #47
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
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Default

And more of what I think of the jew...

We all know that jews are the most vehement opponents of White racial solidarity today and that they're keen to point out that Nietzsche believed in the potential of the individual to attain the Ubermensch ideal. Yet these conniving hypocrites conveniently omit any mention of FN's writings that heap praise upon jews as a race, not as "individuals", for their past accomplishments and their ability to out-smart and out-perform those among us stupid enough to have adopted a jew's (Christ's) spiritual philosophy of slave morality. And everyone reading this, regardless of whether they're of an antisemitic or philosemitic bent, knows full well that no people on this planet believes more in the superiority and "specialness" of their own race than the jews. The self-proclaimed title of God's Chosen People alone -- which Christians debase themselves even more by reaffirming -- should be more than enough to convince anyone of that.

The absolutely most crucial point on which the jew has fooled the gentile so completely is this: He has convinced the gullible goyim that he's the "Light unto the Nations"; the guide ordained to lead all mankind to a utopian brotherhood of peace and harmony where race isn't an issue at all. He passes himself off as being "liberal" and "progressive"; a self-sacrificing individual tending to the welfare of humanity. He wholeheartedly endorses race-mixing between Whites and blacks while at the same time striving to the utmost of his ability to ensure that his people remain free of blood contamination via sexual intercourse with the "shvartzes." He is the "Benevolent One" who seeks to toss Whites into the universal cuisinart and puree them so thoroughly into the mud mix that they're no longer sure of who they are or where they came from. We are the number one obstacle in his path to his centuries-old dreams of unchallenged domination of the West and he aims to put an end to us once and for all through the dissolution of our race. And the saddest thing of all is that he's well on his way to accomplishing his objective.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: It's my firm belief that had Nietzsche lived to see what his precious jews had wrought in the 20th century, he would without a doubt have sung a different tune entirely in regards to his perceptions of these poor, perpetually picked on people; those whom he thought of as being the innocent victims of his envious, nationalistic countrymen. Nietzsche abhorred those who took pride in their race's/nationality's accomplishments and those who advocated the advancement of their specific in-group at the expense of others; yet this is exactly what jews have done in centuries past and continue to do today. I pretty much agree with 90% of what FN had to say, but on the jew question he was simply wrong -- dead wrong. Then again, he didn't have the benefit of hindsight, so I can't fault him too much for this biggest of boo-boos.

Up until about the middle of the 20th century, Western man was free to express his views on jews, blacks, browns, reds and yellows without fear of retribution in the form of social ostracization and potential loss of career. Those days are long gone, so don't bother looking toward the horizon for a second coming of a "new and improved" Nietzsche; one who will enlighten the 21st century White man to the danger that the "Chosen One" poses to Western civilization. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression may still be on the books in what remains of Eurocentric society, but in reality we lost those rights once the jew assumed control of the wheel and set us on a collision course with racial survival.

There...felt good to get that off my chest.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old February 15th, 2011 #48
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,825
P.E.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias Hetzenauer View Post
Those days are long gone, so don't bother looking toward the horizon for a second coming of a "new and improved" Nietzsche; one who will enlighten the 21st century White man to the danger that the "Chosen One" poses to Western civilization. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression may still be on the books in what remains of Eurocentric society, but in reality we lost those rights once the jew assumed control of the wheel and set us on a collision course with racial survival.

There...felt good to get that off my chest.
Any man of the future who poses a serious public threat to the Jews had better be as smart as Nietzsche, a leader with a public charisma (that is to say, be the icon of the values of what is being fought for) the likes of a Caesar, a Napoleon, a Hitler (inside and out), he'd better be in tune on a base level of the usury and destructive methods of these people, so he can know when his advisers (his 'Hjalmar Schacht' types) are implementing what is truly best, he'd better have no family or people he cares about too close in the public eye, and better not be afraid - and take precautions - of getting violently killed in the public's eye, not too far from Kennedy.

To fight the Jew from an intelligent and reasoning position publicly - that is to say, fight for bettering the lives of your people by eradicating a cancer - is tantamount to striking at 'God' in the eyes of our terribly subverted people.

This 'Chosen People' title is the most impertinent facade 'humanity' has ever witnessed on this planet (this 'humanity' they preach to defend WHILE STANDING ABOVE AS THE MANAGERIAL WATCHMEN, THE SPECTATORS OF WORK AND EFFORT, WHAT A TRICK).

Last edited by P.E.; February 15th, 2011 at 12:04 PM.
 
Old February 15th, 2011 #49
Simo Häyhä
Senior Member
 
Simo Häyhä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 860
Simo Häyhä
Default

You people talk as if Nietzsche had no racial consciense at all.

Quote:
3 - Let us consider the other method for "improving" mankind, the method of breeding a particular race or type of man. The most magnificent example of this is furnished by Indian morality, sanctioned as religion in the form of "the law of Manu." Here the objective is to breed no less than four races within the same society: one priestly, one warlike, one for trade and agriculture, and finally a race of servants, the Sudras.

Obviously, we are no longer dealing with animal tamers: a man that is a hundred times milder and more reasonable is the only one who could even conceive such a plan of breeding. One breathes a sigh of relief at leaving the Christian atmosphere of disease and dungeons for this healthier, higher, and wider world. How wretched is the New Testament compared to Manu, how foul it smells!

Yet this method also found it necessary to be terrible — not in the struggle against beasts, but against their equivalent — the ill-bred man, the mongrel man, the chandala. And again the breeder had no other means to fight against this large group of mongrel men than by making them sick and weak. Perhaps there is nothing that goes against our feelings more than these protective measures of Indian morality.

The third edict, for example (Avadana-Sastra I), "on impure vegetables," ordains that the only nourishment permitted to the chandala shall be garlic and onions, seeing that the holy scripture prohibits giving them grain, fruit with grains, water or fire. The same edict orders that the water they drink may not be taken from rivers or wells, nor from ponds, but only from the approaches to swamps and from holes made by the footsteps of animals. They are also prohibited from washing their laundry and from washing themselves, since the water they are conceded as an act of grace may be used only to quench thirst. Finally, Sudra women are prohibited from assisting chandala women in childbirth, just as chandala women are prohibited from midwifing to each other.

The success of such sanitary police measures was inevitable: murderous epidemics, ghastly venereal diseases, and thereupon again "the law of the knife," ordaining circumcision for male children and the removal of the internal labia for female children. Manu himself says: "The chandalas are the fruit of adultery [addendum: in my opinion, "adultery" can be interpreted as race mixing], incest, and rape (crimes that follow from the fundamental concept of breeding). For clothing they shall have only rags from corpses; for dishes, broken pots; for adornment, old iron; for divine services, only evil spirits. They shall wander without rest from place to place. They are prohibited from writing from left to right, and from using the right hand in writing: the use of the right hand and of from-left-to-right is reserved for the virtuous, for the people of pure blood."

4 - These regulations are instructive enough: we encounter Aryan humanity at its purest and most primordial; we learn that the concept of "pure blood" is very far from being a harmless concept. On the other hand, it becomes obvious in which people the chandala hatred against this Aryan "humaneness" has has become a religion, eternalized itself, and become genius — primarily in the Gospels, even more so in the Book of Enoch. Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity — the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favored, against "race": the undying chandala hatred is disguised as a religion of love.

5 - The morality of breeding, and the morality of taming, are, in the means they use, entirely worthy of each other: we may proclaim it as a supreme principle that to make men moral one must have the unconditional resolve to act immorally. This is the great, the uncanny problem which I have been pursuing the longest: the psychology of the "improvers" of mankind. A small, and at bottom modest, fact — that of the so-called pia fraus [holy lie] — offered me the first insight into this problem: the pia fraus, the heirloom of all philosophers and priests who "improved" mankind. Neither Manu nor Plato nor Confucius nor the Jewish and Christian teachers have ever doubted their right to lie. They have not doubted that they had very different rights too. Expressed in a formula, one might say: all the means by which one has so far attempted to make mankind moral were through and through immoral.
Twilight of the Idols, The "improvers" of mankind.
 
Old February 16th, 2011 #50
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
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Default

Nonsense. Nowhere in this thread has anyone suggested that Nietzsche lacked a conscience. He was a deeply principled man who struggled his entire life to do what he thought was right; we all know that. Anyway...

You just ain't whistlin' Dixie, P.E. Another prerequisite for the man who possesses the chutzpah to question and challenge the authority of God's Precious Darlings? A fourth-stage terminal illness that he hopes will take him before the Big Kahuna himself can miraculously intervene.

The extract below pertains to both Christian and jew (from The Antichrist):

Has anyone clearly understood the celebrated story at the beginning of the Bible -- of God's mortal terror of science?...This priest-book par excellence opens, as is fitting, with the great inner difficulty of the priest: he faces only one great danger; ergo, "God" faces only one great danger.

The old God, wholly "spirit," wholly the high-priest, wholly perfect, is promenading in his garden; he is bored and he is trying to kill time. Against boredom even gods struggle in vain. What does he do? He creates man -- man is entertaining...But then he notices that man is also bored. God's pity for the only form of distress that invades all paradises knows no bounds; so he forthwith creates other animals. God's first mistake: to man these other animals were not entertaining -- he sought dominion over them; he did not want to be an "animal" himself -- so God created woman. In the act he brought boredom to an end -- and also many other things! Woman was the second mistake of God. Woman, at bottom, is a serpent, Heva -- every priest knows that; "from woman comes every evil in the world" -- every priest knows that too. Ergo, she is also to blame for science...It was through woman that man had learned to taste from the tree of knowledge. What happened? The old God was seized by mortal terror. Man himself had been his greatest blunder; he had created a rival to himself; science makes man godlike -- it is all up with priests and gods when man becomes scientific! Moral: science is the forbidden per se; it alone is forbidden. Science is the first of sins, the germ of all sins, the original sin. This is all there is of morality -- "Thou shalt not know" -- the rest follows from that. God's mortal terror, however, did not hinder him from being shrewd. How is one to protect one's self from science? For a long while this was the capital problem. Answer: Out of paradise with man! Happiness and leisure foster thought -- and all thoughts are bad thoughts. Man must not think. And so the priest invents distress, death, the mortal dangers of childbirth, all sorts of misery, old age, decrepitude, above all, sickness -- nothing but devices for making war on science. The troubles of man don't allow him to think...Nevertheless -- how terrible! -- the edifice of knowledge begins to tower aloft, invading heaven, shadowing the gods -- what is to be done? The old God invents war, he separates the peoples; he makes men destroy one another (the priests have always had need of war). War -- among other things, a great disturber of science. Knowledge, deliverance from the priests, prospers in spite of war -- so that the old God comes to his final resolution: "Man has become scientific -- there is no help for it: he must be drowned!

Pretty potent stuff from Nietzsche, eh?

And while we're on the subject, just a small bit of "trivia" for those of you naive enough to subscribe to this biblical bullshit; this tale of Creation:

Nietzsche had the chronology right -- at least according to Genesis 2: 18-19 anyway. It states that God created man first and animals shortly afterwards. However, per Genesis 1: 24-27 of the Holy Bible of Contradictions -- the Book of Oops! -- he created animals first and man afterwards. Go figure...
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old February 16th, 2011 #51
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,825
P.E.
Default

I notice people debate what order to read his books in.

It's seeming more apparent that the only proper way is chronological.

Though Twilight of the Idols was my first, and a seemingly good overview and overall easier to digest than most of the others.

I can see how some can say there are contradictions in his thought, but not really when read in chronological order, maybe more of just recanting previous beliefs than contradiction.

And had he lived another 30 years, he probably would've recanted his views on world Jewry, smited them, and his books would have a 2-star rating on Amazon as a crazy inconsistent Nazi.

Last edited by P.E.; February 16th, 2011 at 11:49 AM.
 
Old February 16th, 2011 #52
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
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P.E. View Post
I notice people debate what order to read his books in.

It's seeming more apparent that the only proper way is chronological.

Though Twilight of the Idols was my first, and a seemingly good overview and overall easier to digest than most of the others.

I can see how some can say there are contradictions in his thought, but not really when read in chronological order, maybe more of just recanting previous beliefs than contradiction.

And had he lived another 30 years, he probably would've recanted his views on world Jewry, smited them, and his books would have a 2-star rating on Amazon as a crazy inconsistent Nazi.
I agree. It probably is best to read his works in chronological order as he was constantly maturing and evolving his thought; he revised and corrected what he deemed to be errors in his earlier books in ones that followed.

A two-star rating? Really? I would think he'd be lucky to earn a half-star...
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old February 18th, 2011 #53
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,825
P.E.
Default

After truly taking this mans advice to be the ascetic, to have an unshakable will, for the last few weeks, reading these books relentlessly (between practicing piano and some adequate weight training and diet maintenance), and abstaining from everything that does weaken, and running toward everything that strengthens (more so to feel 'clearer', which means just about shutting out everything that is common in the 'Kwa'), I see clearer than ever one fact and fundamental flaw behind all of this 'movement': The belief that everyone can be turned to espouse the opposition to power's belief. Is that not true in all of history? Is that not the most anti-survival thing to do in all of history (and even more-so now today with things like the ADL and SPLC amplifying this 'heresy')?

So very few people in history are capable of having their law be 'Are we doing it right?'.

Whilst far too many live by the law of 'Am I doing it right?'.

And then, you, as an active pursuer of the truth, must ask yourself before attempting to influence everyone you meet: Is this a person strong enough to be the former? Or are they only capable of the being the latter?

As pessimistic as it sounds, man, by and large, is selfish, and stupid. The masses' respect for power - and power only - only means that as power becomes more potent (the power of force, which is anything that intimidates people from making the challenge to change the hands of power, those tools being technological, psychological, anything that is usable), the harder it will be to change hands.

I'm also noticing, the stronger the force of authority, the higher the percentage of those who will take the 'Am I doing it right?' position. And then you see these things like 'Alex Jones', who is married to a Jew, just helping to paint the man behind the curtain as this big omnipotent god to the now-scared-shitless masses.

It's truly the caveman-survivalist view to only see interest in the survival of your short-term interests (to procure enough by any means to give your kids and wife a good life and home, or if you subscribe to today's worthless views to amass a 'John Stamos-like fuck-count and drive a Ferarri while giving the finger to everyone with your 'fuck you money'), than to take the civilized-survivalist and non-myopic view to fight so that it will be better overall long-term for your group, your people, and for the world in general. You can only look at pictures of what the Third Reich was becoming in the late 30's, with all of that great influence, and feel regret looking at what there is today.

Has it ever really been any more than the question of the superior will able to subjugate a greater number of inferior will to their bidding? Even the woman who looks at the extremely fit and healthy man, fitter than the rest, he scores points due to perceived power of will. Is any thinking man left gullible enough to believe it is due to cold symmetry? It is the same as when the masses are allured by the formations of rallies and festivals of the Third Reich. While the cold propagandist can only do his best to say 'they allured people with geometry', anyone can see through it to know that the allure is the will to have order and civilization - a people healthy and aligned in goals working together rather than against each other in a divide and conquer scam, rather than the disorder and anarchy of one of their iconic places: Detroit.

Deep down, what white could believe any 'white' naturally wants to live amongst non-whites? That is learned. Why, look at the fact that all white kids look at blacks at the grocery store like they are aliens, distinctively different from fellow whites like them. And their parents - who are the wrong and subjugated ones, like the slave-bots they are, willingly push that alien slave subjugation onto their own children, they tell their own to lie and go against what they know is true and natural.

Only the dullard of all dullards could truly accept it wholly, and not on an immediate-survival-oriented basis.

This is the mass subjugation of weaker wills to superior wills. When two groups collide, the battle is never optimally to completely wipe out the other group, but to wipe out their elite, their 'Are we doing it right?' people. What's left are these bourgeois status-chasers who say "Why do you care about race?" to maintain their comfort and acceptance amongst those in power, even if they are so very obviously aliens.

And how funny that people preach how 'awful' slavery was in white lands, when they themselves are the slaves right now. What a masterfully woven lie.

Is this not seen by all of us day by day even on the smallest social scale of our peers? Who so willingly kowtow to someone so very different from them, solely because of their status and power? I've lost count of people who were my brief (and I emphasize BRIEF) acquaintances, who I've seen go against what they see to be 'true' in their outward actions and words, to be accepted by an authority who knows they've just acquired another lackey who kowtowed to their authority only because of the authority, and not their character, not their values.

How many times in your life have you seen someone who is lower in 'status' or 'authority', who stops someone higher dead in their tracks, maintains a frame of higher and correct authority and thought on a position, and looks them in the eye and lays it into them?

VERY RARELY! And what a sight when the 'perceived higher' person being challenged - who expected the kowtow - goes cold!

And every time I've seen someone do that, the spectators witness one of two things: Either the lower-challenger is completely eliminated from the circle, or takes the authority position of that person they challenged after everyone saw their frame was stronger one, less full of lies and more full of beautiful truth.

Too bad the English and Americans couldn't actually see the NS competitor in it's truth (as if they were watching a verbal war with one side muted, how disgusting it is now to look at American and English propaganda from that war, isn't it?), but only what their corrupt leaders told them. Too bad there was no open internet.

And people interpret a man like Nietzsche as this selfish individualist. How far from the truth. What Nietzsche (and people like him) wrote, he wrote for the peoples of Europe, as he spoke mainly of Europe, and as many times he said "We Germans" in his writings in attempt to help them see a better way. He was no internationalist. The world wasn't quite international yet, as we've said many times before here, his perspective of 'influence' was different than ours today.

P.S.: as a side note, it's also amusing to have seen a bit deeper into the 'Battle for Nietzsche' between the Jewish liberal poison, and the people who were evolving his message (like Ludovici), and this guy, who the scammer 'Kaufman(n)' called a "Nazi Hack":

Alfred_Baeumler Alfred_Baeumler

I haven't read his work, but it is on my radar now.

P.P.S.: Isn't it amusing how Wikipedia lists that Jew Kaufmann as a "German-American Scholar" in that Baeumler link?

Lovely.

Last edited by P.E.; February 19th, 2011 at 12:05 AM.
 
Old February 23rd, 2011 #54
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,825
P.E.
Default An interesting thought: Solemnity

From Genealogy of Morals (Diethe trans, P144)

Quote:
Artistic servitude in the service of the ascetic ideal is thus the specific form of artistic corruption, unfortunately one of the most common: for nothing is more corruptible than an artist.) And when we view it physiologically, too, science rests on the same base as the ascetic ideal: the precondition of both the one and the other is certain impoverishment of life, - the emotions cooled, the tempo slackened, dialectics in place of instinct, solemnity stamped on faces and gestures (solemnity the most unmistakable sign of a more sluggish metabolism and of a struggling, more toiling life). Look at the epochs in the life of a people where scholars predominated: they are times of exhaustion, often of twilight, of decline, - gone are the overflowing energy, the certainty of life, the certainty as to the future. The preponderance of the mandarins never indicates anything good: any more than the rise of democracy, interntational courts of arbitration instead of wars, equal rights for women, the religion of compassion and everything else that is a symptom of life in decline.
Wow. You would almost think, that those at the reigns of power read this man and followed the opposite to a T. We do live in an epoch of decay, and for all of the aforementioned reasons.

But, on a more intimate level, on solemnity, have you noticed this is true of people too?

Well, even the very old, elderly, they are always far more serious more often, much more hard for them to be like Nietzsche also said

Quote:
Courageous, untroubled, mocking and violent-that is what Wisdom wants us to be. Wisdom is a woman, and loves only a warrior.
and in this I've also noticed that there is a certain repulsion emanated toward the very serious types. For men and women, but ESPECIALLY in terms of women looking upon men (I don't want to deviate this particular post into a giant essay on sexuality, but I'm sure you all know that angle, to say the very serious man is boring and doesn't do too well with women, just as much as he is scoffed by his co-workers who would look at him as a pointless, unlively, dead / dying drone).

But, this 'solemnity', it's more prominent today than any other era, isn't it.

And more specifically, don't you love the most perfect modern example, of the SEEMINGLY FORCED SOLEMNITY, in the common multicultural accepted standard of decorum in social affairs, for the white man to recite his common lie: 'well, I'm not racist, I have friends who are black, or jews, or whatever', and for the woman the same, or to even spew a more terrible line which I heard from what I thought was a pretty girl who at first I liked but then noticed she was flirting with a vanilla ice looking wigger, when I exhibited my disgust, she tried to play it off in a comical way in saying "haha well I give equal opportunity".

Right. Perhaps I should've taken Nietzsche's advice. Perhaps I should have been less enveloped by modern solemnity, perhaps I should have dismissed the notion that she would flip out and make a scene when I would ask her immediately after "Just how many niggers have been in you?".

What a shame too. She was very pretty. But I'm not a priest, and I won't try to save her, since that is a losing battle from the start (the only way anyone is 'saved' is on their own accord when they see something they like better than what you are trying to 'save' them from). The unfortunate thing, is that more and more of the 'pretty women' are more so today than even 10 years ago, and certainly 20 years ago, openly flirting with non-whites.

This is partly due to the fault of the average white male in his advertisement to modern white women, and on a larger level, entirely the fault of the white male, who needs to be more along the lines in the quote I opened this post with. No more kowtowing to anyone, especially women, ESPECIALLY TODAY. It makes them as sick as it makes everyone else.

Yesterday's woman lived in a world of social mores where the blueprint was very clearly set forth, to be kind, loving, get married quickly, and start having babies. That woman could only exist in a situation like NS Germany in the 30's, where it was all white, where it was all sane, where that life of family and marriage was very comfortable for everyone, including the average worker, where everyone was part of the same group working together for the same goals, and there were no invaders causing anarchy.

Today's woman is in a constant mode of weakness-detection, testing left and right to see if you are another of the weak masses in the middle of this anarchy we live in, and so many men (and women) who fall and flounder are too weak to see we need to be hardened and in a fighting spirit right now before we could ever have the earned privilege to be so soft (at home particularly, since any society who becomes fully soft will be destroyed) and comfortable like that again.

Last edited by P.E.; February 23rd, 2011 at 05:04 PM.
 
Old February 23rd, 2011 #55
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,825
P.E.
Default

As a side note, I'm having interactions with a woman from Amsterdam, a very pretty blond about 4 years my elder, who speaks German.

There is hope yet I will move beyond my terrible base comprehension of 500 or so common words and base structure, and acquire actual vocabulary to start reading without translations (there is too much valuable thought in this language that is NOT translated, though I can't say much for it's modern usage, since I've spoken to modern 'native Germans', who are nearly as 'Kwa'd' as anyone else).

"Ich bin nur Geschlechtsverkehr mit Ihnen Deutsch zu lernen, nachdem wir fertig sind.."

I fear not getting slapped!

Last edited by P.E.; February 23rd, 2011 at 05:25 PM.
 
Old February 25th, 2011 #56
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
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Default

More on the inanity of religious superstition (from pp. 259-60 of the Cate book):

Aphorism 56 ("Victory of Knowledge over the radically Evil"): The notion of "sin" has no philosophical foundation, any more than does the notion of "virtues", even though for enormous spans of time human beings lived under the dominion of such assertions. There has always been something shaky and unsure about moral concepts such as Good and Evil, the Moral and Immoral. The wise man is the one who can learn to live with things the way they are -- this was the Epicurean ideal Nietzsche was to uphold most of his sane life -- and not try to excommunicate and extirpate desires. The person who thus learns to live quite happily with himself will no longer be tormented and impressed by terms such as "hellfire and damnation" and "sinfulness" -- evanescent notions that falsify one's view of life and the world.

Even more shocking for many of Nietzsche's contemporaries were the sobering "home truths" he proceeded to unfold in Part III of Human, All Too Human, devoted to "Religious Life." Here, as elsewhere, he went back to the very beginnings of religion in the firm conviction that this is the only way to reach the fundamental truths by a process of what might be philosophico-palaentological, or even geological exploration. What is essentially lacking in any religious conception of the world is a form belief in natural, which is to say scientific causality. The underlying aim of all primitive religions is to propitiate the mysterious forces of nature, regarded as benevolent or evil spirits in more or less human form.

The conclusion Nietzsche drew from this examination of religious belief is that the basic aim of any religious cult is to influence and exorcise Nature for the benefit of Man, and thus to "impose on it a legality that it does not from the outset have, whereas in the present age one seeks to know the laws of Nature in order to adhere to them. In short, the religious cult rests on conceptions of magic existing between Man and Man; and the magician is older than the priest." But Nietzsche would not have been Nietzsche -- which is to say an ardent admirer of the Greeks -- had he not immediately added the following sentences to this somewhat derogatory description of religion as being little more than superstition:

"But it (the religious cult) likewise rests on other, nobler ideas; it presupposes the cordial relationship between Man and Man, the existence of goodwill, gratitude, the answering of requests, treaties between enemies, guarantees and claims for the protection of property. Even on the lowest levels of civilization Man in his relation to Nature is not necessarily the will-less servant thereof: at the Greek stage of religion, particularly in its relation with the Olympian gods, one can conceive of a co-existence of two castes, one more distinguished and powerful, the other less distinguished; but both in their origins somehow belong together and are a single species, they need feel no shame towards each other. That is what is so refined and noble in Greek religiousness."
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old February 25th, 2011 #57
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
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Default

Is freedom all it's cracked up to be? (from the preface of Cate's book):

It is one of the signal merits of Nietzsche's philosophy that he courageously recognized the inherent limitations of Freigeisterei, of "free-spiritedness", free thinking. If the human mind is to be truly free and unfettered, if it is not to suffer from Kettenkrankheit -- intellectual "chain-sickness" -- it must free itself from the ultimate and most crippling of illusions: the naive notion (common among contemporary "liberals" and devout admirers of the French Revolution) that Freedom or Liberty is an absolute value to which every other must pay homage. How can something as insubstantial, as a mere form of possibility be regarded, in any meaningful sense, as an absolute value when what really matters is the substance? As with an empty glass or cup, it is above all else what one pours into it that counts. Freedom, by its very nature, cannot be an end in itself. It means freedom to be benevolent or nasty, brave or cowardly, generous or selfish, truthful or mendacious, magnanimous or petty-minded, honest or dishonest, polite or rude, rational or irrational.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old February 25th, 2011 #58
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default

Sorry: I've been away working on one of my research projects. I'm off again soon: I'll probably take some time to respond again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias Hetzenauer View Post
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.
And that is evidence how?

You (and/or Cate) are committing a cardinal historical sin by assuming that A + C = D jumping the necessary B to make the argument flow to C.

That's been my point you have YET to produce actual proof: you are just making assumptions and logical jumps from conclusions reached apparently a priori and have not let the evidence suggest a position to you. Nor have you taken into account the context of these visits or proved that my counters are incorrect or less likely than your own position.

I've already pointed out to you an obvious alternative explanation (there are others), which you need to look into and weigh in with your position. I didn't do that just because I like [constructive] debate: I did it to help you round out your own position.

Quote:
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.
Yes and what do you think this proves?

That sounds like Cate's judgement not actual evidence to me: what evidence does Cate produce or cite for this? You can just replicate the citations if you like [if they are using acronyms please tell me what they stand for].

Besides from what I've read the Nietzsche-Archiv was Rosenberg's idea that Der Chef went along with (we have no evidence Der Chef even read Nietzsche [although he used Nietzsche ideas, but this could easily have been second hand as they were common in the völkisch literature of the time] as according to Ryback in 'Hitler's Private Library' for example the copy of Nietzsche's Werke in his library was unmarked and unread). For example (from memory) see Ben MacIntyre's biography of Elisabeth: 'Forgotten Fatherland: The Search for Elisabeth Nietzsche'.

Again if Cate uses any citations please could you replicate them?

Quote:
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.
Yes and that was Rosenberg again: you are citing things that we KNOW were Rosenberg's doing as things that were Der Chef's doing. See Robert Cecil's 'The Myth of the Master Race' and Fritz Nova's 'Alfred Rosenberg' for example as both mention that little event as Rosenberg's idea and doing as I recall.

Quote:
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.
Yes, but again you are committing the historical absurdity of placing Rosenberg as some kind of all-embracing NS ideologue, which he wasn't. He was an ideologue in name only in the Reich and was so little respected that the SS ended up having to run his Reich Ministry for him (from 1940 onwards and which became official in 1942 when Himmler's 'go-to' man Gottlob Berger replaced him) as he spent most time writing essays and monographs about Nietzsche (ironic really) and a lesser extent Meister Eckart. I've said this before, but few if anybody who has studied the Kampfzeit and/or the Reich take the common perception that Rosenberg was the main NS ideologue from 1923 onwards seriously.

Even from 1919-1923 it is highly questionable as Der Chef's own reading list recommendations from that period (as I have said printed on the reverse of early NSDAP membership cards) does not even mention Rosenberg's works (his book about jews and the Bolshevisk revolution had been out for some time incidentally), but do mention others who Elisabeth was intimately associated like Theodor Fritsch (who was I have said a NSDAP member of the Reichstag till his death in 1933 and the declared NSDAP altmeister). His editorship of the VB seems to have stemmed from his early membership in the Party rather than any other qualifications or being the NS chief ideologue (surely that should go to Goebbels who in many ways was the 'Mastermind of the Third Reich' as Irving put it).

Quote:
So there we have it.
Hardly conclusive or even particularly suggestive although it certainly requires comment and a well-research explanation.

Quote:
These are all well-documented facts, not opinions or conjecture.
Please don't make me ask for your actual evidence again: as you didn't answer what I said my friend you merely quoted someone.

You can't have 'well documented facts' if you don't have evidence and I am yet to see any or any critical analysis of that evidence from your side of the fence.

Quote:
And you're telling me that Der Fuhrer didn't admire the man?
What evidence do you have that he did?

I might admire Nietzsche's philosophy, but I don't therefore assume Der Chef did because I am also a National Socialist. I'd like to believe it, but I see no reason to believe it because I don't see any evidence laid out before.

Quote:
Come on already, Karl, concede the point.
How can I concede my position when my arguments and points have not been answered, analyzed and rebutted point-on-point with evidence of their incorrect nature?

A rhetorical question I know, but I am in the Revisionist tradition. I go on the evidence laid before me not 'well documented facts' that haven't produced the documentation yet (pun intended). After all if I believed that line I'd believe Der Chef was an 'evil occultist' obsessed with the Spear of Destiny who organised the 'holocaust' to kill off Yahweh's little darlings to prevent the Messiah turning up (basically the standard conclusion of the 'Nazi Occult' literature) and who was really defeated by 'White Magicians'.
__________________

Last edited by Karl Radl; February 25th, 2011 at 11:27 AM.
 
Old February 25th, 2011 #59
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
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Default

How's this then, Karl...

Since your overblown ego won't allow you to swallow your pride and admit when you're wrong, I'll be the man here and concede the point. Happy now?

And I don't want to hear another damn thing about it either.



Christ All-fucking-mighty...
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old February 26th, 2011 #60
Moose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 909
Moose
Default

New readers of Nietzsche might find it interesting to get into the "Apollo versus Dionysus" thing outside of Nietzsche's writings. He constantly references this concept, even when he is not referencing it by name. Puts things into greater perspective. I think it could be argued that most of his work, not all, revolves around this concept to some extent.

Last edited by Moose; February 26th, 2011 at 02:53 AM.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:03 PM.
Page generated in 0.21612 seconds.